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.

In article , says...

On 4/1/14, 2:02 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


A Mac's niche in the working world used to be in graphics and video. That edge is practically non-existent these days.

The place I work is an engineering and software company. *All* of the work gets done on PCs running Windows. The President is a Mac guy, so he and 3-4 others have Macs on their desks for email, spreadsheets, and letters. They bought Macs for the conference rooms. They are fiddly and hard to use. Nearly everyone rolls their eyes and hates them.

I worked a project at one place where the clients were using Macs.
Had to convert many files so they could read them.
1995.
They eventually ****canned the Macs over a lot of protests.
People get attached to their favorite "toys".



Right, because nothing much has changed in personal computers in the
last 20 years... Sheesh.

That's why I provided the year. I'm hoping in the intervening time span
Mac addressed this weakness.
I understand they have. That's my only experience with Mac.
I recall the IT manager there showing me how "slick" the Mac GUI was.
But I was unimpressed. Made the appropriate "oh's" an "ah's" however.
I'm sure he got over the loss of his Mac just fine.
Some people dwell on the what "wallpaper" to put on their computer.
What screensaver or "theme."
Never was into that.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:37:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:22:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:00:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote:


You are still hitting the wall.
Regular chips are about tapped out.
We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling
processors to get quantum effects.
There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path.
They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses)


Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor
have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing
a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing
of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended)
is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall
processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will.

These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the
light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts".

I have read about it in the trade rags. It still seems to have the
intent of making shorter and marginality faster data paths.
When you are splitting hairs on the speed of light vs electrons on
copper, in a chunk of real estate the size of your thumbnail, there is
not much more speed to be had.
Now when they get this quantum computing thing going, they are off to
the races again. I doubt you will have that on your desk anytime soon.


The available bandwidth of an optical system is orders of magnitude
greater than that of copper conductors. Hence, more data can be moved
faster simultaneously.


AKA a wider data path. ;-)

Well...that *was* a bit funny!

On 4/1/2014 3:27 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:37:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:22:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:00:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote:


You are still hitting the wall.
Regular chips are about tapped out.
We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling
processors to get quantum effects.
There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path.
They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses)


Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor
have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing
a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing
of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended)
is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall
processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will.

These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the
light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts".

I have read about it in the trade rags. It still seems to have the
intent of making shorter and marginality faster data paths.
When you are splitting hairs on the speed of light vs electrons on
copper, in a chunk of real estate the size of your thumbnail, there is
not much more speed to be had.
Now when they get this quantum computing thing going, they are off to
the races again. I doubt you will have that on your desk anytime soon.


The available bandwidth of an optical system is orders of magnitude
greater than that of copper conductors. Hence, more data can be moved
faster simultaneously.


AKA a wider data path. ;-)

Well...that *was* a bit funny!



It has absolutely nothing to do with the physical size of the "path",
copper or laser beam.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:47:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/1/2014 3:27 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:37:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:22:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:00:08 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/1/2014 11:38 AM, wrote:


You are still hitting the wall.
Regular chips are about tapped out.
We are rapidly approaching the point that we will be super cooling
processors to get quantum effects.
There is only so much you can do to shorten the data path.
They are just making them wider. (multiple processors, wider buses)


Ummm ... I don't claim to be a semiconductor manufacturing expert nor
have a lot of experience in wafer fab but there are companies investing
a lot of research money into the optical replacement of copper tracing
of single, double and multi-level boards. The focus ( no pun intended)
is on reducing size and complexity. Not sure what gains in overall
processing speeds are achieved although claims are made that it will.

These are tiny, pin head sized laser diodes. The cool thing is that the
light paths can intersect others with no interference or "shorts".

I have read about it in the trade rags. It still seems to have the
intent of making shorter and marginality faster data paths.
When you are splitting hairs on the speed of light vs electrons on
copper, in a chunk of real estate the size of your thumbnail, there is
not much more speed to be had.
Now when they get this quantum computing thing going, they are off to
the races again. I doubt you will have that on your desk anytime soon.


The available bandwidth of an optical system is orders of magnitude
greater than that of copper conductors. Hence, more data can be moved
faster simultaneously.


AKA a wider data path. ;-)

Well...that *was* a bit funny!



It has absolutely nothing to do with the physical size of the "path",
copper or laser beam.

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!

Believe me, I wasn't trying to impugn anything you said. When y'all get into the technical stuff, I
keep well out of it.

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.

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 5:53:31 PM UTC-4, 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.

Early in my career, I laid out PC boards. Did it on a light table with tape, pre-cut pads and an Exacto knife. A lot was audio, with some microproccessor and logic control. I'm glad I moved on before things got so fast that you had to worry about electrons running off the end of right angle copper trace runs. The audio was interesting... lots of games played to reduce crosstalk between paths and to improve S/N. That was fun.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:17:55 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

And why are [you]
breaking the copyright laws ripping movies? An "author" ignoring
copyrights?

===

Harry thinks laws are for other people.

On 4/1/14, 3:02 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 4/1/14, 2:02 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


A Mac's niche in the working world used to be in graphics and video. That edge is practically non-existent these days.

The place I work is an engineering and software company. *All* of the work gets done on PCs running Windows. The President is a Mac guy, so he and 3-4 others have Macs on their desks for email, spreadsheets, and letters. They bought Macs for the conference rooms. They are fiddly and hard to use. Nearly everyone rolls their eyes and hates them.

I worked a project at one place where the clients were using Macs.
Had to convert many files so they could read them.
1995.
They eventually ****canned the Macs over a lot of protests.
People get attached to their favorite "toys".



Right, because nothing much has changed in personal computers in the
last 20 years... Sheesh.

That's why I provided the year. I'm hoping in the intervening time span
Mac addressed this weakness.
I understand they have. That's my only experience with Mac.
I recall the IT manager there showing me how "slick" the Mac GUI was.
But I was unimpressed. Made the appropriate "oh's" an "ah's" however.
I'm sure he got over the loss of his Mac just fine.
Some people dwell on the what "wallpaper" to put on their computer.
What screensaver or "theme."
Never was into that.


The file formats for the "big" apps seem the same on the mac or windoze
platforms... Office, Photoshop, et cetera. I've not had problems having
clients use my Mac files or importing their Windoze word files, et cetera.

wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:19:19 -0400, Earl wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTsLl0eOHwI
I wouldn't try it. I have a 1911 to shoot .45 ACP!
Don't go all "Harry" on us. You can safely shoot ACP in a modern .45LC
revolver, at least as far as pressures go.
The case size is compatible too.
The biggest difference is a real ACP head spaces on the case mouth and
an LC uses the rim..
If you could find .45 auto rim rounds they would be a drop in
replacement but I bet they are a pretty penny these days. They were
always at least twice what a name brand ACP round went for, even when
ammo was cheap.
I have a Judge and a 1911. No need for experimenting!