On 26/07/2021 15.45, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 19:57:57 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 25, 2021 at 11:04:08 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>> <op.063ls6u3mvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Bollocks, the fan makes no detectable noise when spinning at
>>>>>>>>> minimum speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can run at lower speeds because of the making use of
>>>>>>>> convection cooling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once it's spinning, convection cannot occur. The air is moving
>>>>>>> faster than
>>>>>>> convection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One force does not stop when another starts, and presumably the
>>>>>> fan is not
>>>>>> running all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Slow fans are not audible by humans.
>>>>
>>>> When needed they speed up... and I bet what you say is not audible
>>>> often is.
>>>
>>> Convection is not as good as a speeded up fan.
>>
>> Sure... but those made to work with convection have that as an
>> advantage. As
>> you note, though, there are tradeoffs.
>
> If it's coming through the same hole, convection does nothing at all
> when the fan is running.

Not fully correct :-)

The heat inside a chip goes to its surface by convection, and travels
the heatsink via convection, where it passes to the air flow.

Then there are areas inside a laptop that do not get forced air flow,
being far from the CPU. Some laptops dissipate heat via the keyboard,
for instance, and feel hot even with the fan flowing full blast - like
the laptop I'm using this instant.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2021-07-26 4:15 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <MtyLI.28285$Nq7.24380@fx33.iad>, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> what's your solution for reducing gun violence?
>>
>> Allow everyone to purchase and carry a gun. Criminals are less likely to
>> attack people who are able to fight back.
>
> criminals aren't the problem. most gun deaths are domestic disputes or
> mentally ill people going on a rampage.

I'm sure those negroes shooting one another a few streets down from here
and in places like Chicago are all having "domestic disputes."

> how exactly would the people attending an outdoor concert have been
> able to fight a shooter from a hotel window across the street, who even
> plotted bullet trajectories to maximize the carnage?

If you're referring to the event in Las Vegas, most of it smells of a
false flag. The United States government has a history of pulling stunts
like that to get people to do whatever it is that they want whether it's
start a war with Spain, enter the First or Second World Wars, go to
Vietnam or demonize guns. Most of it is declassified now and you're free
to see how noble the American government is.

>>> it's fashionable to bash 'the left' about censorship, but the reality
>>> is that 'the right' is actively trying to censor anything they don't
>>> like, including wanting to repeal section 230, which will not have the
>>> effect they think it will.
>>>
>>> trump demanded that parler ban anyone who criticized him, which is a
>>> direct violation of the first amendment. parler told him to get
>>> stuffed.
>>> <https://thehill.com/policy/technology/560682-parler-refused-to-ban-trum
>>> p-critics-to-get-him-to-join-book>
>>> Parler and former President Trump were in talks to get Trump on
>>> the platform, but they stalled after Parler refused to ban those who
>>> criticized the former president, Michael Wolff1s book about Trump1s
>>> last days in office says.
>>
>> I agree with Parler's decision.
>
> which means you also agree with facebook, twitter and youtube banning
> trump and many others.

Did they ban Trump because he asked them to censor people he didn't like?

Right now, you're basically lying but that's something habitual with
you. In Parler's case, Trump was _allegedly_ asking them to limit free
speech in his favour in exchange for his presence. Apparently, it
extended to them censoring anyone who was critical of Jews which would
explain why Gab wasn't even considered. In the case of Twitter, Facebook
and Youtube, they censored _his_ free speech because they didn't like
what he was saying regardless of whether it was true or not.

--
Rabid Roach
Immune to all _ist labels

On Jul 26, 2021 at 2:12:23 PM MST, "Rabid Roach" wrote
<WyFLI.72431$dp5.63899@fx48.iad>:

>
>> how exactly would the people attending an outdoor concert have been
>> able to fight a shooter from a hotel window across the street, who even
>> plotted bullet trajectories to maximize the carnage?
>
> If you're referring to the event in Las Vegas, most of it smells of a
> false flag.

How can you be so proud of your absurd conspiracy nonsense?
....
>>>
>>> I agree with Parler's decision.
>>
>> which means you also agree with facebook, twitter and youtube banning
>> trump and many others.
>
> Did they ban Trump because he asked them to censor people he didn't like?

Trump was banned from multiple groups for breaking terms of service.
Repeatedly. With warning.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 26/07/2021 15.42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 17:36:16 +0100, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2021 19.31, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:27:05 +0100, Carlos E. R.
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/07/2021 13.13, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>>   It's the difference between a car and a sports car. One
>>>>> is for transportation. The other is for fun or sport. You
>>>>> could drive the sports car for transportation, but it's expensive
>>>>> and your bag of groceries might not even fit in the trunk.
>>>>> Your kids won't fit in the seats. The only thing it's really
>>>>> good for is driving very fast and announcing to others that
>>>>> you have a lot of money. Very, very few people drive sports
>>>>> cars. And it's the same with computers. A computer is for
>>>>> doing work. A gaming machine is for fun. Who uses
>>>>> them? Computer geeks who never grew up and some teenage
>>>>> boys, mostly. But they do account for many of the advances
>>>>> in computer technology, thanks to the fact that teenage boys
>>>>> (and geeky office workers who can't get a date) want their
>>>>> fantasy naked girls to be as realistic as possible.
>>>>
>>>> I just remembered a poker game, in which we had to win the girls to get
>>>> them to undress, in B/W CGA graphics - We had to coach our best poker
>>>> player in our student residence to play it for us :-D
>>
>> Strip poker was the name, I think.
>>
>>>
>>> Did you ever play Leisure Suit Larry?  That was color EGA!  We played it
>>> at school.
>>
>> I think we did, but none in our group had a colour monitor (in the
>> 80's). I think, not sure, I got my first colour monitor in 1991. EGA or
>> VGA, I don't remember. Probably my graphics card was an "ATI Wonder +",
>> but I don't remember when exactly I got it.
>
> In 1991, I had a 386 SX (no maths co processor) 16MHz

Same as me :-)

Years later I found a spare coprocessor in a box full of parts and
plugged it in. Hum, I don't remember if it was for the 386 or the 8086.
Ie, a 387SX or an 8087.

> with a 14" colour
> monitor doing 16 million colours at 1024*768.  I very soon added a 1MB
> Cirrus Logic GPU for games, the Trident that came with it was slow as hell.

I did not worry about games speed, my worry was having a card with many
graphical modes so that any software I tried would find a mode they
could use. And that ATI card did just that.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2021-07-26 4:15 p.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <ZpyLI.28284$Nq7.14997@fx33.iad>, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> The "delta variant" is basically one that was created by those who
>>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>>> to get "vaccinated" with a concoction that is likely to kill them. It
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> more contagious but also less potent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nonsense. not one word of that is even remotely correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://nypost.com/2021/07/08/dont-buy-the-hysteria-the-delta-variant-is-
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> ctu
>>>>>> ally-less-dangerous/>
>>>>>
>>>>> that's an opinion piece. it's not authored by a physician nor does it
>>>>> reference any clinical studies.
>>>>>
>>>>> also, the ny post is not a credible source. they used a reference to
>>>>> shingles as a side effect of covid vaccines to try to make it look bad.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, what you just wrote is an opinion.
>>>
>>> what i wrote is based on current medical knowledge about covid, backed
>>> up by numerous clinical tests and research, and viruses in general.
>>>
>>> your claim that the delta variant was 'created' by those who were
>>> vaccinated is laughably wrong and shows a deep lack of understanding of
>>> basic biology, let alone medicine. it's not how anything works.
>>
>> You never asked for evidence and I therefore didn't provide it.
>
> you made a baseless claim and i called bullshit.
>
> it's up to you to provide proof that it's valid or admit you're talking
> out your tail.

Here's one and it's basic science:
<https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants>

"Mutant coronaviruses can make vaccines less effective. At the same
time, vaccines can contribute to virus mutations, but this is a slow
process that should be manageable."

In other words, you vaccine-pushing clowns are basically making the
situation worse.

< snip >

>> <http://www.indymedia.ie/vaccine_deaths>
>>
>> UK Vaccine Death Totals
>> Deaths from Pfizer vaccine: 456
>> Deaths from the Oxford Astra Zeneca: 983 and others 31
>> Total of: 701 now 847, now 1,470 official UK vaccine deaths.-see below
>>
>> European Vaccine Death Totals
>> Confirmed Vaccine Deaths 18,928 Injuries: 1.8 Million See here
>>
>> USA Vaccine Death Totals
>> CDC Confirmed Vaccine Deaths now running at 45,000+
>> Israeli Vaccine Death Totals
>> Confirmed Vaccine Deaths 309 estimated total: 1000 to 1100 See here
>
> that site is pure propaganda.
>
> not only do they call the vaccine experimental, but they call it gene
> therapy. both are false.

mRNA is not gene therapy?

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/>
"mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy"

<https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2021/02/24/mrna-its-gene-therapy-not-a-vaccine/>
"Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our
presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the
pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not
vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines
may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to
distinguish the difference."

<https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/83947/covid-mrna-vaccines-are-a-form-of-gene-therapy?fbclid=IwAR3LXsEeJm3OeGDvsxd8c8ET9A-fAqYi3ckap0l0oqf1yHFUkW9ePvzUzs0>
"COVID mRNA Vaccines are a Form of Gene Therapy"

How much more of your lies and propaganda do I need to expose?

> that's just the usual bullshit the wacko right-wing conspiracy sites
> spew.
>
> they are also attributing *any* death as due to the vaccine and not any
> other cause. how to lie with numbers.
>
> it's clear they have an agenda and you are blindly eating it up.
>
> so far in the usa, there have been more than 35 million cases of covid
> and more than 625,000 deaths.
>
> so far in the usa, nearly 350 million vaccine doses have been
> administered, with more than 150 million fully vaccinated, and only a
> handful of deaths that have been directly linked to the vaccine.
>
> do the math. hint: the difference is many orders of magnitude.
>
> there would need to have been many millions of deaths in the past six
> months, peaking in the sprint when several million jabs were given
> every day. that has not happened.

That's because they're lying about _all_ of their numbers from the
numbers of cases to the numbers of vaccinated. Your government is very
willing to make the claim that "everyone" is getting vaccinated to
encourage the sheep (that's you) to accept the poison.

< snip >

--
Rabid Roach
Immune to all _ist labels

Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 4:15 p.m., nospam wrote:
>> In article <ZpyLI.28284$Nq7.14997@fx33.iad>, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> The "delta variant" is basically one that was created by those who
>>>>>>>>> chose
>>>>>>>>> to get "vaccinated" with a concoction that is likely to kill them. It
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> more contagious but also less potent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nonsense. not one word of that is even remotely correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://nypost.com/2021/07/08/dont-buy-the-hysteria-the-delta-variant-is-
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> ctu
>>>>>>> ally-less-dangerous/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's an opinion piece. it's not authored by a physician nor does it
>>>>>> reference any clinical studies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> also, the ny post is not a credible source. they used a reference to
>>>>>> shingles as a side effect of covid vaccines to try to make it look bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, what you just wrote is an opinion.
>>>>
>>>> what i wrote is based on current medical knowledge about covid, backed
>>>> up by numerous clinical tests and research, and viruses in general.
>>>>
>>>> your claim that the delta variant was 'created' by those who were
>>>> vaccinated is laughably wrong and shows a deep lack of understanding of
>>>> basic biology, let alone medicine. it's not how anything works.
>>>
>>> You never asked for evidence and I therefore didn't provide it.
>>
>> you made a baseless claim and i called bullshit.
>>
>> it's up to you to provide proof that it's valid or admit you're talking
>> out your tail.
>
> Here's one and it's basic science:
> <https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants>
>
> "Mutant coronaviruses can make vaccines less effective. At the same
> time, vaccines can contribute to virus mutations, but this is a slow
> process that should be manageable."
>
> In other words, you vaccine-pushing clowns are basically making the
> situation worse.

You made that up as you failed to understand your own source.

> < snip >
>
>>> <http://www.indymedia.ie/vaccine_deaths>
>>>
>>> UK Vaccine Death Totals
>>> Deaths from Pfizer vaccine: 456
>>> Deaths from the Oxford Astra Zeneca: 983 and others 31
>>> Total of: 701 now 847, now 1,470 official UK vaccine deaths.-see below
>>>
>>> European Vaccine Death Totals
>>> Confirmed Vaccine Deaths 18,928 Injuries: 1.8 Million See here
>>>
>>> USA Vaccine Death Totals
>>> CDC Confirmed Vaccine Deaths now running at 45,000+
>>> Israeli Vaccine Death Totals
>>> Confirmed Vaccine Deaths 309 estimated total: 1000 to 1100 See here
>>
>> that site is pure propaganda.
>>
>> not only do they call the vaccine experimental, but they call it gene
>> therapy. both are false.
>
> mRNA is not gene therapy?

Correct — though it has the potential to be used in such.

> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/>
> "mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy"
>
> <https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2021/02/24/mrna-its-gene-therapy-not-a-vaccine/>
> "Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our
> presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the
> pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not
> vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines
> may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to
> distinguish the difference."
>
> <https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/83947/covid-mrna-vaccines-are-a-form-of-gene-therapy?fbclid=IwAR3LXsEeJm3OeGDvsxd8c8ET9A-fAqYi3ckap0l0oqf1yHFUkW9ePvzUzs0>
> "COVID mRNA Vaccines are a Form of Gene Therapy"
>
> How much more of your lies and propaganda do I need to expose?

How about you try to understand what you’re reading?

>> that’s just the usual bullshit the wacko right-wing conspiracy sites
>> spew.
>>
>> they are also attributing *any* death as due to the vaccine and not any
>> other cause. how to lie with numbers.
>>
>> it's clear they have an agenda and you are blindly eating it up.
>>
>> so far in the usa, there have been more than 35 million cases of covid
>> and more than 625,000 deaths.
>>
>> so far in the usa, nearly 350 million vaccine doses have been
>> administered, with more than 150 million fully vaccinated, and only a
>> handful of deaths that have been directly linked to the vaccine.
>>
>> do the math. hint: the difference is many orders of magnitude.
>>
>> there would need to have been many millions of deaths in the past six
>> months, peaking in the sprint when several million jabs were given
>> every day. that has not happened.
>
> That's because they're lying about _all_ of their numbers from the
> numbers of cases to the numbers of vaccinated. Your government is very
> willing to make the claim that "everyone" is getting vaccinated to
> encourage the sheep (that's you) to accept the poison.
>
> < snip >
>

More things you’re making up. Can you please try to use some evidence,
reason, logic, fact checking, even just some common sense?

—
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article <WyFLI.72431$dp5.63899@fx48.iad>, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch>
wrote:

> >>
> >>> what's your solution for reducing gun violence?
> >>
> >> Allow everyone to purchase and carry a gun. Criminals are less likely to
> >> attack people who are able to fight back.
> >
> > criminals aren't the problem. most gun deaths are domestic disputes or
> > mentally ill people going on a rampage.
>
> I'm sure those negroes shooting one another a few streets down from here
> and in places like Chicago are all having "domestic disputes."

there you go again, saying the quiet part out loud.

> > how exactly would the people attending an outdoor concert have been
> > able to fight a shooter from a hotel window across the street, who even
> > plotted bullet trajectories to maximize the carnage?
>
> If you're referring to the event in Las Vegas, most of it smells of a
> false flag. The United States government has a history of pulling stunts
> like that to get people to do whatever it is that they want whether it's
> start a war with Spain, enter the First or Second World Wars, go to
> Vietnam or demonize guns. Most of it is declassified now and you're free
> to see how noble the American government is.

nonsense. it was not in any way a false flag. that's just more ignorant
lunatic rightwing conspiracy bullshit.

you're also avoiding answering the question. no surprise there.

> >>> it's fashionable to bash 'the left' about censorship, but the reality
> >>> is that 'the right' is actively trying to censor anything they don't
> >>> like, including wanting to repeal section 230, which will not have the
> >>> effect they think it will.
> >>>
> >>> trump demanded that parler ban anyone who criticized him, which is a
> >>> direct violation of the first amendment. parler told him to get
> >>> stuffed.
> >>> <https://thehill.com/policy/technology/560682-parler-refused-to-ban-trum
> >>> p-critics-to-get-him-to-join-book>
> >>> Parler and former President Trump were in talks to get Trump on
> >>> the platform, but they stalled after Parler refused to ban those who
> >>> criticized the former president, Michael Wolff1s book about Trump1s
> >>> last days in office says.
> >>
> >> I agree with Parler's decision.
> >
> > which means you also agree with facebook, twitter and youtube banning
> > trump and many others.
>
> Did they ban Trump because he asked them to censor people he didn't like?

they banned trump because he violated their terms of service. it's
really quite simple.

actually, they let him get away with a *lot* more than most people
because he was the president, something which turned out to be a
catastrophic mistake.

ordinary people doing the same antics would never have lasted as long.

> Right now, you're basically lying but that's something habitual with
> you. In Parler's case, Trump was _allegedly_ asking them to limit free
> speech in his favour in exchange for his presence. Apparently, it
> extended to them censoring anyone who was critical of Jews which would
> explain why Gab wasn't even considered. In the case of Twitter, Facebook
> and Youtube, they censored _his_ free speech because they didn't like
> what he was saying regardless of whether it was true or not.

nobody censored trump's free speech.

trump can set up his own website and say whatever he wants there.

in fact, that's exactly what he did, but as it turned out, it received
very little traffic.

also, while he was president, trump could at any time call for a press
conference in the white house press briefing room, which he did many
times. he could also release pre-recorded videos, which he also did.

another method is sending a presidential text message to every
cellphone in the usa, which trump did once as a test. there's no way to
disable that, so even those who don't want to see/read what he has to
say will be forced to at least see the message before swiping to delete
it.

as an ordinary citizen, he can speak at various events, either at his
own rallies or as a guest at others, as did the one this past weekend,
all of which will get plenty of press coverage.

he can call radio & tv talk shows, which he also did. he was often a
guest on rush limbaugh, for example. talkhosts would jump at the chance
to have him as a guest, since it would drive up ratings.

he can also start his own podcast and/or write a book.

there are many more options available.

the claim that he is being censored is simply false. it has *no* basis
in reality.

the only thing he *can't* do is force a private company to host him,
which would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment and a key reason
why his silly little lawsuit will go absolutely nowhere.

i think responses for it are due this week (possibly next week), which
should be amusing reading. even a 1l could win it.

In article <kIHLI.34109$rr3.13833@fx34.iad>, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch>
wrote:

> >>>>>>>> The "delta variant" is basically one that was created by those who
> >>>>>>>> chose
> >>>>>>>> to get "vaccinated" with a concoction that is likely to kill them. It
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> more contagious but also less potent.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> nonsense. not one word of that is even remotely correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <https://nypost.com/2021/07/08/dont-buy-the-hysteria-the-delta-variant-
> >>>>>> is-
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> ctu
> >>>>>> ally-less-dangerous/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> that's an opinion piece. it's not authored by a physician nor does it
> >>>>> reference any clinical studies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> also, the ny post is not a credible source. they used a reference to
> >>>>> shingles as a side effect of covid vaccines to try to make it look bad.
> >>>>
> >>>> Similarly, what you just wrote is an opinion.
> >>>
> >>> what i wrote is based on current medical knowledge about covid, backed
> >>> up by numerous clinical tests and research, and viruses in general.
> >>>
> >>> your claim that the delta variant was 'created' by those who were
> >>> vaccinated is laughably wrong and shows a deep lack of understanding of
> >>> basic biology, let alone medicine. it's not how anything works.
> >>
> >> You never asked for evidence and I therefore didn't provide it.
> >
> > you made a baseless claim and i called bullshit.
> >
> > it's up to you to provide proof that it's valid or admit you're talking
> > out your tail.
>
> Here's one and it's basic science:
>
> <https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965703047/vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-o
> f-more-covid-19-mutants>
>
> "Mutant coronaviruses can make vaccines less effective. At the same
> time, vaccines can contribute to virus mutations, but this is a slow
> process that should be manageable."

that doesn't say what you think it does.

'this is a slow process' is key.

in unvaccinated people, it's not slow.

> In other words, you vaccine-pushing clowns are basically making the
> situation worse.

nope.

>
> >> <http://www.indymedia.ie/vaccine_deaths>
> >>
> >> UK Vaccine Death Totals
> >> Deaths from Pfizer vaccine: 456
> >> Deaths from the Oxford Astra Zeneca: 983 and others 31
> >> Total of: 701 now 847, now 1,470 official UK vaccine deaths.-see below
> >>
> >> European Vaccine Death Totals
> >> Confirmed Vaccine Deaths 18,928 Injuries: 1.8 Million See here
> >>
> >> USA Vaccine Death Totals
> >> CDC Confirmed Vaccine Deaths now running at 45,000+
> >> Israeli Vaccine Death Totals
> >> Confirmed Vaccine Deaths 309 estimated total: 1000 to 1100 See here
> >
> > that site is pure propaganda.
> >
> > not only do they call the vaccine experimental, but they call it gene
> > therapy. both are false.
>
> mRNA is not gene therapy?

correct, it is not.

> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817894/>
> "mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy"

In vitro­transcribed mRNA (IVT mRNA) is emerging as a new class
of drug that has the potential to play a role in gene therapy that
once was envisioned for DNA.

another link you do not understand.

'new class of drug that has the potential to play a role in gene
therapy' does not mean what you think it does.

the existing mrna vaccines are *not* gene therapy. full stop.

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/03/17/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-
are-not-gene-therapy-as-some-are-claiming/>
The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy because they are
not designed to alter or change your genes in any way. The U.S.
National Library of Medicine (NLM) describes gene therapy as a
technique that ³may allow doctors to treat a disorder by inserting a
gene into a patient¹s cells instead of using drugs or surgery.² For
example, doctors may be able to either inactivate or replace a
mutated gene that isn¹t functioning properly or place a new gene in
your body that will do something to combat a disease.

A gene consists of DNA and serves as the ³basic physical and
functional unit of heredity,² according to the NLM. Messenger RNA,
known as mRNA for short, is different from DNA. RNA stands for
ribonucleic acid. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA serves
as the library for instructions to produce different proteins. When a
cell wants to produce a protein, it uses the DNA to produce a copy of
mRNA. That mRNA then serves as a blueprint for the protein that is
built by the ribosomes in your cells. The DNA is in the nucleus of
the cell. The ribosomes are not. Thus, the mRNA from a Covid-19
vaccine will not go into the nucleus but instead will simply go to
the ribosomes, which in turn will manufacture the spike protein.

> <https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2021/02/24/mrna-its-gene-therapy-not-a-vaccine/>
> "Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our
> presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the
> pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not
> vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines
> may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to
> distinguish the difference."

'suggests that these are not vaccines'. that's your proof??? someone
*suggesting* something?

medicine *defines* them as vaccines. he is wrong.

>
>
> <https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/83947/covid-mrna-vaccines-are-a-form-of-gen
> e-therapy?fbclid=IwAR3LXsEeJm3OeGDvsxd8c8ET9A-fAqYi3ckap0l0oqf1yHFUkW9ePvzUzs0>
>
> "COVID mRNA Vaccines are a Form of Gene Therapy"

According to the Mayo Clinic website, ³Gene therapy involves
altering the genes inside your body¹s cells in an effort to treat
or stop disease.

the mrna vaccines do not do that.

> How much more of your lies and propaganda do I need to expose?

the only thing you're exposing is that you haven't any clue whatsoever
about how any of this works and fall prey to crazy conspiracy theories.

> > that's just the usual bullshit the wacko right-wing conspiracy sites
> > spew.
> >
> > they are also attributing *any* death as due to the vaccine and not any
> > other cause. how to lie with numbers.
> >
> > it's clear they have an agenda and you are blindly eating it up.
> >
> > so far in the usa, there have been more than 35 million cases of covid
> > and more than 625,000 deaths.
> >
> > so far in the usa, nearly 350 million vaccine doses have been
> > administered, with more than 150 million fully vaccinated, and only a
> > handful of deaths that have been directly linked to the vaccine.
> >
> > do the math. hint: the difference is many orders of magnitude.
> >
> > there would need to have been many millions of deaths in the past six
> > months, peaking in the sprint when several million jabs were given
> > every day. that has not happened.
>
> That's because they're lying about _all_ of their numbers from the
> numbers of cases to the numbers of vaccinated. Your government is very
> willing to make the claim that "everyone" is getting vaccinated to
> encourage the sheep (that's you) to accept the poison.

what evidence do you have to prove they're lying?

where can the real numbers be obtained?

are you among a secret cabal who is privy to the actual numbers, while
everyone else is locked out?

what possible reason would anyone lie about the number of cases,
hospitalizations and deaths, something which can easily be verified?

On 2021-07-27 12:17 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <WyFLI.72431$dp5.63899@fx48.iad>, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> what's your solution for reducing gun violence?
>>>>
>>>> Allow everyone to purchase and carry a gun. Criminals are less likely to
>>>> attack people who are able to fight back.
>>>
>>> criminals aren't the problem. most gun deaths are domestic disputes or
>>> mentally ill people going on a rampage.
>>
>> I'm sure those negroes shooting one another a few streets down from here
>> and in places like Chicago are all having "domestic disputes."
>
> there you go again, saying the quiet part out loud.

I have no intention of being "politically correct" and hide the truth of
what's going on to please you. The word literally means "people with
black skin" and isn't a pejorative in any way in the same manner that
"caucasian" isn't. However, the thought police decided that because some
ignorant twat somewhere _thinks_ it means the same thing as another
n-word then it must be banned. Hell, there are similar idiots going
around in Poland claiming that "murzyn," which means the same damned
thing is insulting because people like you won't be satisfied until all
of us are reduced to speaking in Newspeak.

>>> how exactly would the people attending an outdoor concert have been
>>> able to fight a shooter from a hotel window across the street, who even
>>> plotted bullet trajectories to maximize the carnage?
>>
>> If you're referring to the event in Las Vegas, most of it smells of a
>> false flag. The United States government has a history of pulling stunts
>> like that to get people to do whatever it is that they want whether it's
>> start a war with Spain, enter the First or Second World Wars, go to
>> Vietnam or demonize guns. Most of it is declassified now and you're free
>> to see how noble the American government is.
>
> nonsense. it was not in any way a false flag. that's just more ignorant
> lunatic rightwing conspiracy bullshit.
>
> you're also avoiding answering the question. no surprise there.

Because the question has nothing to do with what was said in the first
place. It would be like me saying that a round ball is optimal for
playing soccer and receiving a question such as "how would a round ball
be more suitable for playing football?" You snipped that part,
obviously, to suit your needs.

>>>>> it's fashionable to bash 'the left' about censorship, but the reality
>>>>> is that 'the right' is actively trying to censor anything they don't
>>>>> like, including wanting to repeal section 230, which will not have the
>>>>> effect they think it will.
>>>>>
>>>>> trump demanded that parler ban anyone who criticized him, which is a
>>>>> direct violation of the first amendment. parler told him to get
>>>>> stuffed.
>>>>> <https://thehill.com/policy/technology/560682-parler-refused-to-ban-trum
>>>>> p-critics-to-get-him-to-join-book>
>>>>> Parler and former President Trump were in talks to get Trump on
>>>>> the platform, but they stalled after Parler refused to ban those who
>>>>> criticized the former president, Michael Wolff1s book about Trump1s
>>>>> last days in office says.
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Parler's decision.
>>>
>>> which means you also agree with facebook, twitter and youtube banning
>>> trump and many others.
>>
>> Did they ban Trump because he asked them to censor people he didn't like?
>
> they banned trump because he violated their terms of service. it's
> really quite simple.

Which is not at all what Parler did, just like I said. He wasn't even a
member there when they _allegedly_ prevented him from coming in because
they weren't willing to play ball with his requests. They want us to
believe that they're all about free speech when they're banning people
for speaking freely
<https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/parler-app-ban-free-speech-trump-b1721710.html>.
In other words, they're trying to sell a service by making potentially
false claims about why the President is not there.

> actually, they let him get away with a *lot* more than most people
> because he was the president, something which turned out to be a
> catastrophic mistake.
>
> ordinary people doing the same antics would never have lasted as long.

Unless they visibly lean left, more on that later but here, in the
meantime
<https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning>.

>> Right now, you're basically lying but that's something habitual with
>> you. In Parler's case, Trump was _allegedly_ asking them to limit free
>> speech in his favour in exchange for his presence. Apparently, it
>> extended to them censoring anyone who was critical of Jews which would
>> explain why Gab wasn't even considered. In the case of Twitter, Facebook
>> and Youtube, they censored _his_ free speech because they didn't like
>> what he was saying regardless of whether it was true or not.
>
> nobody censored trump's free speech.

Lie. The social media platforms coordinated to ban him simultaneously.

> trump can set up his own website and say whatever he wants there.
>
> in fact, that's exactly what he did, but as it turned out, it received
> very little traffic.
>
> also, while he was president, trump could at any time call for a press
> conference in the white house press briefing room, which he did many
> times. he could also release pre-recorded videos, which he also did.
>
> another method is sending a presidential text message to every
> cellphone in the usa, which trump did once as a test. there's no way to
> disable that, so even those who don't want to see/read what he has to
> say will be forced to at least see the message before swiping to delete
> it.
>
> as an ordinary citizen, he can speak at various events, either at his
> own rallies or as a guest at others, as did the one this past weekend,
> all of which will get plenty of press coverage.
>
> he can call radio & tv talk shows, which he also did. he was often a
> guest on rush limbaugh, for example. talkhosts would jump at the chance
> to have him as a guest, since it would drive up ratings.
>
> he can also start his own podcast and/or write a book.
>
> there are many more options available.
>
> the claim that he is being censored is simply false. it has *no* basis
> in reality.
>
> the only thing he *can't* do is force a private company to host him,
> which would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment and a key reason
> why his silly little lawsuit will go absolutely nowhere.
>
> i think responses for it are due this week (possibly next week), which
> should be amusing reading. even a 1l could win it.

Meanwhile, people who called for violence and death on Twitter got a
pass from the service, including political leaders. The terms of service
only apply to people with conservative thoughts, apparently.

Why did Twitter decide to ban Project Veritas, for example?
<https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/16/twitter-refuses-to-show-evidence-project-veritas-james-okeefe-created-fake-accounts-to-justify-ban/>

What about child pornography?
<https://thetruereporter.com/twitter-refuses-to-ban-child-pornography-because-it-didnt-violate-policies/>

Why is Khamenei still around?
<https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/>

People who don't know what's going on will accept your lies but I don't.

--
Rabid Roach
Immune to all _ist labels

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:24:41 +0100, LegionX <MichaelAndAnneGlasser@griftersconjobsllc.com> wrote:

> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> One would think... but Gremlin was posting saying there was an explosion but he had not heard from himself.<
>
> Gremlin didn't post anything. We did. We again invite you to
> support your socking accusation snit. We supported ours when we
> called you out for socking up as Sigmond.
>
>> Gremlin is not the sharpest tool in the shed, no matter what name he posts under.<
>
> On Gremlins *worst days* he can still mop the floor

Is that his job?

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:48:03 +0100, LegionX <MichaelAndAnneGlasser@griftersconjobsllc.com> wrote:

> HHI <HHI@imaginary.friend.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> On 7/25/21 11:24 PM, LegionX wrote:> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> Wrote in message:> >> One would think... but Gremlin was posting saying there was an explosion but he had not heard from himself.<> > Gremlin didn't post anything. We did. We again invite you to> support your socking accusation snit. We supported ours when we> called you out for socking up as Sigmond.> >> Gremlin is not the sharpest tool in the shed, no matter what name he posts under.<> > On Gremlins *worst days* he can still mop the floor with you on> *any tech subject* with fuckin ease. Any of us can.> > Gremlin only posts under one handle
>
>> Shit. I forgot to mention Diesel.<
>
> Snit. Diesel isn't a sock of Gremlins. It's an old handle he used
> for the purposes of making things more difficult for the remailer
> who revealed they had newbie level usenet search
> skills.
>
> Would you like to try again girlyman?
>
>> You know what we mean you sock using asshole.<
>
> We aren't mind readers. And even if one of us was - snits is far
> too over self medicated on benzos and booze for us to read
> his.

Nobody fucking cares.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 19:59:34 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2021 at 11:01:33 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.063lovo2mvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:22:10 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-07-23 2:56 p.m., LegionX wrote:
>>>> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you so bored with your life that you reply to me about someone else?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. We are.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us sadly live in a city where the elected officials have
>>>> enforced another mask mandate. Due to covid delta variant spread.
>>>> We're back to remote office work. We are beyond bored.
>>>
>>> The "delta variant" is basically one that was created by those who chose
>>> to get "vaccinated" with a concoction that is likely to kill them. It is
>>> more contagious but also less potent.
>>
>> Nobody is sticking any shit into my arm.
>
> Nor is anyone asking to.
>
> I hope they start demanding proof of vaccination once it gets full FDA
> approval (which is likely coming soon).

By which time it'll have been long gone anyway.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 20:23:30 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2021 at 11:00:26 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.063lm0z8mvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:
>
>>>>> Right. It will not compete with gaming systems but for general use it is
>>>>> excellent. Was just using my wife's -- just to help set up calendars and the
>>>>> like, so I did not push it in any way. But the system was speedy and cool for
>>>>> the bit of web stuff, calendar fiddling, etc. that I did. Excellent little
>>>>> machine.
>>>>
>>>> If you're using it for a calendar, why are you buying anything fancy at all?
>>>> Get a 486.
>>>
>>> That's not the only thing the computer is used for.
>>
>> I cannot understand anyone using a computer and not needed colossal power.
>
> For me it is not about specs but what I can do with the system. For example,
> there was a discussion I saw yesterday where people were talking about how
> Usenapp (my Usenet client) does not have ROT13 built in. It used to but it was
> removed. So I added it. I do have to paste after it runs, but no need to run
> to a different system. Here:
>
> And the video on how I did that:
>
> https://youtu.be/s2r6tsdOfk8
>
> I have some services I should likely remove to make the menu shorter, but
> still just real easy to make (OK, I looked up the command line tool to make
> ROT13 that easy), and real easy to use. To me having that ability to add
> things to apps or to otherwise streamflow workflows is more important than
> specs.

Doesn't it annoy you if you click something, wait a few seconds, then wonder if you misclicked or it's being slow? So you click again, then get two of something, which slows it down even more.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 20:24:26 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2021 at 10:58:30 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
> <op.063ljs0rmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:52:44 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2021 at 10:36:50 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>> <op.061pvodtmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:
>>>
>>>>>>> I guess the issue is that Microsoft lost the desire to develop Windows RT
>>>>>>> (on Arm) due to the poor performance and unwillingness of third parties.
>>>>>>> That in turn meant intel didn't really have a market for a desktop Arm CPU
>>>>>>> so why would they bother?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple had the advantage of building both the OS and CPU together so that it
>>>>>>> was a mature product when launched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And they have millions of gullible users to pay through the nose for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Say I disagreed -- it is those same people you trust to voluntarily pay for
>>>>> services you think are important.
>>>>
>>>> I don't want anyone to pay for anything they don't use themselves.
>>>
>>> You don't use the fire department until you need it.
>>
>> You have home insurance. That would cover the fire department. But you could
>> choose to risk it and have no insurance.
>
> Home insurance does not pay for the fire department, they pay for fire damage.
> And they certainly do not pay to cover the 20+ fires burning within 20 miles
> or so of me.

They could if the government stopped doing so.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:19:32 +0100, LegionX <MichaelAndAnneGlasser@griftersconjobsllc.com> wrote:

> Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> get the hardware about half the price, but you don't have>> to pay for the OS.> > macOS has been free for the best part of a decade.You pay for it with the hardware...
>
>> he is talking about pirating.<
>
> Atleast he's only writing about it. He didn't go out of his way to
> do it though. You have.

Actually I pirate everything. I only paid for the hardware in front of me.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 18:24:13 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2021 at 1:58:48 AM MST, "Chris" wrote <sdltg8$g2b$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On 26/07/2021 00:10, Snit wrote:
>>> On Jul 25, 2021 at 3:25:04 PM MST, "Chris" wrote <sdkoc0$8aj$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess the issue is that Microsoft lost the desire to develop Windows RT
>>>>>>>> (on Arm) due to the poor performance and unwillingness of third parties.
>>>>>>>> That in turn meant intel didn't really have a market for a desktop Arm CPU
>>>>>>>> so why would they bother?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple had the advantage of building both the OS and CPU together so that it
>>>>>>>> was a mature product when launched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And they have millions of gullible users to pay through the nose for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing gullible about buying into a better product.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you could do what I did for a few people back when I was
>>>>> building desktops. Find the parts Apple use, build your "PC desktop"
>>>>> with them, then install Mac OS on it.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck finding an Apple M1 CPU and motherboard.
>>>
>>> Even with Intel Macs it is not as easy as many seem to think. And if you did
>>> do it there was no reason to think the machine would be supported,
>>
>> There's no need to think: it is utterly unsupported.
>
> I meant not even being able to run the never version of macOS. My wording was
> not clear though.

If you build it with parts that Apple use, the OS thinks it's an Apple and will behave exactly the same way.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 23:25:04 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 23:59:16 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:27:51 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/07/2021 17:52, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:53:50 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2021 at 9:36:39 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <op.06t8fdosmvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:50:00 +0100, David Brooks
>>>>>>>>>> <DavidB@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/07/2021 16:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do laptops take air from underneath which won't work on your lap?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It should come in one side and out the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Apple M1 MacBook Air which, I bought for Mrs B., does even have a
>>>>>>>>>>> fan! ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-air/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless they're worked out how to break the laws of physics, for a
>>>>>>>>>> powerful
>>>>>>>>>> laptop you need to get a lot of heat out of it, so I take it that's
>>>>>>>>>> a very
>>>>>>>>>> slow laptop?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. It is a very cool CPU.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.tomsguide.com/news/macbook-air-m1-benchmarks-revealed-and-they-destroy-windows-laptops
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course real world comparisons will not perfectly match benchmarks,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> there is more to speed than CPU... but overall the M1 chips are
>>>>>>>>> amazingly fast
>>>>>>>>> for the tiny amounts of power they consume compared to Intel chips.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure there's a similar chip for a normal computer. There's no way
>>>>>>>> someone has suddenly made them much more efficient, this is a gradual
>>>>>>>> process that's been going on for decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing "sudden" about it. Apple have been designing efficient
>>>>>>> processors for over a decade. The step-change is that they've
>>>>>>> successfully applied Arm processors to the pro/consumer computing space
>>>>>>> from low-power mobile device space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose you already know that Intel was in the ARM market
>>>>>> and got out. This is from 2006, to give you some idea
>>>>>> how long ago that was, that they dabbled in the stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theregister.com/2006/06/27/intel_sells_xscale/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a question of capability. Intel has lots of
>>>>>> employees, it also regularly does M&A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what is their strategy ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have the legacy handcuffs been taken off ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that (partially) what Windows 11 is ?
>>>>>> A kind of signal ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are many possible outcomes, but I've no idea
>>>>>> what ones make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess the issue is that Microsoft lost the desire to develop Windows RT
>>>>> (on Arm) due to the poor performance and unwillingness of third parties.
>>>>> That in turn meant intel didn't really have a market for a desktop Arm CPU
>>>>> so why would they bother?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple had the advantage of building both the OS and CPU together so that it
>>>>> was a mature product when launched.
>>>>
>>>> And they have millions of gullible users to pay through the nose for it.
>>>
>>> Nothing gullible about buying into a better product.
>>
>> Actually, you could do what I did for a few people back when I was
>> building desktops. Find the parts Apple use, build your "PC desktop"
>> with them, then install Mac OS on it.
>
> Good luck finding an Apple M1 CPU and motherboard.

I managed before.

>> Not only do you get the hardware about half the price, but you don't have
>> to pay for the OS.
>
> macOS has been free for the best part of a decade.

Free WITH the computer. Not on its own. I knew someone who would walk into a supermarket and come out with 500 carrier bags and no food. When challenged, she'd say they're free.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:10:15 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 25, 2021 at 3:25:04 PM MST, "Chris" wrote <sdkoc0$8aj$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess the issue is that Microsoft lost the desire to develop Windows RT
>>>>>> (on Arm) due to the poor performance and unwillingness of third parties.
>>>>>> That in turn meant intel didn't really have a market for a desktop Arm CPU
>>>>>> so why would they bother?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple had the advantage of building both the OS and CPU together so that it
>>>>>> was a mature product when launched.
>>>>>
>>>>> And they have millions of gullible users to pay through the nose for it.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing gullible about buying into a better product.
>>>
>>> Actually, you could do what I did for a few people back when I was
>>> building desktops. Find the parts Apple use, build your "PC desktop"
>>> with them, then install Mac OS on it.
>>
>> Good luck finding an Apple M1 CPU and motherboard.
>
> Even with Intel Macs it is not as easy as many seem to think.

It was fucking easy. Mainly just the motherboard needs to be the same, in my case it was Foxconn boards.

> And if you did
> do it there was no reason to think the machine would be supported, and if you
> ran into issues no way to get support from Apple, and Apple offers excellent
> support.

Who asks for support from Apple/Microsoft? We use Google.

>>> Not only do you get the hardware about half the price, but you don't have
>>> to pay for the OS.
>>
>> macOS has been free for the best part of a decade.
>
> You pay for it with the hardware... he is talking about pirating.

I'm a very naughty boy.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 23:52:47 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:

> On 2021-07-25 1:35 p.m., David Brooks wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 17:24, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2021 19.24, David Brooks wrote:
>>>> On 24/07/2021 14:31, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>> On 24/07/2021 10.17, David Brooks wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/07/2021 08:57, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 24, 2021 at 12:43:13 AM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
>>>>>>> <sdggah$fd1$2@hunterbd.eternal-september.org>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 23/07/2021 23:59, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [....]
>>>>>>>>>> And they have millions of gullible users to pay through the nose
>>>>>>>>>> for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing gullible about buying into a better product.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed! :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. I buy Macs when they serve me best for the least money. When
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> systems do I buy those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What hardware have you ever found which is BETTER than an Apple
>>>>>> product?
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "better".
>>>>
>>>> That's hard to define.
>>>>
>>>> Like a Rolls Royce is better than a Ford - will that do? 🤣
>>>
>>> Depends how you define "better".
>>>
>>> A Rolls Royce is not better than a Ford because whereas both transport
>>> me to the same places in a similar time, the Rolls Royce requires a
>>> secure parking at the destination, it is more expensive to acquire, and
>>> it is more expensive to maintain.
>>
>> Oh, you can't get to Heaven in an old Ford car
>> 'Cause an old Ford car won't get that far!
>>
>> https://www.boyscouttrail.com/content/song/cant_get_to_heaven-1339.asp
>
> I've never owned a Ford but I have owned a Chrysler-built Jeep and all I
> can say is that every time I hear a car pass by my house with an odd
> noise indicating that something is broken, it's a Chrysler. I don't
> think it's even humanly possible for any manufacturer to make cars as
> bad as they do.

I knew a mechanic who could tell me what make and model and age of car was passing, and what was wrong with it, just by the sound.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 23:59:32 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:

> On 2021-07-25 2:01 p.m., Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 20:22:10 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-07-23 2:56 p.m., LegionX wrote:
>>>> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>>> Are you so bored with your life that you reply to me about someone
>>>>> else?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. We are.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us sadly live in a city where the elected officials have
>>>> enforced another mask mandate. Due to covid delta variant spread.
>>>> We're back to remote office work. We are beyond bored.
>>>
>>> The "delta variant" is basically one that was created by those who chose
>>> to get "vaccinated" with a concoction that is likely to kill them. It is
>>> more contagious but also less potent.
>>
>> Nobody is sticking any shit into my arm.
>
> They're going to try to force you to do it before the end of the year if
> you're in the United States.

Fortunately I do not. Is this some leftist control freak shit from Biden? Trump would never force people to take a vaccine. You had a brilliant president and you threw it all away.

> It doesn't matter that the CDC has
> determined that the test is garbage and revoked its emergency use
> proving that the case numbers were severely inflated, they always
> intended to inject chemicals into you to severely compromise your health
> either immediately or eventually. They were just looking for an excuse
> to do so.
>
> See the 1976 Swine Flu "epidemic" or the American government's
> insistence that using DDT in the house was safe and every family should
> do it for proof that they truly don't care about the people.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:54:29 +0100, LegionX <MichaelAndAnneGlasser@griftersconjobsllc.com> wrote:

> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> Wrote in message:
>
>> How the fuck can you need to ask someone if you're involved in an explosion?<
>
> Welcome to a flaw in snit logic. Gremlin didn't write the post
> snit is writing about. We did.
>
> Snit has accused us of being a Gremlin sock - we've invited him to
> post the evidence supporting his accusation. To snit that meant
> he would just continue to repeat it. In snits mind. Thats what
> evidence means.
>
> Snit didn't accuse us of this until we busted him socking up as
> Sigmond and provided actual evidence to help us prove our
> accusation. We caught him using the same IP address posting as
> Sigmond as he did with Snit. He didn't even deny he made both
> posts until we specifically pointed out the fact we found the
> posts shared the same ip in plain sight in the headers. Once we
> grilled him good and tore both of his explanations for this so
> called ip forgery (hah yep on usenet with known servers that
> werent compromised) he started accusing us of being a sock of
> Gremlins.
>
> We know enough about you to know that like snit you dont earn an
> income. You're also mooch and like snit very well known as a
> troll. But you're different in the sense your not a harmful troll
> whos out to fuck people over. You just do it for kicks. We get
> that. Snit on the other hand is a real life dangerous
> narcisist.
>
>> Wouldn't it be obvious?<
>
> It should be. But this is snits story so the gaping holes in his
> "logic" are the reason he wrote what he did. Gremlin hasn't
> posted since June of this year. Snit has spent the time to
> continue badmouthing him every chance he gets. He really is that
> *jealous* of Gremlin.

Get a life.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:04:12 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/07/2021 19:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 23:59:17 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:44:50 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/07/2021 18:03, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 01:20:25 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2021-07-20 7:27 p.m., Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-20 5:47 p.m., Rabid Roach wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-07-20 12:36 p.m., Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:50:00 +0100, David Brooks
>>>>>>>>>> <DavidB@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/07/2021 16:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do laptops take air from underneath which won't work on your
>>>>>>>>>>>> lap?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It should come in one side and out the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Apple M1 MacBook Air which, I bought for Mrs B., does even
>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> fan! ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-air/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless they're worked out how to break the laws of physics, for a
>>>>>>>>>> powerful laptop you need to get a lot of heat out of it, so I
>>>>>>>>>> take it
>>>>>>>>>> that's a very slow laptop?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It actually has the most powerful and power-efficient mobile
>>>>>>>>> processor
>>>>>>>>> on the market. It truly is a marvel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They wasn't so bad i guess till they got run over by an M1A1. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I probably would have bought one when I was in the market for a
>>>>>>> laptop
>>>>>>> at the beginning of last month, if gaming weren't something I was
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> slightly interesting to me. In the end, it made more sense to get a
>>>>>>> mobile gaming laptop (which is more or less of the same size as the
>>>>>>> Macbook Pro) with a discrete GPU. This way, I have more than enough
>>>>>>> power to run all applications and games AND access to the largest
>>>>>>> library the world has ever seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the Mac mentioned above has no GPU? No wonder it doesn't need a
>>>>>> fan. Not really a computer without graphics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really that dumb...?
>>>>
>>>> I haven't been dumb above.
>>>
>>> Thinking that a laptop could be sold without a graphics chip says
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> You not realising I meant "dedicated graphics chip" says otherwise.
>
> Rowing back on what you said is not a good look.

I'm not, it's you that misinterpreted it.

>>>> By the way dumb means unable to speak.
>>>
>>> As you well know it has other meanings, which is what I was using.
>>
>> Those meanings are incorrect. You meant "stupid". "Dumb" is only used
>> in the lower intelligence countries like America.
>
> It was used correctly as you clearly understood what I meant.

After laughing at an Americanism.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:51:39 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:

> On 2021-07-26 9:39 a.m., Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 03:17:43 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-07-24 1:28 p.m., Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:31:07 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-07-22 11:44 p.m., AJL wrote:
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2021 at 8:48:29 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why you neanderthals still have guns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who is going to pay the government to stop people from having guns?
>>>>>>> You?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a US city I lived in around 40 years ago the city council voted to
>>>>>> buy guns (all types) from the public and then destroyed them. They had
>>>>>> lots of takers. The program lasted for a couple of years as I
>>>>>> recall. I
>>>>>> don't remember if it did any good at the time but currently the
>>>>>> city has
>>>>>> the same gun problem as the rest in its size class (6M pop metro).
>>>>>
>>>>> Buying back guns from lawful owners simply means that when the thugs
>>>>> who
>>>>> got them illegally decide to commit crimes, nobody will be able to stop
>>>>> them. If your country gives you the right and the ability to defend
>>>>> yourself, why the heck would you sacrifice it?
>>>>
>>>> The idea is the thugs are less likely to be able to obtain one (eg. by
>>>> stealing it from a legal owner).
>>>
>>> It's interesting reasoning but it doesn't seem to be realistic. Besides,
>>> considering how tyrannical the governments of the world have already
>>> become with their reaction to the Kung Flu,
>>
>> Agreed on that.
>>
>>> I am not sure that as an
>>> American, I would be willing to make it even easier for them to bully me
>>> around than it already is.
>>
>> The UK manages without guns.
>
> Actual Brits, whose ancestors have been there for hundreds or thousands
> of years are Christian, well-behaved and believe in manners. I imagine
> that amongst them, guns are of no use. However, I wonder whether the New
> Brits have resorted to other means to kill people now that guns are not
> available...
>
> ... oh wait, what's this?
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow-b1Cus1fg> "Birmingham knife crime
> overtakes London"
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msTmT16-nRU> "London on track for
> highest number of teenage killings in a decade"
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7pIO0F9y0U> "Knife crime on the rise
> in London"
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJGyhuiW57M> "London's murder rate
> worse than New York?"
>
> You can take the knife out of the killer's hands but you can't take the
> killer out. Those wonderful, peaceful "New Brits" from Africa will
> always find a way. I wonder if the Old Brits would have enjoyed having a
> way of defending themselves against the adherents to the "religion of
> peace?"

Knives are not as dangerous as guns, you could stop me killing you with a knife.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:54:26 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:

> On 2021-07-26 9:40 a.m., Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 03:19:16 +0100, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-07-24 1:29 p.m., Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:47:45 +0100, pothead <pothead@snakebite.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-07-23, Rabid Roach <rabid@roa.ch> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-07-22 11:44 p.m., AJL wrote:
>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 22, 2021 at 8:48:29 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why you neanderthals still have guns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who is going to pay the government to stop people from having guns?
>>>>>>>> You?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a US city I lived in around 40 years ago the city council voted to
>>>>>>> buy guns (all types) from the public and then destroyed them. They
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> lots of takers. The program lasted for a couple of years as I
>>>>>>> recall. I
>>>>>>> don't remember if it did any good at the time but currently the city
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> the same gun problem as the rest in its size class (6M pop metro).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Buying back guns from lawful owners simply means that when the
>>>>>> thugs who
>>>>>> got them illegally decide to commit crimes, nobody will be able to
>>>>>> stop
>>>>>> them. If your country gives you the right and the ability to defend
>>>>>> yourself, why the heck would you sacrifice it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gun control will never work.
>>>>
>>>> It works in the UK.
>>>
>>> That's right: there are no stabbings, people getting run over by vans
>>> driven by those devout to the "religion of peace" or explosions in the
>>> UK anymore. It's been at least a few days.
>>>
>>> When was gun control implemented again?
>>
>> Why would you expect a lack of guns to help with those? It helps with
>> the most easy way to kill someone. I can't knife you from a distance.
>
> That's not what I was saying. I was suggesting that even if you make
> guns more difficult to obtain, the killers remain.

But would find it more difficult to kill.

> If the United Kingdom
> were concerned about keeping their streets safe, they wouldn't let in
> those very well-mannered and peaceful migrants from Africa who worship a
> murderous pedophile who wrote a book demanding that anyone who doesn't
> have the same ideology must die. If discarding that trash is of no
> interest to them, giving the real Brits a fighting chance againt these
> barbarians wouldn't be such a bad idea.

I agree on the immigrunts.

On Jul 27, 2021 at 10:35:39 AM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.0669tpaemvhs6z@ryzen.lan>:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2021 00:10:15 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 25, 2021 at 3:25:04 PM MST, "Chris" wrote <sdkoc0$8aj$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess the issue is that Microsoft lost the desire to develop Windows RT
>>>>>>> (on Arm) due to the poor performance and unwillingness of third parties.
>>>>>>> That in turn meant intel didn't really have a market for a desktop Arm CPU
>>>>>>> so why would they bother?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple had the advantage of building both the OS and CPU together so that it
>>>>>>> was a mature product when launched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And they have millions of gullible users to pay through the nose for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing gullible about buying into a better product.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you could do what I did for a few people back when I was
>>>> building desktops. Find the parts Apple use, build your "PC desktop"
>>>> with them, then install Mac OS on it.
>>>
>>> Good luck finding an Apple M1 CPU and motherboard.
>>
>> Even with Intel Macs it is not as easy as many seem to think.
>
> It was fucking easy. Mainly just the motherboard needs to be the same, in my
> case it was Foxconn boards.

Motherboard and GPU and other components. And even then you might be one macOS
update away from not being able to use it (with the update).

>
>> And if you did
>> do it there was no reason to think the machine would be supported, and if you
>> ran into issues no way to get support from Apple, and Apple offers excellent
>> support.
>
> Who asks for support from Apple/Microsoft? We use Google.

I run into issue where Google has no answers.

>
>>>> Not only do you get the hardware about half the price, but you don't have
>>>> to pay for the OS.
>>>
>>> macOS has been free for the best part of a decade.
>>
>> You pay for it with the hardware... he is talking about pirating.
>
> I'm a very naughty boy.

You are.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.