Password avoidance

On 3/17/2010 1:13 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:05:16 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
> If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that Watt's
> Law has nothing to do with electricity.
>
> Your criticism of Char Jackson's error was otherwise valid, of course.
>
> I forget the name of another law: when you post a correction in Usenet, you
> will make an error in *your* post :-)
>

Murphy's <grin>

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:21:34 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
>> news:bp55vqwl557s.hi43aikry0fl$....
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:06:44 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:16:10 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1iyrelaie4mq9.rne4kjjejkyp$....
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm done with this
>>>>>>>>>conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this point, it is
>>>>>>>>>becoming
>>>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>>>>boring trying to ensure what I'm responding to is actually true or
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>something contrived or twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I
>>>>>>>>>do
>>>>>>>>>know
>>>>>>>>>the difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>>>>>>Respectfully,
>>>>>>>>>Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>>>>>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>>>>>>> promise sticks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't
>>>>>>> realized
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> respond further to his anger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P = V x I "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the word 'improper'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law
>>>>>> refers
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>One other thing I learned while I was schooling on electronics, you can
>>>>>use
>>>>>a dot in a formula in place of an x to indicate multiplication. Just
>>>>>thought
>>>>>you'd like to know, or not.
>>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>> No, a dot will look like a misplaced decimal point, but another
>>>> accepted means of showing multiplication is to put the two values
>>>> right next to each other, as in P = VI. Modern textbooks actually
>>>> prefer this form.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of textbooks and 'schooling', you've mentioned these things
>>>> multiple times in this thread. Is it because you're still a student?
>>>> If so, what do your textbooks say about a 240v appliance using less
>>>> power (and therefore costing less) than its 120v equivalent? I'd love
>>>> to see how you support that crazy position.
>>>
>>> Whatever is wrong with Dave, I don't think we can help.
>>>
>>> He even railed at me for a post where I partly supported his view :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>>
>> The only thing that's wrong with me is I don't tolerate people well who
>> only
>> post for the benefit of flaming or inciting. If someone has an
>> intelligent
>> input and can back it up with fact, if called upon, then they have all my
>> consideration. Someone who will only support their posts with beliefs,
>> assumptions or hearsay doesn't deserve anyone's consideration. Add to
>> this
>> people who won't look at evidence presented and keep reverting back to
>> their
>> assumptions are less than credible. I also am willing to admit when I'm
>> wrong, but will not accept claims I am wrong without evidence to support
>> that claim. I am perfectly willing to provide evidence, which I have done
>> repeatedly, to support my beliefs.
>> One other point, I wholeheartedly enjoy an intelligent communication with
>> anyone, I am always ready to learn something new and don't for one minute
>> believe any of my experience, schooling, training or knowledge makes me
>> more
>> right than anyone else, unless I can back it up with data.
>> I don't believe I railed at you and I don't remember you supporting my
>> views
>> in any way. One other thing I don't tolerate well is someone who will
>> attack
>> behind someone's back like you are doing with one of your groupies. I
>> don't
>> think I've done this with you or anyone else and don't intend to. If I
>> have,
>> please call it to my attention and I will make amends.
>> I will also state I put Char in my killfile so I don't see his posts. It
>> looks like he's replying to my posts and he asked a question. If he's
>> willing to discuss I'm willing as well, but again won't stay involved
>> with
>> someone who only posts assumptions.
>> Dave
>
> There's not a statement in this reply of yours that is borne out by your
> behavior in this thread. Not one. I mean this sincerely and literally.
>
If you are referring to yourself I think I have been respectful in all my
replies to you. If you are referring to others, sometimes people get the
rock thrown back at them.

> I have also seen no evidence that you understood anything that I said in
> any of my posts here, but plenty of evidence that you misinterpreted
> almost
> everything I posted, and the same for your interpretation of what Char
> Jackson posted.

I did in fact read all the links you posted and understood what you said. I
disagreed with most of what you posted in relation to electrical, and
provided links to back it up, how many did you read? The parts that were not
germane to the topic at hand I tried to ignore.

BTW, I don't even agree all that much with Char, but we
> didn't need to insult each other - or to insult you for that matter (at
> least until you started your series of insults and other ad-hominem
> arguments).

I did insult Char as he persisted in posting the same thing over and over
without any evidence to support his assumptions. And, it didn't look like he
was looking at any of the back-up links I provided for him either.
My memory isn't what it used to be, but as I remember it he started the
personal attack first. I, childishly I admit, responded in kind and finally
quit responding to his posts with no proof, just continued assumptions.
None of my arguments were ad-hominem, they were never presented as a proof
just because someone said it, I backed up all my presentations with links
for reference. I don't think I need to use them for either Watt's Law or
Ohm's law, but I presented them so others can verify for themselves what I
post if they choose.

> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:40:29 -0500, Dave wrote:

> None of my arguments were ad-hominem, they were never presented as a proof
> just because someone said it

You should look up the definition of ad hominem.

You continue to misinterpret my posts. I am unable to see any point in
posting any further replies to you. That's why I quoted & remarked on only
the one line above...since we can at least hope that you have and can
understand a dictionary.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:40:13 -0500, Bob I wrote:

> On 3/17/2010 1:13 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:05:16 -0500, Dave wrote:
>>
>> If you had looked at the link I provided, you would have seen that Watt's
>> Law has nothing to do with electricity.
>>
>> Your criticism of Char Jackson's error was otherwise valid, of course.
>>
>> I forget the name of another law: when you post a correction in Usenet, you
>> will make an error in *your* post :-)
>>
>
> Murphy's <grin>

No, it has another name. It is, of course, most probably a corollary of
Murphy's law.

I'm going to test my Googling ability. Hold on, I'll be back in a moment.

(A bit of time elapses)

OK, here's Murphy's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law

But what I wanted was Skitt's Law, which I found in the S's on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eponymous_laws

From where I quote it:
Skitt's law ¡X A corollary of Muphry's law, variously expressed as, "Any
post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error
itself," or, "The likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional
to the embarrassment it will cause the poster."

Look closely and notice that Skitt is not a corollary of *Murphy*'s Law,
according to the above.

Are we having fun yet? (I am!)

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:40:29 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> None of my arguments were ad-hominem, they were never presented as a
>> proof
>> just because someone said it
>
> You should look up the definition of ad hominem.
>
See if this one works for you.

> You continue to misinterpret my posts. I am unable to see any point in
> posting any further replies to you. That's why I quoted & remarked on only
> the one line above...since we can at least hope that you have and can
> understand a dictionary.
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

Sounds like more of the ad-hominem to me. But, whatever, thanks for wishing
me a dictionary. As soon as I get it I'm going to look up head-in-the-sand.
See, even I can get ad-hominemic. :-D
Dave

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:50:42 -0600, GreyCloud <>
wrote:

>Sam E wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:38:46 -0700, GreyCloud <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sam E wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:34:39 -0700, GreyCloud <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> You may be using a computer for 60 years or more. 60 years, and ONE
>>>>>> logon per day. Now you've got over 21,914 logons. At 5 seconds each,
>>>>>> that's more than 24 hours wasted on repeatedly entering your password.
>>>>> That is fine
>>>> What's "this"? Are you continuing to imagine that I was LIMITING
>>>> myself to ONE DAY? How many times do you log on during your LIFE? You
>>>> spend a lot more than 5 seconds logging on.
>>>>
>>>>> if it is your own computer.
>>>>> Do it at work that demands security, and you'll find yourself out of a job.
>>> That is totally ridiculous. All it takes is an outsider to get by
>>> password security and it is all over with. What the OP wants is not
>>> worth it.
>>
>> You replied to the wrong person. I asked questions.
>>
>>> I remember a DOD gal that managed a VMS cluster and she got pretty lazy
>>> and wrote down her password, only because VMS does not allow
>>> passwordless systems, and the system got compromised. She spent the
>>> next year going from government facitly to facility teaching security
>>> after that snafu.
>
>It isn't about how many times a year you have to login... why do you
>think MS provided a password mechanism in the first place?
>It helps to keep outsiders on the net from just waltzing in and snooping
>thru your files.

Yes, however I'm not talking about that. I replied to someone who said
"it only takes 5 seconds". I said that's not true. I said NONE of this
other junk. Bye.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:46:59 -0500, Dave wrote:

> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:40:29 -0500, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> None of my arguments were ad-hominem, they were never presented as a
>>> proof
>>> just because someone said it
>>
>> You should look up the definition of ad hominem.
>>
> See if this one works for you.
>
>> You continue to misinterpret my posts. I am unable to see any point in
>> posting any further replies to you. That's why I quoted & remarked on only
>> the one line above...since we can at least hope that you have and can
>> understand a dictionary.
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>
> Sounds like more of the ad-hominem to me. But, whatever, thanks for wishing
> me a dictionary. As soon as I get it I'm going to look up head-in-the-sand.
> See, even I can get ad-hominemic. :-D
> Dave

Actually, I see your reply as a pretty mellow post. Maybe we're getting
tied of yelling at each other.

Which would be a good plan, if it's possible.

I think of 21:00/9PM as pretty late here, but you seem to be posting at
around midnight. Maybe it's too late in the day to argue :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

"Dave" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:40:29 -0500, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> None of my arguments were ad-hominem, they were never presented as a
>>> proof
>>> just because someone said it
>>
>> You should look up the definition of ad hominem.
>>
> See if this one works for you.
forgot the link
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
>
>> You continue to misinterpret my posts. I am unable to see any point in
>> posting any further replies to you. That's why I quoted & remarked on
>> only
>> the one line above...since we can at least hope that you have and can
>> understand a dictionary.
>>
>> --
>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>
> Sounds like more of the ad-hominem to me. But, whatever, thanks for
> wishing me a dictionary. As soon as I get it I'm going to look up
> head-in-the-sand. See, even I can get ad-hominemic. :-D
> Dave

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
news:n2ld6u6ew0lh$.87a2g6itg6hm$....
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:46:59 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:40:29 -0500, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> None of my arguments were ad-hominem, they were never presented as a
>>>> proof
>>>> just because someone said it
>>>
>>> You should look up the definition of ad hominem.
>>>
>> See if this one works for you.
>>
>>> You continue to misinterpret my posts. I am unable to see any point in
>>> posting any further replies to you. That's why I quoted & remarked on
>>> only
>>> the one line above...since we can at least hope that you have and can
>>> understand a dictionary.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
>>
>> Sounds like more of the ad-hominem to me. But, whatever, thanks for
>> wishing
>> me a dictionary. As soon as I get it I'm going to look up
>> head-in-the-sand.
>> See, even I can get ad-hominemic. :-D
>> Dave
>
> Actually, I see your reply as a pretty mellow post. Maybe we're getting
> tied of yelling at each other.
>
> Which would be a good plan, if it's possible.
>
> I think of 21:00/9PM as pretty late here, but you seem to be posting at
> around midnight. Maybe it's too late in the day to argue :-)
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

It's 11 PM or so. I study for a while, then check mail and ng and study for
a while until I get tired. Since I retired I stay up a lot later than I used
to.
Dave

Dave wrote:
>
>
> "GreyCloud" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:12:29 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:11 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:35:16 -0500, "Dave" <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm done with this conversation. It is not only off-topic, at this
>>>>>> point, it is becoming very boring trying to ensure what I'm
>>>>>> responding to is actually true or not something contrived or
>>>>>> twisted. You need to trust me on this one, I do know the
>>>>>> difference, but am done with this topic.
>>>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>> This is the second time you've promised you were done with this
>>>>> thread, but you haven't slowed down yet. Here's hoping your latest
>>>>> promise sticks.
>>>> He's been done with this thread for a long time, only he hasn't
>>>> realized it
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> He seems to have substituted insults for understanding. I see no
>>>> need to
>>>> respond further to his anger.
>>>
>>> Just for fun, I looked up his URL. Here's a copy & paste from it:
>>>
>>> "Watt's law is an improper name used for the Basic Power Formula:
>>>
>>> P = V x I "
>>>
>>> Note the word 'improper'.
>>>
>>> He couldn't seem to figure out that since the proper Watt's Law
>>> refers to
>>> steam, it doesn't refer to electricity. Par for his course, ISTM.
>>>
>>> Because of a font problem I replaced the dot in the formula above
>>> with an
>>> x.
>>>
>>> Now I ramble a bit:
>>> Useful random fact: 746 W = 1 HP. 'Watt' is the metric (SI) unit of
>>> power,
>>> equal to one Joule/sec, and of course it is not in any way restricted to
>>> electrical contexts.
>>>
>>
>> I think he is referring to James Watt. There isn't any Watts law in
>> respect to electrical systems.
>
> Actually, James Watt never performed any electrical experiments, but
> there is a Watt's Law that is used in electrics and electronics.

Of course we always have the P=IE equation that is explained in physics
books. There are also plenty of explanations in the physics books on
how it has been equated to James Watt. In this I can quote:

"WORK, POWER, AND ENERGY ... Before we can discuss the next important
part of this lesson, power in d-c circuits, it is important that you
know the difference between work, power, energy.

In a scientific sense, work is the overcoming of the opposition. A man
does work when he lifts a crated television set from the warehouse
platform into a truck or when he drags the crate along the platform. But
the man does no work at all, in the scientific sense of the word, no
matter how hard he pushes or pulls if he does not lift or move the
crate. If the resistance offered by the crate to being moved is not
overcome, no work is done.

Work is measured by the product of a force times the distance through
which the force moves. In a mechanical system, the most common unit of
work is the foot-pound.

In an electrical system, work is measured in watthours or
kilowatt-hours. One kilowatthour of work in an electrical system equals
approximately 2,660,000 ft-lb (foot-pounds) of work.

The work done by a man carrying a 50-lb audio amplifier up a flight of
stairs 12 ft high is 50 lb X 12 ft = 600 ft-lb. From the standpoint of
work done, it makes no difference whether the man does the job in an
hour or in a minute.

But the amount of power required to do the job does depend on time. The
amount of power required to do a job in one minute is 60 times the power
required to do it in one hour. The term "power" includes the idea of
time. Power is the speed, or rate, of doing work. Then,


power = work or work = power X time
----
time

The popular unit for measuring power in mechanical systems is the
horsepower. If a machine can do 33,000 ft-lb of work in one minute, its
power is one horsepower.

The practical units of power in electrical circuits are the watt and
kilowatt. One kilowatt (abbreviated kw) equals 1000 watts. Horse-power
and watts are related as follows:

1 hp = 746 watts

1 kw = 1.34 hp

The work done in an electrical circuit, kilowatthours, equals the power
in kilowatts times the number of hours. For example, if the power
required to operate a motor is 2 kw and the motor operates for 7 hr, the
work done is 2 X 7 = 14 kwhr (kilowatthours).

Energy is the capacity to do work. For example, if a battery is able to
do 1 kwhr of work before it must be recharged, the energy stored by the
battery is 1 kwhr. The difference between work and energy is that work
is what has been done by a device, while energy indicates the amount of
work which a source of energy is able to do.

There are many types of energy. A moving car, for example, has
mechanical energy. A charged battery has chemical energy. A hot stove
has heat energy.

An important concept about energy is that, when work is done, the energy
used to do the work is never used up; it is simply changed from one form
to another.

For example, suppose a charged battery causes current to flow in a
circuit. Chemical energy of the battery has changed to electric energy
in the circuit. Suppose the electric energy of the circuit causes a
vacuum-tube filament to heat up; now the electric energy has changed to
heat energy. When someone talks into a microphone and thus generates an
input signal to an amplifier, the acoustic energy of the sound waves is
changed into electric energy."

From my old physics handout lab sheets back in 1965.

> It is
> taken from James Watt since what we are measuring in this electrical
> application is power. Since it is a measure of power (which Law Watt did
> compile), it is directly related to a unit of energy called a Joule and
> indirectly related to Horsepower. Neither of those terms are used much
> in electrical analysis, but when or if you attend a program on
> electronics you will learn how to apply these and cross-check between
> any or all of them, or either get a bad grade or flunk out. All of these
> units of measurement are standards in electricity and used constantly.
> It has no bearing on steam and/or mechanical energy producing devices
> that Watt did perform experiments on, other than it is related due to it
> being a measure of a form of power, amount of electrons that move past a
> noted point at a noted rate of flow for a noted period of time.
> You don't have to take my word for any of this, search for Watt's Law
> and you will see references that show this is a Law describing
> electrical power. If you read long enough you will find all the
> information I've posted here, which agrees with your assessment for the
> most part, and if you don't read far enough you may come to the
> conclusion Watt's Law has nothing to do with electrical and you would be
> mistaken.
>
> There is a connection tho that watts
>> really refers to how much work is done, and in this sense heat is
>> released due to the work.
>
> You are indirectly correct in this as heat is a byproduct of power, in
> this case electrical, and has to be factored in whenever you move past
> the simplistic parts of circuit analysis.
>
> I think that a good read in a physics book
>> shows the connection. The above that you posted pretty much ties it
>> all together. I know that resistors have power ratings given to them,
>> such as 1/8W, 1/4W, 1/2W, etc. Exceed the power rating and watch some
>> smoke.
>
> There's some fun in letting the smoke out. :-D

The worst smelling component is the old selenium rectifier. Phew!