From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> writes:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:56:58 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

[...]

Anything interesting I find on the web I print for later reading.

Whew! You must spend a fortune on ink or toner.

Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
effect.

I have literally tens of thousands of web pages saved. If I were
to physically print all of those the paper alone would weigh several
tons.

Print the amount you need when you need.

One shouldn't read so much that it gets expensive to print. We should
read less than we can print because today we can print a lot.

(*) Footnote

I've been observing how all my neighbors are keeping on a lot of lights
for the entire night and every day. One reason (I believe) is to shine
the whole place so that camera can record good images. But surely none
of that would be viable if the efficiency of current light bulbs were
like they used to be. Our economies are booming like never before.

But, yeah---lol---, you can accuse me of being wasteful on paper. But
the fact is that I'm protecting much more valuable things. And I don't thinking filming your backyard is really necessary. On the contrary: so
much light disturbs all animal life---humans in the first place.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
effect.

WhatrCOs the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a
photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation
source (i.e. the Sun)?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
effect.

WhatrCOs the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation source (i.e. the Sun)?

The spectrum.
--
Cheap things are of no value, valuable things are not cheap.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 20/09/2025 13:58, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
effect.

WhatrCOs the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a
photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation
source (i.e. the Sun)?

The spectrum.

Yes indeed. My opticians assures me that cataracts get far worse in
sunlight.

I'll stick to LED lit LCD screens...
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Le 19-09-2025, Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> a |-crit-a:

But, yeah---lol---, you can accuse me of being wasteful on paper.

Often, I see someone who put something like that in his signature:
"consider the need to print before printing the email." I always fell
oblige to answer.

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.

So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
on nature as printing it. But, and that where the important point comes.
If you read it twice the pollution starts to diverge. You can read your
print paper as many time as you need: you don't pollute anymore. But the
more you are reading on your screen, the more you are polluting.

So if you want to read something only once: read it on your screen. If
you want to read it many times: print it. I'm speaking only about
pollution level here, nothing else. You can have other reason to print
it or to read it on screen. But I'm only answering your pollution part
here.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 20 Sep 2025 15:13:50 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.

Speak for yourself. I manage my own email. I have nothing of any kind,
email or otherwise, stored on a remote server.

So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
on nature as printing it. But, and that where the important point comes.
If you read it twice the pollution starts to diverge. You can read your
print paper as many time as you need: you don't pollute anymore. But the
more you are reading on your screen, the more you are polluting.

Total nonsense.

I have tens of thousands of ebooks and an even larger volume of
other information (web pages, images, videos) which are all stored
on external optical media or external USB drives. All of this
storage can be "unplugged" and requires no electrical power to
store.

But the same material would require, literally, an entire forest
to print as well as a few tanker trucks full of petroleum-derived
ink.

To read this e-material only requires a few cents worth of electricity,
and such power can be obtained from renewable solar or wind sources
or even nuclear sources all of which have zero environmental cost.

Furthermore, unless one uses very expensive archival ink and paper,
printed material, and photographs, will fade and wither over time.
But e-material will stay fresh forever.

I am surprised to actually encounter such bullshit as is found in this
thread. Print has been dead for a long, long, long time. Get over
it and move on to the new world of digital.
--
Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux perfection.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 20/09/2025 16:13, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.

So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
on nature as printing it.

A true ArtStudentrao statement.

With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.

First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on
screen or print it out. And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
it does.
So that statement "the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity." is precisely meaningless.

Secondly, its hard to print an email out without using a printer, *after
the email has been downloaded and read on screen anyway*

So printing it out *absolutely* uses more electricity and, indeed, paper.

In short, you are ignoring facts s to make an emotional argument stick,
and are actually talking complete and utter bollocks.
--
"It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joew Walsh

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

On 20/09/2025 16:13, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.
So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same
impact
on nature as printing it.

A true ArtStudentrao statement.

With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.

First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on
screen or print it out. And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
it does.

IrCOd expect online storage to consume at least some energy even when idle
- though probably negligible for this particular discussion.

I remember a colleague whose approach to email was to print it out and
then wander across the office to talk to me about it. The switch to
in-person conversation was fair enough but the printout was really just
a prop...
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Le 20-09-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a |-crit-a:

On 20 Sep 2025 15:13:50 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.

Speak for yourself.

No. I'm speaking for general user. Learn how to read a DNS entry and try to find what you can find about my email.

I manage my own email.

That I can believe. By default Linux comes with a mail server. As your
mails never get out of your computer, I guess it's easy for you to send
mails to yourself.

I have nothing of any kind, email or otherwise, stored on a remote
server.

That, I can believe, too. You don't need to exchange anything with
anyone else in the world. And you have nothing of value which couldn't
be lost with consequences. And if you have any backup they are near your computer. And a DRP means nothing to you.

So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
on nature as printing it. But, and that where the important point comes.
If you read it twice the pollution starts to diverge. You can read your
print paper as many time as you need: you don't pollute anymore. But the
more you are reading on your screen, the more you are polluting.

Total nonsense.

I have tens of thousands of ebooks

Speaking about nonsense, you are great with your answer. They are
useless: you couldn't have read them and you'll never read them. It's impossible to read tens of thousand of book in a lifetime.

and an even larger volume of
other information (web pages, images, videos) which are all stored
on external optical media or external USB drives. All of this
storage can be "unplugged" and requires no electrical power to
store.

Same answer: useless because you never read them and won't be able to.

But the same material would require, literally, an entire forest
to print as well as a few tanker trucks full of petroleum-derived
ink.

So what? You don't read them there is neither need to print them nor to
keep them.

To read this e-material only requires a few cents worth of electricity,

The price is not the issue here.

and such power can be obtained from renewable solar or wind sources
or even nuclear sources all of which have zero environmental cost.

That's clear nonsense. Solar or wind sources have environmental costs.
Like nuclear sources. The costs are not the same, but they exist. Do you
really believe you can create a nuclear central without any
environmental cost? Or a wind turbine without any material? Or a sonar
panel without any material?

Furthermore, unless one uses very expensive archival ink and paper,
printed material, and photographs, will fade and wither over time.

Yes, print will fade over time, but I'll be long gone before the ink
will fade on the paper I used.

But e-material will stay fresh forever.

Nonsense. First it depend on what you store them. If you are using
Compact Disks they wont leave more than a few year. The floppy disks had
an expected life way shorter. For an hard drive, I don't really know but
as it's magnetic, it can't stay forever. And if you find something which
can stay forever, you can't be sure it will be usable forever. Today you
have an USB port: how can you be sure it will exist tomorrow? How can
you be sure your file system will still be read in a few thousand years?

You have to face it: if you want something to stay forever the
e-material isn't the solution. Maybe one day it will be, but nothing
relatively close to what the Mayans, the Egyptians or the Sumerians have
done with their writing can be accomplished with an actual computer.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Le 20-09-2025, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a |-crit-a:

On 20/09/2025 16:13, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.

So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
on nature as printing it.

A true ArtStudentrao statement.

Here comes the pseudo philosopher in pretence.

With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.

The fact that I didn't display analysis didn't mean I never read
anything serious about that.

First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on screen or print it out. And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
it does.
So that statement "the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity." is precisely meaningless.

You are a joke. Try to access a Data Center once in your life. It would
be an improvement on your knowledge.

Secondly, its hard to print an email out without using a printer, *after
the email has been downloaded and read on screen anyway*

Yes, hard to read before it has been downloaded. Before it has been
read, not that hard. So what do you want to prove?

In short, you are ignoring facts s to make an emotional argument stick,

That's the pseudo philosopher in pretence who imagine emotional
arguments where there aren't any. For the facts, once again, go in a
Data Center once in your life. But I have to warn you: it will be a
shock against your lack of knowledge. Get ready to be surprised. Then,
once you know what is a Data Center, try to figure out how the email
comes from the Data Center to your computer.

and are actually talking complete and utter bollocks.

You should try harder to convince me I'm wrong.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Le 20-09-2025, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> a |-crit-a:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

On 20/09/2025 16:13, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email, >>> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.
So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same
impact
on nature as printing it.

A true ArtStudentrao statement.

With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.

First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on
screen or print it out. And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
it does.

IrCOd expect online storage to consume at least some energy even when idle

Of course the storage consume some energy: the disks aren't store on the
floor when they aren't used to be plugged when the need arrise. The
disks are plugged on servers 24/7 to be ready when the need arise. And
the servers are checked from time to time to be sure it didn't failed
which consume electricity too. And the server running emits warm. In a
data center, a lot of servers emitting warm are in want of air
conditioning. And an email isn't stored on only one disk: nobody would
accept to lose an email, so there are backups.

- though probably negligible for this particular discussion.

Of course, an email doesn't require a lot of energy by itself. But the
printing of an email isn't a really big issue neither. The printing
requiring energy only once to be printed. The email requiring energy
24/7 uselessly for years and a little bit more energy at the time it's
read is not that negligible.

Of course, videos are a bigger issue than emails.

I remember a colleague whose approach to email was to print it out and
then wander across the office to talk to me about it. The switch to
in-person conversation was fair enough but the printout was really just
a prop...

If he didn't delete his email after printing it and if he throw the
email in a basket after talking to you, environmentally speaking, it was
really bad.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 20 Sep 2025 18:02:36 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I have tens of thousands of ebooks

Speaking about nonsense, you are great with your answer. They are
useless: you couldn't have read them and you'll never read them. It's impossible to read tens of thousand of book in a lifetime.

I have read a lot of them, and I will keep reading (and acquiring) more,
but they are mostly for reference.

If I need something I don't need to travel many miles to a major
university library.

That's clear nonsense. Solar or wind sources have environmental costs.
Like nuclear sources. The costs are not the same, but they exist. Do you really believe you can create a nuclear central without any
environmental cost? Or a wind turbine without any material? Or a sonar
panel without any material?

The cost is SIGNIFICANTLY less that coal, oil, or gas fired plants.

Idiot.

Yes, print will fade over time, but I'll be long gone before the ink
will fade on the paper I used.

Not so with images.

Furthermore, an adequately scanned image is far more versatile than
a photo in a photo album.

But e-material will stay fresh forever.

Nonsense. First it depend on what you store them. If you are using
Compact Disks they wont leave more than a few year. The floppy disks had
an expected life way shorter. For an hard drive, I don't really know but
as it's magnetic, it can't stay forever.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a dufus!

The implication is that digital files will always be duplicated on a regular basis. This practice will ensure extreme longevity.

Eventually, digital archival storage technology will get better and better.

Gutenberg is long dead. Digital is now the new king.
--
Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux perfection.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-04-24 00:43, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

In comp.os.linux.misc Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:56:58 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

Print? Does anyone still print?

...

And books, of course: I print out a chapter to see if I want to
continue the reading and it's much lighter to carry a chapter than the
entire physical book. Electronic devices are not flexible like paper
and they reflect light in a different way and you can't write on their
margins using a device that lets you feel the friction of pencil on
paper or pen on paper. Some pens are such beautiful devices.

Anything interesting I find on the web I print for later reading.

Whew! You must spend a fortune on ink or toner.

Saving web pages as described above, or printing to PDF, is the
much cheaper, and in the long term more desirable, option. The same
applies to books.

Nah, I prefer long content printed out too. I mainly use waste
paper that's printed on one side, and old toner carts that are
too faint for important use, but still readable for text. The one
problem is that, even when I take the time to check before
printing, I still miss scrap pages that are the wrong way round
and get things printed over the top of the old text. That's damn
frustrating.

I don't have space for storing a single book more, so I buy ebooks and
read them in a Kobo Libra device. It is similar to paper, I can read it
just fine out in the sun. The current model has a bit of shine, the
older model didn't. And it has an electronic pencil to write notes or drawings.

I liked paper more, but on these things I can choose font, size, line
spacing, etc.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

On 20/09/2025 16:13, Stephane CARPENTIER wrote:

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email, >>> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.
So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same
impact
on nature as printing it.

A true ArtStudent(TM) statement.

With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.

First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on
screen or print it out. And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
it does.

I'd expect online storage to consume at least some energy even when idle
- though probably negligible for this particular discussion.

Surely negligible. The fact is that if each email used very much
electricity to store/process, it would be too expensive for
providers like Google to offer that service for free. Can you
imagine that happening if Google were obliged to print out every
email received in every GMail inbox?

Mind you I generally download my emails with POP, so they _don't_
stay in data centres permanently anyway. I very rarely print emails
out, but I do like doing that for longer documents since it's
easier to jump around a document in physical form, finding and
comparing different sections. I sometimes print out source code for
the same reason (as well as to allow for writing more flexible
notes and annotation).
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on screen or print it out. And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
it does.

In other news, just last month the UK Government was urging its citizens
to save water. And one of the suggested measures was deleting old emails.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10amj0m$160hk$9@dont-email.me>:

storage does not consume watts

(reads statement)

(looks at humming NAS)

Oooookaaaaaay...

(My NAS is a Synology Diskstation. The ones at the business
are NetApp Filers...less email would mean less filers online,
potentially with less spinning rust. Just sayin'...)
--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G
OS: Linux 6.16.8 D: Mint 22.2 DE: Xfce 4.18
NVIDIA: 580.82.09 Mem: 258G
"The best way to accelerate a Mac is at 9.8 m / sec^2."
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 20 Sep 2025 18:02:36 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I have tens of thousands of ebooks

Speaking about nonsense, you are great with your answer. They are
useless: you couldn't have read them and you'll never read them. It's
impossible to read tens of thousand of book in a lifetime.

I have read a lot of them, and I will keep reading (and acquiring) more,
but they are mostly for reference.

If I need something I don't need to travel many miles to a major
university library.

That's clear nonsense. Solar or wind sources have environmental costs.
Like nuclear sources. The costs are not the same, but they exist. Do you
really believe you can create a nuclear central without any
environmental cost? Or a wind turbine without any material? Or a sonar
panel without any material?

The cost is SIGNIFICANTLY less that coal, oil, or gas fired plants.

Idiot.

Yes, print will fade over time, but I'll be long gone before the ink
will fade on the paper I used.

Not so with images.

Furthermore, an adequately scanned image is far more versatile than
a photo in a photo album.

But e-material will stay fresh forever.

Nonsense. First it depend on what you store them. If you are using
Compact Disks they wont leave more than a few year.

That is not correct
I have more than a thousand CD, DVD, Blu-ray and some M-Disc
M-Disc is supposed to last 1000 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC
DVDs I burned 25 years ago play back 100%
Some on old Linux distros with MD5 sum the MD3 sum is still OK.
The secret?
Light
I store everything is a big alu light proof box:
https://panteltje.online/pub/CD_box_binnenkant_IXIMG_0549.JPG
As with photographs (some may remember 35 mm cameras and older),
it is exposure time multiplied by light intensity that erases the CDs etc
In the sun in an hour you get data errors.
As to pictures, what I printed with my Epson R200 color printer is still fine after many many years
Even my old Polaroid pictures are OK :-)

All that said, I have copies of nearly everything on 3 4TB Toshiba USB disks.

The floppy disks had

an expected life way shorter. For an hard drive, I don't really know but
as it's magnetic, it can't stay forever.

I still have an USB floppy drive, for the very old floppies, some work, some don't.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a dufus!

The implication is that digital files will always be duplicated on a regular >basis. This practice will ensure extreme longevity.

Eventually, digital archival storage technology will get better and better.

Gutenberg is long dead. Digital is now the new king.

All will go into DNA, you just swallow a cookie with DNA and know everything..
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41570-024-00576-4
;-)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 20/09/2025 19:18, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

You should try harder to convince me I'm wrong.

" It is far easier to explain a complex thing to a man who has no
knowledge of it, than to attempt to modify the opinions of someone who
thinks he knows it all"
--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Fr|-d|-ric Bastiat

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 21/09/2025 00:27, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Mind you I generally download my emails with POP, so they_don't_
stay in data centres permanently anyway. I very rarely print emails
out, but I do like doing that for longer documents since it's
easier to jump around a document in physical form, finding and
comparing different sections. I sometimes print out source code for
the same reason (as well as to allow for writing more flexible
notes and annotation).

Exactly so.

All my emails are stored on a server over there raA which is on 24x7.

The 50W or so that it produces helps keep this room warm in winter. When
spun down the hard drives only pull about 4-6 watts apiece. And mostly
they are because data access is very very low.

Idle power on SSD is even less - about a watt typically.

Note that the storage is the lowest power consumption of anything. CPU
is on a *86 likely to be at least 10W or more at idle.

Data centres use power because they are running *code*. Not because
they are storing data.

The transition from departmental windows servers running on Pentiums to
a few blade servers running dozens of virtualised Windows units totally slashed corporate data centre space and power requirements.

That AI and bitcoin mining is now demanding ever higher levels of computational speed is not the fault of the man wanting to read his emails.
--
rCLThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 21/09/2025 08:20, vallor wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10amj0m$160hk$9@dont-email.me>:

storage does not consume watts

(reads statement)

(looks at humming NAS)

Nut does not look at *actual* power consumption of said rust.
Nor go and look up the energy content of a piece of printed paper.

Oooookaaaaaay...

(My NAS is a Synology Diskstation. The ones at the business
are NetApp Filers...less email would mean less filers online,
potentially with less spinning rust. Just sayin'...)

Most spinning rust is full of obsolete garbage which people cant be
bothered to throw away because once you need any storage at all, it is
no more expensive in energy to have shitloads.

The amount of space I save by not having any files for important
paperwork, but instead storing them on a computer is worth far far more
than the trivial cost of running a couple of terabyte drives per annum.

Let's Do Sums.

I have 102 directories of 'stuff' in my main storage hierarchy, each one
with 5-10 subdirectories.

Everything is in there, medical records,instruction manuals , guarantees
and service manuals

I have at most 10 box files of paper, not 300+.

Lets say that the two terabyte sized drives take 5W each on average,.

That is 87600 watt hours or 87.6 units of electricity per year. perhaps
around -u20 per annum. ($30 or near enough)

Energy I need to burn *anyway* to have *any* access to computer storage
AT ALL.

A box file would cost -u2.20 for the most basic.

so the cost of just the box files to store all that data would be in the
-u660 range. And in order to store them I would need shelves and shelves,
like a lawyers office,all heated and kept dry at far far greater cost
and expensive.

Now let's look at the paper. Each sheet cost about 0.5p which is broadly
a proxy for the energy in manufacturing it and getting it to me.

The CHEAPEST cost quoted to print it out is 0.8 p and a colour printer
cost at least 20p or more.

So each sheet of paper represents an outlay of at least 1,3p and maybe
up to 20p if its color.

I receive 10 emails a day. so my cost is somewhere around 13-230p a day
or between -u10 and -u839 per year depending on the size of emails and
their color content.

Now if I cost my physical storage out at something like -u20 per square
meter per year - a very reasonable price - and I need a room of about 5
x 1.5 meter to store my boxfile shelving, then I need to spend around
-u150 a year to rent and maintain that...

And of course if I want off site backup, another office somewhere else....

NO WAY is keeping my files on a computer more energy intensive or
expensive than storing it all as paper.

And yes, I was technical and financial director of several companies,
and that's how we made a profit. Doing BoringSums.

And not acting like ArtStudents and making uneducated guesses and
calling them facts.
--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Fr|-d|-ric Bastiat

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 21/09/2025 09:21, Jan Panteltje wrote:

All will go into DNA, you just swallow a cookie with DNA and know everything..
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41570-024-00576-4
Efye

The powers that be would never allow people access to all there is to know. They wouldn't be the powers for very long if they did.

Keep them in the dark and feed them on bullshit.
Mushroom management
--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Stophane CARPENTIER wrote:

That's the pseudo philosopher in pretence who imagine emotional
arguments where there aren't any. For the facts, once again, go in a
Data Center once in your life. But I have to warn you: it will be a
shock against your lack of knowledge. Get ready to be surprised. Then,
once you know what is a Data Center, try to figure out how the email
comes from the Data Center to your computer.

I can't even figure out what your point is. What would we learn, or
be surprised by, by going in to a Data Center?

I mean, we already know that a lot of data, for example emails, are
flying around...
--
"Guess which machine runs empty first, spiff."

-highhorse, arguing that there should be a tampon machine in the
boys' bathroom, in case the machine in the girls bathroom runs out.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Le 20-09-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a |-crit-a:

On 20 Sep 2025 18:02:36 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I have tens of thousands of ebooks

Speaking about nonsense, you are great with your answer. They are
useless: you couldn't have read them and you'll never read them. It's
impossible to read tens of thousand of book in a lifetime.

I have read a lot of them,

I don't believe that. If you do nothing else with your life you could
probably manage to read one book a day. Which means, you don't compile
your kernel, you don't work, you don't spend time on usenet. In this
extreme case you would need 30 years to read 10000 books. So, if you
read more than tens of thousands of books it would require many
lifetimes. Which is impossible. So, maybe you are fooling yourself, but
you don't fool me.

(and acquiring) more, but they are mostly for reference.

That I can believe. You download everything available doing nothing with
them is possible.

That's clear nonsense. Solar or wind sources have environmental costs.
Like nuclear sources. The costs are not the same, but they exist. Do you
really believe you can create a nuclear central without any
environmental cost? Or a wind turbine without any material? Or a sonar
panel without any material?

The cost is SIGNIFICANTLY less that coal, oil, or gas fired plants.

Less cost doesn't mean no cost.

Idiot.

That I already know. Please improve. Go get a brain and start expressing
the imagination part you pretend to have.

Yes, print will fade over time, but I'll be long gone before the ink
will fade on the paper I used.

Not so with images.

Ah, OK, my bad. When we were talking about books, I didn't guessed we
weren't speaking about the same thing. You are downloading Mickey Mouse
and Superman, of course. I should have known better how you can be sure
you have read tens of thousands of books.

But e-material will stay fresh forever.

Nonsense. First it depend on what you store them. If you are using
Compact Disks they wont leave more than a few year. The floppy disks had
an expected life way shorter. For an hard drive, I don't really know but
as it's magnetic, it can't stay forever.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What a dufus!

The implication is that digital files will always be duplicated on a regular basis. This practice will ensure extreme longevity.

By who? Why? As you said nothing you do get out of your house.

Gutenberg is long dead. Digital is now the new king.

Not the same purpose.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 21/09/2025 15:59, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I don't believe that. If you do nothing else with your life you could probably manage to read one book a day.

I used to manage several a day when I had nothing better to do. Then it dropped to about one a day when I did.
--
rCLThe ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.rCY

Herbert Spencer

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Le 21-09-2025, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> a |-crit-a:

On 20 Sep 2025 18:02:36 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

But e-material will stay fresh forever.

Nonsense. First it depend on what you store them. If you are using
Compact Disks they wont leave more than a few year.

That is not correct

For a start, let's be sure we are speaking about the same thing. There
are two ways to put information on CD. The first one is to press it,
that's the way the industry proceed and I can't do it at home. The
second one is to burn it: that's the one I'm speaking about.

I have way more than a thousand pressed CD, some of them are more than
twenty years old without issue. But for my personal data, I have no way
to put them on a pressed CD, so I used only burned CD. And those, I
never managed to keep them more than two or three years. And it looked
normal when I spoke about it around me.

I have more than a thousand CD, DVD, Blu-ray and some M-Disc
M-Disc is supposed to last 1000 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC

I'm speaking only about CD here.

DVDs I burned 25 years ago play back 100%
Some on old Linux distros with MD5 sum the MD3 sum is still OK.
The secret?
Light
I store everything is a big alu light proof box:
https://panteltje.online/pub/CD_box_binnenkant_IXIMG_0549.JPG

I never let my CD being exposed to the sun. And I won't try that because
HDD and SSD have a way faster way to store information and take well
less place to store. So, maybe you are right.

As with photographs (some may remember 35 mm cameras and older),
it is exposure time multiplied by light intensity that erases the CDs etc
In the sun in an hour you get data errors.
As to pictures, what I printed with my Epson R200 color printer is still fine after many many years
Even my old Polaroid pictures are OK :-)

All of my old pictures or OK, I don't have old printed pictures to see
if there's an issue with them.

All that said, I have copies of nearly everything on 3 4TB Toshiba USB disks.

Yes, that's the way I do it today.

The floppy disks had

an expected life way shorter. For an hard drive, I don't really know but >>> as it's magnetic, it can't stay forever.

I still have an USB floppy drive,

I don't. Last time I checked I could have found one but it's very
expensive for what it is.

for the very old floppies, some work, some don't.

I have no more floppies. But when I was young I couldn't afford to buy expensive ones. So that mean they fell faster, but I don't believe I
could have keep them forever. And by know, I wouldn't use any of them:
they are way too slow. I took from them what was important to me a long
time ago.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 21/09/2025 16:26, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I have way more than a thousand pressed CD, some of them are more than
twenty years old without issue. But for my personal data, I have no way
to put them on a pressed CD, so I used only burned CD. And those, I
never managed to keep them more than two or three years. And it looked
normal when I spoke about it around me.

Indeed.

I ran into the same issues, and looked at the cost and lifetime issues
and did some calculations and bought two terabyte sized spinning rust
drives. When one goes I replace it and recopy all the data onto the new one

I've got data going back to the 1990s on those.

Not that its of much interest...
--
"It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joew Walsh

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 21 Sep 2025 14:59:32 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I don't believe that.

Then fuck you. Retarded idiot.

You are just extremely jealous. You recognize my total superiority
and you cannot accept it.

Well, too bad. You will ignore reality at your own peril.

Remember:

I am the authority. You are the lackey.

Now get back to your distro-supplied systemd and wayland.
You can only use what is given to you. You are incapable of
being creative or constructive.

I am the authority. You are the lackey.

I am the authority. You are the lackey.

I am the authority. You are the lackey.

Fuck you.
--
Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux perfection.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:14:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10aoflf$1jd5c$10@dont-email.me>:

On 21/09/2025 08:20, vallor wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10amj0m$160hk$9@dont-email.me>:

storage does not consume watts

(reads statement)

(looks at humming NAS)

Nut does not look at *actual* power consumption of said rust.
Nor go and look up the energy content of a piece of printed paper.

Oooookaaaaaay...

(My NAS is a Synology Diskstation. The ones at the business are NetApp
Filers...less email would mean less filers online, potentially with
less spinning rust. Just sayin'...)

Most spinning rust is full of obsolete garbage which people cant be
bothered to throw away because once you need any storage at all, it is
no more expensive in energy to have shitloads.

The amount of space I save by not having any files for important
paperwork, but instead storing them on a computer is worth far far more
than the trivial cost of running a couple of terabyte drives per annum.

Let's Do Sums.

I have 102 directories of 'stuff' in my main storage hierarchy, each one
with 5-10 subdirectories.

Everything is in there, medical records,instruction manuals , guarantees
and service manuals

I have at most 10 box files of paper, not 300+.

Lets say that the two terabyte sized drives take 5W each on average,.

That is 87600 watt hours or 87.6 units of electricity per year. perhaps around -u20 per annum. ($30 or near enough)

Energy I need to burn *anyway* to have *any* access to computer storage
AT ALL.

A box file would cost -u2.20 for the most basic.

so the cost of just the box files to store all that data would be in the -u660 range. And in order to store them I would need shelves and shelves, like a lawyers office,all heated and kept dry at far far greater cost
and expensive.

Now let's look at the paper. Each sheet cost about 0.5p which is broadly
a proxy for the energy in manufacturing it and getting it to me.

The CHEAPEST cost quoted to print it out is 0.8 p and a colour printer
cost at least 20p or more.

So each sheet of paper represents an outlay of at least 1,3p and maybe
up to 20p if its color.

I receive 10 emails a day. so my cost is somewhere around 13-230p a day
or between -u10 and -u839 per year depending on the size of emails and their color content.

Now if I cost my physical storage out at something like -u20 per square
meter per year - a very reasonable price - and I need a room of about 5
x 1.5 meter to store my boxfile shelving, then I need to spend around
-u150 a year to rent and maintain that...

And of course if I want off site backup, another office somewhere
else....

NO WAY is keeping my files on a computer more energy intensive or
expensive than storing it all as paper.

And yes, I was technical and financial director of several companies,
and that's how we made a profit. Doing BoringSums.

And not acting like ArtStudents and making uneducated guesses and
calling them facts.

I wasn't disagreeing with your overall point, just the point
I quoted.

Offline storage is one thing, but online storage is going to have
a non-zero power cost.

Just making Usenet conversation, carry on. :)
--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G
OS: Linux 6.16.8 D: Mint 22.2 DE: Xfce 4.18
NVIDIA: 580.82.09 Mem: 258G
"You can't have everything...where would you put it?"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 08:21:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Even my old Polaroid pictures are OK :-)

I would scan those. Having both physical originals + digital files is
better than only having the physical originals.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:34:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The powers that be would never allow people access to all there is to
know. They wouldn't be the powers for very long if they did.

But they donrCOt know themselves how to keep all that knowledge secret.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 18:57:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

... bought two terabyte sized spinning rust drives.

Might be more reliable if you used magnetic media, instead of relying on
rusty media.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 09:34:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

" It is far easier to explain a complex thing to a man who has no
knowledge of it, than to attempt to modify the opinions of someone who
thinks he knows it all"

The old science/engineering adage is, if you canrCOt explain something to someone, that suggests you donrCOt understand it yourself.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 08:21:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Even my old Polaroid pictures are OK :-)

I would scan those. Having both physical originals + digital files is
better than only having the physical originals.

Good suggestion!
Yes, scanner, I have one somewhere, not used in ages (driver for win3.1 :-) ) My Xiaomi smartphone has such a good camera that I just take a picture!
It has a 'High definition' mode too.
I used my Canon camera a while back to take pictures of the hundreds of circuit diagrams I did draw with pencil on A4 paper.
(I am in electronics)
All now on harddisc.
Some of that paper had become yellow..
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/z80/system14/diagrams/z80-cpu1.jpg

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:34:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The powers that be would never allow people access to all there is to
know. They wouldn't be the powers for very long if they did.

But they donrCOt know themselves how to keep all that knowledge secret.

I fear with precedent tramp now in power,
soon he will promote himself to king of North and South America,
and with him conrolling the media now, what will happen to Usenet ..

I could watch Al Jazeera on Astra1 and Astra2 satellite,
now Al Jazeera on Astra2 (the English sat) had gone black.
So much for reporting on the genocide in Gaza.
My father was a journalist.. seems these are targets too by is-a-hell these days.
OK, better stay out of politics in this forum..
Have a look at alt.politics.trump for both sides.

Anyways you will get American DNA cookies, Chinese DNA cookies, and EU DNA cookies..

Likely more tastes.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 21/09/2025 23:31, vallor wrote:

Offline storage is one thing, but online storage is going to have
a non-zero power cost.

Just making Usenet conversation, carry on. EfOe

My point is simple. EVERYTHING has a non zero power cost. Even a room
full of box files.

Our job as financial managers is to reduce that to the minimum
consistent with the requirements of data retention and speed of access.
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-09-22, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 08:21:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Even my old Polaroid pictures are OK :-)

I would scan those. Having both physical originals + digital files is
better than only having the physical originals.

Good suggestion!
Yes, scanner, I have one somewhere, not used in ages (driver for win3.1 :-) ) My Xiaomi smartphone has such a good camera that I just take a picture!

And that way you can add in all the artifacts which seem to be becoming mandatory these days: shadows, keystoning, and the various distortions
that result from a page that won't lie flat.

If you care enough to overcome these things - and it can be done -
then more power to you. But most people don't give a damn when
they trip the shutter. It's the photographic equivalent of sloppy
writing combined with lack of proofreading.

Oh my, who pissed in my orange juice this morning?
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-09-22, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 08:21:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Even my old Polaroid pictures are OK :-)

I would scan those. Having both physical originals + digital files is
better than only having the physical originals.

Good suggestion!
Yes, scanner, I have one somewhere, not used in ages (driver for win3.1 :-) )
My Xiaomi smartphone has such a good camera that I just take a picture!

And that way you can add in all the artifacts which seem to be becoming >mandatory these days: shadows, keystoning, and the various distortions
that result from a page that won't lie flat.

If you care enough to overcome these things - and it can be done -
then more power to you. But most people don't give a damn when
they trip the shutter. It's the photographic equivalent of sloppy
writing combined with lack of proofreading.

Well, I did a lot of photo stuff back then, had my own enlarger, developed my own
black and white enlarged pictures in those days, some were framed.

Actually I take the pics in HD mode with the xiaomi, and when looking back on the smartphone you can easily enlarge and details.
Or even make a movie if something needs it.
So I know how to take a picture, for my Canon camera I wrote some scripts.
But OK, cameras were part of my job for many years, was technician in the TV studios here.
Designed and build my first Vidicon portable camera in 1968.
For most stuff I make pictures of it is about documentation.,
the circuit diagrams I did draw with pencil on paper ARE already unreadable for some, so I have heard :-).

Not for me (yet), and that is why I keep it, still designing stuff.
Not so much for global show in musea ;-)
OTOH my website has much of that stuff (and Linux stuff to go back to the groups subject)
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
not only Linux, lost of Microchip PIC asm projects:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html

Show us what you did for open source?

Oh my, who pissed in my orange juice this morning?

Juice? I have been eating a complete small mandarin orange every night lately, the vitamin C gives a real boost.
Beep

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:42:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

I could watch Al Jazeera on Astra1 and Astra2 satellite,
now Al Jazeera on Astra2 (the English sat) had gone black.

Can you watch the live stream on aljazeera.com? Also they post episodes
from their programs there and on their YouTube channel.

We get it free-to-air here in NZ. We find a lot of familiar faces,
formerly from our own local media, working there now. They have a very international staff, reflecting their international focus.

So much for reporting on the genocide in Gaza.

Israel and the US certainly do all they can to stop the news getting out.

My father was a journalist.. seems these are targets too by is-a-hell
these days.

Independent journalism has always been a threat to the powerful.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2025-09-21, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:

On 21 Sep 2025 14:59:32 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I don't believe that.

Then fuck you. Retarded idiot.

LOL.
I'm reasonably certain that Stephane doesn't have any problem
finding partners.
Unlike you FF.

You are just extremely jealous. You recognize my total superiority
and you cannot accept it.

Jealous of what?
The only thing you can claim to be the best at is making a fool of yourself. I'll give you credit as you are one of the best at it.

Well, too bad. You will ignore reality at your own peril.

The reality is that you FF are a raving lunatic.
Are you a snit troll?
You seem to be.
Snit is as ignorant as you.
You 2 have a lot in common.

Remember:

I am the authority. You are the lackey.

Lol!
You are a fool FF.

Now get back to your distro-supplied systemd and wayland.
You can only use what is given to you. You are incapable of
being creative or constructive.

Linux users all around the world are using their Linux systems
to increase productivity and perform real world tasks.

You OTOH tinker with your system looking for that one compile flag
that might give you 0.0000000000001 msec improvement in some bizarre application you are running.

You might try purchasing decent hardware next time instead of the
garbage you assembled not too long ago.

Fuck you.

I doubt you are his type.
Try snit. He's a fairy. Maybe you like fairies?
--
pothead
"I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and theyrCOre idiots.
I always say they have big hearts and little brains.
Almost every single policy rolled out failed.rCY

-- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:42:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

I could watch Al Jazeera on Astra1 and Astra2 satellite,
now Al Jazeera on Astra2 (the English sat) had gone black.

Can you watch the live stream on aljazeera.com? Also they post episodes
from their programs there and on their YouTube channel.

Yes, probably can, but have only 4G mobile here with a Huawei USB stick in laptop or PC and maximum 10 GB / month.
So satellite is the thing for me for movies and big stuff.
I have a steerable dish, so for me no problem switching between Astra1 and Astra 2 satellite, and many other ones,
but not many people can so that.
Russian stations were banned from the Astra sats years ago too after the war in Ukraine started.
As on Astra1 (mostly German programs) still works, no problem.
But why censor the UK?
Did sent an email about it to Al Jazeera 2 days ago, have not heard anything back.

But for me, I am radio ham too and design my own stuff,
I will see what I want to see..
For example rt.com (Russia English) is blocked by the local providers here,
but for Linux if you change /etc/resolv.conf so it reads like this: Raspberrypi: ~ # cat /etc/resolv.conf
nameserver 8.8.8.8
nameserver 8.8.4.4

then the nameserver is google's and bypasses the local one of the ISPs.

Yes I am posting from a Raspberry Pi4 8GB with the Usenet newsreader I wrote years ago:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/index.html

We get it free-to-air here in NZ. We find a lot of familiar faces,
formerly from our own local media, working there now. They have a very >international staff, reflecting their international focus.

So much for reporting on the genocide in Gaza.

Israel and the US certainly do all they can to stop the news getting out.

My father was a journalist.. seems these are targets too by is-a-hell
these days.

Independent journalism has always been a threat to the powerful.

Today I did read US now puts sanctions on the whole ICC.
Makes you wonder if there is a return to total lawlessness by Dick_Tatort Tramp I mean.. in spite of all the talking and good intentions, is-a-hell just keeps killing.
I wrote in a YouWitz group: "you cannot deny the holocaust, but you are doing the same thing and denying it all the time'






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

[En-t|-te "Followup-To:" positionn|- |a comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
Le 21-09-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a |-crit-a:

On 21 Sep 2025 14:59:32 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:

I don't believe that.

Then fuck you.

No, I'm not interested. If you want sexual pleasure, you'll have to find someone else.

Retarded idiot.

That I already know. Can't you improve?

You are just extremely jealous.

Of what? You hate everything around you. Your life looks awful and I
surely don't want to stand in your boots.

You recognize my total superiority

Everything you showed here: I can do better. Maybe there is one thing in
which you are superior to me but you hide it fairly well.

and you cannot accept it.

I can't accept what goes against common sense without good evidence.

Well, too bad. You will ignore reality at your own peril.

What's the reality? The killers you sent months ago against me? I'm
still answering so you failed. And I'm right refusing your reality when
it goes against facts.

Now get back to your distro-supplied systemd and wayland.

They are better than what cames before. The fact that you can't
understand what they can bring to you speak more about you than about
them.

You can only use what is given to you.

This sentence proves you know nothing about ArchLinux.

You are incapable of being creative or constructive.

The fact that you can't find other words than idiot to insult me proves
you don't know what creativity is. The fact that you can't help but be
at loss and insult everything which isn't going in your way proves you
know nothing about being constructive.

I am the authority. You are the lackey.
I am the authority. You are the lackey.
I am the authority. You are the lackey.

I know you are an American, so I can understand that Musk and Trump are inspiring you. But unlike their beliefs, repeating something stupid
doesn't make it true.

Fuck you.

I'm still not interested, you'll have to find someone else.
--
Si vous avez du temps |a perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2