Poquito Loco wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:24:03 -0400, Earl wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:06:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:56:51 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:39:01 AM UTC-7, John H. wrote:

Well, I see one must use a 'moon clip' to fire the .45ACP rounds in the S&W. Ever used one of those?

Looks like you'd have to slide the rounds in the moon clip, and then slide all the clipped rounds

into the cylinder.



http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765853_-1_757842_757839_757837_ProductDisplayErrorView_N
Yes, the 'moon' clips were originated in WWI so the Brits could fire the .45 ACP in their .45 Webley revolvers. And that's OK for the Judge, but I'd just as soon use .410's if I had one.
I don't think Taurus makes the moon clips for the Judge, as S&W does for the Governor. However, upon
looking, I came across this:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/492...e-package-of-5

I don't know what Taurus says about this. One video says that 'it is not recommended by the weapon
manufacturer. But, they seem to work pretty well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTsLl0eOHwI
Moon clips may be old school technology but it is basically a speed
loader if they are designed to actually hold the case. You can throw a
cylinder full of rounds in with one move.
You don't even need to remove the loader like you do with one of these

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/2-HKS586A
I don't have a speed loader for either revolver, and I can't see how it would be any advantage
except in a 'shoot 'em out' situation. Or am I, in my almighty ignorance, missing something here?
I have four revolvers but only three could benefit from a speed loader.
I'm not in a hurry to load 5,6 or 8 rounds that much faster. You have
to load the speed loader first so that's a waste of time unless it's for
a competition or your are a really bad shot and need a quick reload for
home defense.
'Except for a competition' seems to be the governing phrase.
Yep.

On 4/1/14, 9:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:32:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Apple is great for arty people who don't really want a computer.



That's just plain silly.
Why is that? You seem to embrace getting as far from the actual
computer details as you can get. You want a cartoon interface and a
support structure that walks you through the most mundane tasks.,



That's even sillier.

What "actual computer details" am I getting as far away as I can from?

I know what the major components are inside my iMac and my Macbook Air.
I don't have a reason to swap any of them out. They work just fine as an
integrated hardware system. I have no need to unsolder the components on
my computer motherboards and replace them with the stuff you find at
computer swap meets.

And, gosh, I've never even seen the motherboard on my server, which runs
under Linux.

And I have no idea what you mean by a "cartoon" interface. Do you? The
Mac OS is built on Unix. That's just more nonsense on your part, built,
probably, on ignorance. I have my "interface" set up the way I want.
It's easy to customize.

It's certainly true that Apple offers a far superior "support structure"
to the crappy support stucture that Microsoft and those hardware vendors
that run Windoze offer. It's nonsense to say that Apple's support
structure is somehow a negative.

I think your computer grapes are exceedingly...sour.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:26:10 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

And I have no idea what you mean by a "cartoon" interface. Do you? The
Mac OS is built on Unix. That's just more nonsense on your part, built,
probably, on ignorance. I have my "interface" set up the way I want.
It's easy to customize.

It's certainly true that Apple offers a far superior "support structure"
to the crappy support stucture that Microsoft and those hardware vendors
that run Windoze offer. It's nonsense to say that Apple's support
structure is somehow a negative.

I think your computer grapes are exceedingly...sour.

===

I am once again reminded of why it is foolish to mud wrestle with
pigs.

On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and
Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider
path' sound pretty similar!

===

There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to
send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is
presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density
and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into
multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like
converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle
more cars.


In the old days we called it "multiplexing" of which there are many
forms or types. The same "road" is used but is shared in terms of the
time it is used.

In RF communications systems capacity is frequency dependent. The
higher the frequency, the more data can be transmitted over the same
"road". Optical systems are orders of magnitude higher in "frequency"
and are expressed in wavelengths and the capacity is increased
correspondingly. Multiple "connections" to a processor that required
several physical roads can be combined into one also.

The other benefit (as previously mentioned) is the ability for optical
paths to cross and intersect, unlike physical copper tracing.

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:22:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:24:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and
Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider
path' sound pretty similar!

===

There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to
send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is
presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density
and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into
multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like
converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle
more cars.


In the old days we called it "multiplexing" of which there are many
forms or types. The same "road" is used but is shared in terms of the
time it is used.

In RF communications systems capacity is frequency dependent. The
higher the frequency, the more data can be transmitted over the same
"road". Optical systems are orders of magnitude higher in "frequency"
and are expressed in wavelengths and the capacity is increased
correspondingly. Multiple "connections" to a processor that required
several physical roads can be combined into one also.

The other benefit (as previously mentioned) is the ability for optical
paths to cross and intersect, unlike physical copper tracing.

You still have to keep those pipes full and the only way they can do
it is with a bunch of processors because they have hit the wall on how
fast they can go,

That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore.
They just talk about how many "cores" they have.

===

Yes, and now we need more software apps that are capable of using
those cores effectively. Unfortunately XP does not do a good job
supporting multi-cores either. It is currently, and most probably
always, limited to two cores if my memory is correct.

On 4/2/14, 12:22 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:24:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 5:53 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:02:33 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

I believe you, but it was just humorous. You referred to 'available bandwidth' being greater, and
Greg talked about a 'wider path'. Well, to a rank amateur like me, 'greater bandwidth' and 'wider
path' sound pretty similar!

===

There are basically two ways to achieve greater bandwidth. One is to
send data at higher speed in a single stream. That works but it is
presently running up against the speed of light, as well as density
and cooling issues. The second way is to break up the data into
multiple parallel streams, i.e., "a wider path", sort of like
converting a two lane road into a 3 or 4 lane road so it can handle
more cars.


In the old days we called it "multiplexing" of which there are many
forms or types. The same "road" is used but is shared in terms of the
time it is used.

In RF communications systems capacity is frequency dependent. The
higher the frequency, the more data can be transmitted over the same
"road". Optical systems are orders of magnitude higher in "frequency"
and are expressed in wavelengths and the capacity is increased
correspondingly. Multiple "connections" to a processor that required
several physical roads can be combined into one also.

The other benefit (as previously mentioned) is the ability for optical
paths to cross and intersect, unlike physical copper tracing.

You still have to keep those pipes full and the only way they can do
it is with a bunch of processors because they have hit the wall on how
fast they can go,

That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore.
They just talk about how many "cores" they have.



I see computers advertised all the time with spec's showing the speed of
the processor(s).

Under "specifications" on this page, Apple "specifies" what processor is
being used and what its clock speed is -

http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/

Those speeds are higher than in the previous generation of Mac computers.

When you click for more details on specific models, you get this sort of
page:

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/im.../A&step=config

If you click on an HP page, the specs show the processor speeds:

http://tinyurl.com/ls5noup

On Wed, 2 Apr 2014 08:03:23 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:53:58 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:20:37 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:07:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:25:51 -0700 (PDT), Tim

wrote:



Anyone? Who knows, maybe those damn pythons will work their way up here!



john, I've handled and shot one. I was impressed with it's size, but not the price. One neat thing about it is that it will handle a .410 shotgun slug! Easy to handle with no really distinctive kick. If you load it with bird shot it's great against critters.



I always wondered why a .410 slug would be more effective than a hot

load in .45LC.

To start with the powder charge in a .410 would be optimized for a 20"

or longer barrel. I would expect a major part of the powder to burn

after the slug left the muzzle.

I know guys who were serious about performance loaded very fast

powders for their "snubbies" to squeeze out maximum velocity.

Shotgun powders are pretty slow.

But at close range, (like snakes or rats or home intruders) I can't see it would make any difference. I know there are people out there that study loading to a science, but I never was one of them. If the round is easy to come up with at a reasonable cost, that's for me.

I know a guy that has a .500 SW.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/therundown/5.jpg

That shell is just plain angry. I've shot it and it's close to being a wrist breaker. And approx $3.00 a shot.

He thinks it's cool. I think "what's the point?"

===

It's a "show gun" and conversation piece, not much more. I suppose if
you are into shooting buffalos or grizzly bears at short range it
might have some value.

Looks like it is used, blow-by on the cylinder. If I was in the
Northwest or Alaska I would want to carry one when I was out in the
wood. A bear wouldn't feel or be bothered by a 9mm or 38.

I just wonder if a Judge loaded with .410 #4 shot aimed at the eyeballs from a short distance
wouldn't discourage a bear. Don't know as I'd want to experiment, but I've been wondering about that
since someone mentioned grizzly bears.

No **** there I was staring at this 9 foot tall bear. The bear was
standing, roaring and waving its massive paws about 20 feet away. I
pulled my Taurus Judge loaded with .410 #4 shot and aimed towards his
face and pulled the trigger.

Saint Peter finally spoke up and said welcome to heaven, you should have
carried the .500.

Well, you gotta respect what St. Peter says!

On 4/2/14, 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:48:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:22:39 -0400, wrote:

That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore.
They just talk about how many "cores" they have.

===

Yes, and now we need more software apps that are capable of using
those cores effectively. Unfortunately XP does not do a good job
supporting multi-cores either. It is currently, and most probably
always, limited to two cores if my memory is correct.

If I get a quad core machine I suppose I will need newer software, I
understand that but I do not need that extra speed for anything I do.
I doubt most people do either but they just want the next new thing
for some reason.
Harry's only excuse is he saves a few seconds ripping DVDs he will
never watch to the humongous file server he bought, just to fill it up
I suppose.



I offered up one example of an app I use, and you build your negative
universe off of that one example? Some science guy you are.

It's not a few seconds, by the way. My desktop computer transcodes DVDs
in about half the time of the Windows computer I used to use. That a
savings of at least 15 minutes on each transcode. Part of it is
software, part of it is hardware, part of it is the Apple OS.

And, in fact, I do watch many of my old favorite movies a couple of
times a year. They only take up a small portion of the space available
on our "humongous" file server. Of course, we don't have to have a half
dozen antique computers flopped around the house, eh?

My wife prefers to run her Mathematica9 projects on my iMac instead of
on her Win 7 i5 machine, which is only about 18 months old. Calcs and
procedures run a hell of a lot faster on the Mac.

On 4/2/14, 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 11:15:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/2/14, 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:48:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:22:39 -0400, wrote:

That is why we don't see faster processor speeds advertised anymore.
They just talk about how many "cores" they have.

===

Yes, and now we need more software apps that are capable of using
those cores effectively. Unfortunately XP does not do a good job
supporting multi-cores either. It is currently, and most probably
always, limited to two cores if my memory is correct.

If I get a quad core machine I suppose I will need newer software, I
understand that but I do not need that extra speed for anything I do.
I doubt most people do either but they just want the next new thing
for some reason.
Harry's only excuse is he saves a few seconds ripping DVDs he will
never watch to the humongous file server he bought, just to fill it up
I suppose.



I offered up one example of an app I use, and you build your negative
universe off of that one example? Some science guy you are.

It's not a few seconds, by the way. My desktop computer transcodes DVDs
in about half the time of the Windows computer I used to use. That a
savings of at least 15 minutes on each transcode. Part of it is
software, part of it is hardware, part of it is the Apple OS.

so you rip some DVDs that is what I said

Among other things.


And, in fact, I do watch many of my old favorite movies a couple of
times a year. They only take up a small portion of the space available
on our "humongous" file server. Of course, we don't have to have a half
dozen antique computers flopped around the house, eh?

How do these movies get from the file server to your TV?


Through the magic of wi-fi. Modern computers, servers, TV sets, DVD
players, and boxtop devices have wired/wireless router hookup
capabilities, and that means they can communicate with each other.
Perhaps you can trade in that 300 bps Hayes...


\
My wife prefers to run her Mathematica9 projects on my iMac instead of
on her Win 7 i5 machine, which is only about 18 months old. Calcs and
procedures run a hell of a lot faster on the Mac.


Sure

Oh, they do. My wife works a lot with math, stats, et cetera. She took a
*lot* of upper level math and stat courses to get her M.S. and Ph.D, and
use them to help along various research projects in which she is involved.

On 4/2/14, 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:35:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/2/14, 11:41 AM, wrote:

How do these movies get from the file server to your TV?


Through the magic of wi-fi. Modern computers, servers, TV sets, DVD
players, and boxtop devices have wired/wireless router hookup
capabilities, and that means they can communicate with each other.
Perhaps you can trade in that 300 bps Hayes...

I know how it CAN be done, I was asking how you do it.


\
My wife prefers to run her Mathematica9 projects on my iMac instead of
on her Win 7 i5 machine, which is only about 18 months old. Calcs and
procedures run a hell of a lot faster on the Mac.


Sure

Oh, they do. My wife works a lot with math, stats, et cetera. She took a
*lot* of upper level math and stat courses to get her M.S. and Ph.D, and
use them to help along various research projects in which she is involved.

There is no reason why a pure math program wouldn't run very fast on a
286, particularly if you had the math co processor..
We went to the moon with slower machines.
It is only the bloated operating systems that need the extra speed.


Mathematica will run on XP, SP3, the box says. It prefers a 64-bit OS on
Macs. I have no idea how fast it will run on obsolete gear and OS, though.