Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energySo there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and
the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.
Yes, it really was that stupid.
regular energy?
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energySo there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and
the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.
Yes, it really was that stupid.
regular energy?
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energy >>>> the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.So there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and
Yes, it really was that stupid.
regular energy?
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
socket is definitely artificial.
Mind you, I've never studied electric eels so they may not generate real electricity. Maybe it's just something different that just got called electricity mistakenly. Let's see if Claude.AI knows....
========================================================================
Q: Do electric eels really generate electricity?
A: Yes, they really do! Electric eels (which are actually more closely related to catfish than true eels) have specialized cells called electrocytes that act like biological batteries. They have three
electric organs that take up most of their body, and they can generate
up to around 600 volts rCo enough to stun prey, deter predators, and even navigate and communicate through low-level pulses. It's one of the more remarkable things in the animal kingdom. ========================================================================
Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric
eels conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your
wall socket is definitely artificial.
========================================================================
Q: Do electric eels really generate electricity?
A: Yes, they really do! Electric eels (which are actually more
closely related to catfish than true eels) have specialized cells
called electrocytes that act like biological batteries.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past
regular here, the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer,
(one of your fellow Canadidians) who, in response to people
wondering why the electricity-eating nanobots on the show REVOLUTION
didn't also absorb the electricity that runs the human nervous
system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that they must
only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural electricity'.
On Feb 26, 2026 at 3:08:57 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energy >>>>> the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.So there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and
Yes, it really was that stupid.
regular energy?
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall
socket is definitely artificial.
But if you examine them at the atomic level, there's no difference. Electricity is electricity, no matter how it's generated.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past regular here, the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer, (one of your fellow Canadidians) who, in response to people wondering why the electricity-eating nanobots on the show REVOLUTION didn't also absorb the electricity that runs the human nervous system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that they must only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural
electricity'.
Clod's insistence on this theory has become a benchmark of stupidity in this group and a shorthand way of indicating when someone else says something of equal dumbidity.
Mind you, I've never studied electric eels so they may not generate real
electricity. Maybe it's just something different that just got called
electricity mistakenly. Let's see if Claude.AI knows....
========================================================================
Q: Do electric eels really generate electricity?
A: Yes, they really do! Electric eels (which are actually more closely
related to catfish than true eels) have specialized cells called
electrocytes that act like biological batteries. They have three
electric organs that take up most of their body, and they can generate
up to around 600 volts rCo enough to stun prey, deter predators, and even >> navigate and communicate through low-level pulses. It's one of the more
remarkable things in the animal kingdom.
========================================================================
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energySo there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and
the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.
Yes, it really was that stupid.
regular energy?
Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
socket is definitely artificial.
Mind you, I've never studied electric eels so they may not generate real electricity. Maybe it's just something different that just got called electricity mistakenly. Let's see if Claude.AI knows....
========================================================================
Q: Do electric eels really generate electricity?
A: Yes, they really do! Electric eels (which are actually more closely related to catfish than true eels) have specialized cells called electrocytes that act like biological batteries. They have three
electric organs that take up most of their body, and they can generate
up to around 600 volts rCo enough to stun prey, deter predators, and even navigate and communicate through low-level pulses. It's one of the more remarkable things in the animal kingdom. ========================================================================
But if you examine them at the atomic level, there's no difference. >Electricity is electricity, no matter how it's generated.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past regular here, >the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer, (one of your fellow >Canadidians) who, in response to people wondering why the electricity-eating >nanobots on the show REVOLUTION didn't also absorb the electricity that runs >the human nervous system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that >they must only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural >electricity'.
Clod's insistence on this theory has become a benchmark of stupidity in this >group and a shorthand way of indicating when someone else says something of >equal dumbidity.
On Feb 26, 2026 at 3:08:57 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energy >>>>> the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.So there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and >>>> regular energy?
Yes, it really was that stupid.
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall
socket is definitely artificial.
But if you examine them at the atomic level, there's no difference. Electricity is electricity, no matter how it's generated.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past regular here, the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer, (one of your fellow Canadidians) who, in response to people wondering why the electricity-eating nanobots on the show REVOLUTION didn't also absorb the electricity that runs the human nervous system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that they must only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural
electricity'.
Clod's insistence on this theory has become a benchmark of stupidity in this group and a shorthand way of indicating when someone else says something of equal dumbidity.
Mind you, I've never studied electric eels so they may not generate real
electricity. Maybe it's just something different that just got called
electricity mistakenly. Let's see if Claude.AI knows....
========================================================================
Q: Do electric eels really generate electricity?
A: Yes, they really do! Electric eels (which are actually more closely
related to catfish than true eels) have specialized cells called
electrocytes that act like biological batteries. They have three
electric organs that take up most of their body, and they can generate
up to around 600 volts rCo enough to stun prey, deter predators, and even
navigate and communicate through low-level pulses. It's one of the more
remarkable things in the animal kingdom.
========================================================================
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
"Melissa Hollingsworth" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
dtravel@sonic.net delivered unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energy
the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.
Yes, it really was that stupid.
So there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and
regular energy?
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 23:38:03 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past
regular here, the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer,
(one of your fellow Canadidians) who, in response to people
wondering why the electricity-eating nanobots on the show REVOLUTION
didn't also absorb the electricity that runs the human nervous
system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that they must
only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural
electricity'.
There are endless variations on that trope.
Like for example humans encounter some advanced alien civilization
(either we visit them, or they come to us), and they have the power to
stop all our technology (particularly advanced technology) from
working. And yet somehow living beings remain unharmed. And maybe some
old relic machine from a museum still functions -- obviously not >rCLtechnologicalrCY enough for the aliensrCO weapon to affect it ...
On 2026-02-26 6:38 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2026 at 3:08:57 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> >> wrote:I remember her but I don't think I ever saw her "novel" thoughts on electricity or the use of that as a sort of meme among the group
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels >>> conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energy >>>>>> the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible.So there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and >>>>> regular energy?
Yes, it really was that stupid.
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
socket is definitely artificial.
But if you examine them at the atomic level, there's no difference.
Electricity is electricity, no matter how it's generated.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past regular here, >> the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer, (one of your fellow
Canadidians) who, in response to people wondering why the electricity-eating >> nanobots on the show REVOLUTION didn't also absorb the electricity that runs >> the human nervous system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that >> they must only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural
electricity'.
Clod's insistence on this theory has become a benchmark of stupidity in this >> group and a shorthand way of indicating when someone else says something of >> equal dumbidity.
members. Well, now I know and I apologize for missing what you were
getting at and reacting pedantically.
In article <10nr1vu$268jc$4@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 23:38:03 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past
regular here, the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer,
(one of your fellow Canadidians) who, in response to people
wondering why the electricity-eating nanobots on the show REVOLUTION
didn't also absorb the electricity that runs the human nervous
system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that they must
only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural
electricity'.
There are endless variations on that trope.
Like for example humans encounter some advanced alien civilization
(either we visit them, or they come to us), and they have the power to
stop all our technology (particularly advanced technology) from
working. And yet somehow living beings remain unharmed. And maybe some
old relic machine from a museum still functions -- obviously not
rCLtechnologicalrCY enough for the aliensrCO weapon to affect it ...
Similarly, how alien computer technology can be hacked like ours.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 6:38 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2026 at 3:08:57 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I remember her but I don't think I ever saw her "novel" thoughts on
wrote:
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels >>>> conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energy >>>>>>> the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible. >>>>>>>So there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and >>>>>> regular energy?
Yes, it really was that stupid.
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
socket is definitely artificial.
But if you examine them at the atomic level, there's no difference.
Electricity is electricity, no matter how it's generated.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past regular here,
the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer, (one of your fellow >>> Canadidians) who, in response to people wondering why the electricity-eating
nanobots on the show REVOLUTION didn't also absorb the electricity that runs
the human nervous system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that
they must only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not
'natural
electricity'.
Clod's insistence on this theory has become a benchmark of stupidity in this
group and a shorthand way of indicating when someone else says something of
equal dumbidity.
electricity or the use of that as a sort of meme among the group
members. Well, now I know and I apologize for missing what you were
getting at and reacting pedantically.
She also insisted that moving water is always safe to drink.
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Similarly, how alien computer technology can be hacked like ours.
Only by Macs, not windows.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 03:27:38 -0700, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Similarly, how alien computer technology can be hacked like ours.
Only by Macs, not windows.
rCLThis is a Unix system! I know this!rCY
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <10nr1vu$268jc$4@dont-email.me>, ldo@nz.invalid wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 23:38:03 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past
regular here, the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer,
(one of your fellow Canadidians) who, in response to people
wondering why the electricity-eating nanobots on the show REVOLUTION
didn't also absorb the electricity that runs the human nervous
system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that they must
only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not 'natural
electricity'.
There are endless variations on that trope.
Like for example humans encounter some advanced alien civilization
(either we visit them, or they come to us), and they have the power to
stop all our technology (particularly advanced technology) from
working. And yet somehow living beings remain unharmed. And maybe some
old relic machine from a museum still functions -- obviously not
|ore4+otechnological|ore4-Y enough for the aliens|ore4rao weapon to affect it ...
Similarly, how alien computer technology can be hacked like ours.
Only by Macs, not windows.
On 2/28/2026 2:27 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Well, it only worked because Macs were reverse engineered alien
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Similarly, how alien computer technology can be hacked like ours.
Only by Macs, not windows.
computers....
On Feb 28, 2026 at 2:12:54 AM PST, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 6:38 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2026 at 3:08:57 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I remember her but I don't think I ever saw her "novel" thoughts on
wrote:
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels >>>>> conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall >>>>> socket is definitely artificial.
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energy >>>>>>>> the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible. >>>>>>>>So there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and >>>>>>> regular energy?
Yes, it really was that stupid.
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
But if you examine them at the atomic level, there's no difference.
Electricity is electricity, no matter how it's generated.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past regular here,
the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer, (one of your fellow >>>> Canadidians) who, in response to people wondering why the electricity-eating
nanobots on the show REVOLUTION didn't also absorb the electricity that runs
the human nervous system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that
they must only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not
'natural
electricity'.
Clod's insistence on this theory has become a benchmark of stupidity in this
group and a shorthand way of indicating when someone else says something of
equal dumbidity.
electricity or the use of that as a sort of meme among the group
members. Well, now I know and I apologize for missing what you were
getting at and reacting pedantically.
She also insisted that moving water is always safe to drink.
And that it's impossible for anyone, even a trained and experienced soldier, to successfully use a gun in self-defense. She claimed everyone just freezes up out of fear. But that doesn't happen if you use a big dog, a knife, or a baseball bat to defend yourself. Only guns make you freeze in fear at the crucial moment.
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 03:27:38 -0700, anim8rfsk wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
Similarly, how alien computer technology can be hacked like ours.
Only by Macs, not windows.
rCLThis is a Unix system! I know this!rCY
When she says that, on screen, you can actually see
the interface running QuickTime movies.
Verily, in article <179267364.794071571.311223.anim8rfsk- cox.net@news.easynews.com>, did anim8rfsk@cox.net deliver unto us this message:
When she says that, on screen, you can actually see
the interface running QuickTime movies.
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed. In the early days, when few people knew anything about computers, they pulled some real boners. I
recall laughter in 1995 because some show had pasted a Mac desktop onto
the screen of an IBM.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2026 at 2:12:54 AM PST, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote: >>
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 6:38 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2026 at 3:08:57 PM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>I remember her but I don't think I ever saw her "novel" thoughts on
wrote:
On 2026-02-26 4:11 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
On Aug 13, 2025 at 6:41:31 AM PDT, "Melissa Hollingsworth"Actually, that's a real distinction if you think about it. Electric eels
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <107guh6$3lpf9$1@dont-email.me>, did
dtravel@sonic.net deliver unto us this message:
As I recall "Holodeck energy" was different than all the other energySo there's holodeck energy, food replicator energy, warp energy, and >>>>>>>> regular energy?
the ship used, so replicators in the holodeck weren't possible. >>>>>>>>>
Yes, it really was that stupid.
Don't forget the artificial and natural electricity!
conduct electricity and it's natural; the stuff you get in your wall >>>>>> socket is definitely artificial.
But if you examine them at the atomic level, there's no difference. >>>>> Electricity is electricity, no matter how it's generated.
This is a long-running gag here on RAT in reference to a past regular here,
the profoundly stupid Cloud Dreamer, aka Clod Reamer, (one of your fellow
Canadidians) who, in response to people wondering why the electricity-eating
nanobots on the show REVOLUTION didn't also absorb the electricity that runs
the human nervous system, or the electricity in thunderstorms, declared that
they must only be programmed to consume 'artificial electricity', not >>>>> 'natural
electricity'.
Clod's insistence on this theory has become a benchmark of stupidity in this
group and a shorthand way of indicating when someone else says something of
equal dumbidity.
electricity or the use of that as a sort of meme among the group
members. Well, now I know and I apologize for missing what you were
getting at and reacting pedantically.
She also insisted that moving water is always safe to drink.
And that it's impossible for anyone, even a trained and experienced soldier,
to successfully use a gun in self-defense. She claimed everyone just freezes
up out of fear. But that doesn't happen if you use a big dog, a knife, or a >> baseball bat to defend yourself. Only guns make you freeze in fear at the >> crucial moment.
IIRC that was specific to females. No female can pull a trigger, even when
in fear for their life.
Ah, yes. I remember how she was completely enraged when I told I have a sister
who is alive today because she defended herself with a gun when she was attacked. And that she didn't freeze in fear for even a moment.
On Mar 1, 2026 at 7:42:33 AM PST, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <179267364.794071571.311223.anim8rfsk- cox.net@news.easynews.com>, did anim8rfsk@cox.net deliver unto us this message:
When she says that, on screen, you can actually see
the interface running QuickTime movies.
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed. In the early days, when few people knew anything about computers, they pulled some real boners. I recall laughter in 1995 because some show had pasted a Mac desktop onto the screen of an IBM.
I've always laughed at Hollywood's obsession with inserting bleeps and bloops into every scene where someone's working on a computer to let us know the computer is "thinking".
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed.
... I have a sister who is alive today because she defended herself
with a gun when she was attacked. And that she didn't freeze in fear
for even a moment.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:42:33 -0500, The True Melissa wrote:
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed.
Compositing was required, not so much because of glare I donrCOt think,
but because of a mismatch of frame rates that would lead to unpleasant
and distracting flicker.
I look at modern TV news studios, with back walls covered with huge LCD panels showing remote interviewees and correspondents, location
footage, weather pictures etc, and theyrCOre all captured by the studio cameras just fine (with all frame rates locked together, of course),
with no discernible glare at all.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:52:36 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
... I have a sister who is alive today because she defended herself
with a gun when she was attacked. And that she didn't freeze in fear
for even a moment.
That kind of thing is very rarely successful. Outside of a war zone,
the vast majority of deployment of guns tend to end badly.
In other words, for every one person like your sister, there are
something like 30 dead bodies of those for whom things didn'COt turn
out quite so well ...
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 10:42:33 -0500, The True Melissa wrote:
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed.
Compositing was required, not so much because of glare I don?t think,
but because of a mismatch of frame rates that would lead to unpleasant
and distracting flicker.
I look at modern TV news studios, with back walls covered with huge
LCD panels showing remote interviewees and correspondents, location
footage, weather pictures etc, and they?re all captured by the studio
cameras just fine (with all frame rates locked together, of course),
with no discernible glare at all.
Verily, in article <10o25bg$h5u2$1@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com deliver unto us this message:
On Mar 1, 2026 at 7:42:33 AM PST, "The True Melissa"
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <179267364.794071571.311223.anim8rfsk-
cox.net@news.easynews.com>, did anim8rfsk@cox.net deliver unto us this >> > message:
When she says that, on screen, you can actually see
the interface running QuickTime movies.
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed. In the early days, when few >> > people knew anything about computers, they pulled some real boners. I
recall laughter in 1995 because some show had pasted a Mac desktop onto >> > the screen of an IBM.
I've always laughed at Hollywood's obsession with inserting bleeps and
bloops
into every scene where someone's working on a computer to let us know the >> computer is "thinking".
One of my favorite things is the way that TV and movie pictures have infinite resolution. "Zoom and enhance. Again. Again, again, again."
Then, instead of a realistic blur, we somehow read the writing on a
scrap of paper. Computers are magic!
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:52:36 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
... I have a sister who is alive today because she defended herself
with a gun when she was attacked. And that she didn't freeze in fear
for even a moment.
That kind of thing is very rarely successful. Outside of a war zone,
the vast majority of deployment of guns tend to end badly.
In other words, for every one person like your sister, there are
something like 30 dead bodies of those for whom things didnrCOt turn out quite so well ...
Verily, in article <10o25e4$h5u2$2@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com deliver unto us this message:
Ah, yes. I remember how she was completely enraged when I told her I have a >> sisterYour sister rocks.
who is alive today because she defended herself with a gun when she was
attacked. And that she didn't freeze in fear for even a moment.
Even the rabidly anti-gun organization "Everytown for Gun Safety"
had to admit in 2025, after analyzing the 2019rCo2023 NCVS data, that
there are at least 70,000 legitimate DGUs annually.
On 2026-03-01 21:57:23 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:52:36 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
... I have a sister who is alive today because she defended herself
with a gun when she was attacked. And that she didn't freeze in fear
for even a moment.
That kind of thing is very rarely successful. Outside of a war zone,
the vast majority of deployment of guns tend to end badly.
In other words, for every one person like your sister, there are
something like 30 dead bodies of those for whom things didnrCOt turn out
quite so well ...
And probably at least another 30 where someone was killed without
being anywhere near such a situation where a gun could supposedly be
needed (e.g. kids playing with a gun).
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 22:33:54 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
Even the rabidly anti-gun organization "Everytown for Gun Safety"
had to admit in 2025, after analyzing the 2019rCo2023 NCVS data, that
there are at least 70,000 legitimate DGUs annually.
I wonder where you get that figure from? This page of gun-violence
deaths <https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls> shows only
1,164 instances of rCLDefensive UserCY in 2025 -- only about 3% of gun-violence deaths, which is consistent with the oft-quoted 30:1
ratio.
The figures also show that two-thirds of all gun-violence deaths in
the USA that year were suicides.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 11:04:44 +1300, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-03-01 21:57:23 +0000, Lawrence D-|Oliveiro said:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 19:52:36 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 wrote:
... I have a sister who is alive today because she defended herself
with a gun when she was attacked. And that she didn't freeze in fear
for even a moment.
That kind of thing is very rarely successful. Outside of a war zone,
the vast majority of deployment of guns tend to end badly.
In other words, for every one person like your sister, there are
something like 30 dead bodies of those for whom things didnrCOt turn out >>> quite so well ...
And probably at least another 30 where someone was killed without
being anywhere near such a situation where a gun could supposedly be
needed (e.g. kids playing with a gun).
The number-one cause of death among children in the USA is now gunshot wounds.
Detroit's gun homicide rate is far, far higher than the homicide
rate in rural Michigan despite the same gun laws applying to both
places.
On Mar 1, 2026 at 7:42:33 AM PST, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <179267364.794071571.311223.anim8rfsk-
cox.net@news.easynews.com>, did anim8rfsk@cox.net deliver unto us this
message:
When she says that, on screen, you can actually see
the interface running QuickTime movies.
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed. In the early days, when few
people knew anything about computers, they pulled some real boners. I
recall laughter in 1995 because some show had pasted a Mac desktop onto
the screen of an IBM.
I've always laughed at Hollywood's obsession with inserting bleeps and bloops into every scene where someone's working on a computer to let us know the computer is "thinking".
On Mar 1, 2026 at 1:23:35 PM PST, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <10o25bg$h5u2$1@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com
deliver unto us this message:
On Mar 1, 2026 at 7:42:33 AM PST, "The True Melissa"
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <179267364.794071571.311223.anim8rfsk-
cox.net@news.easynews.com>, did anim8rfsk@cox.net deliver unto us this >>>> message:
When she says that, on screen, you can actually see
the interface running QuickTime movies.
I've read that the screen contents have to be pasted in later, since
glare would prevent them from being filmed. In the early days, when few >>>> people knew anything about computers, they pulled some real boners. I >>>> recall laughter in 1995 because some show had pasted a Mac desktop onto >>>> the screen of an IBM.
I've always laughed at Hollywood's obsession with inserting bleeps and
bloops
into every scene where someone's working on a computer to let us know the >>> computer is "thinking".
One of my favorite things is the way that TV and movie pictures have
infinite resolution. "Zoom and enhance. Again. Again, again, again."
Then, instead of a realistic blur, we somehow read the writing on a
scrap of paper. Computers are magic!
There was a CSI:HORATIO episode where they managed to read a license plate in the reflection of someone's eyeball off a security cam tape.
The CSI shows are an example of how TV nonsense has a negative influence in the real world. When they were at their height of popularity, real-world juries expected the government to have all those gee-whiz super-duper techniques and equipment to find evidence. They had ridiculous expectations of
the abilities of the police because Hollywood made up nonsense and put it on a
TV show. It was difficult to convince juries that no, it's not really possible
to take video from a low-rez VHS convenience store security tape, blow it up 1000x, and get a reflection of the perp's license plate off the retina of a bum sitting at a bus stop across the street.
And typing furiously, and never once reaching for a mouse
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 20:57:40 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (21,026K bytes) |
| Messages: | 194,568 |