From: ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid   
      
   On Mon, 03 Jun 2013, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article   
   <_YqdnT5rY4tvATHMnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@posted.lerostechnologies>, Jim Beard wrote:   
      
   >>> What is a "standard" HDMI?   
      
   >My ignorance was showing at that point.  Just not in full   
   >magnitude.  The connector on the monitor was for DVI, not HDMI at   
   >all.   
      
   No problem - I see where you got things straightened out.   HDMI to   
   DVI cables are readily available.   
      
   >Your library is larger, but the 200 count was for smoking pipes.   
   >  The type you stuff tobacco in, and incinerate.  Tobacco is held   
   >to be an evil weed, and I am intent on destroying by fire all   
   >that comes into my hands.  I have about 70 pounds in the queue at   
   >the moment, but there is a thing called TAD (tobacco acquisition   
   >disorder) that afflicts me now and then, and the stockpile grows.   
   >  I try to balance things with more PAD (pipes acquisition   
   >disorder), but they never equal out so I keep surging ahead with   
   >first one and then the other...   
      
   -)   I never got into pipes,  but you don't need more pipes, you   
   need to be burning more of the nasty weed,   
      
   >My "literature and culture" books are upstairs in bookcases   
   >mostly containing my wife's collection.  My office has two tall   
   >bookcases and one short one, totaling less than 40 linear feet of   
   >shelf space but with every shelf capable of holding a book 12" or   
   >more in height.   
      
   When we moved here, I built new book cases, 4 feet wide, roughly 88   
   inches tall in four depths and shelf spacing - they're tall enough   
   that they can just be tipped over in an 8 foot tall room.  They vary   
   from 7" spacing (36 linear foot per case) to 11, 15 and 18" (to 20   
   feet per), The technical books (computer and aviation) have their   
   own bookcases, plus the shelves over the work-stations.   
      
   >As a kid in rural Oklahoma, buying books really was not a good   
   >use of money, but my mother was a school teacher and we made lots   
   >of trips to the county library (10,000 books -- impressive to me   
   >at the time, and looking back impressive in terms of what it held   
   >rather than just number of books).   
      
   Mom/dad had relatively few books as well, but the city libraries had   
   an excellent selection. My grades in high-school were good enough   
   that I wasn't required to take "study hall", but spent time as an   
   unpaid student helper in the school library. I probably spent more   
   of my time in the back, "sorting the old magazines" (they somehow   
   acquired something like 25 years of magazines like "Life", "Look".   
   "Saturday Evening Post", "Time", "Newsweek" and "National Geographic"   
   from some donor).   
      
   >As an adult, I bought only books not available by other means, so   
   >the collection stayed small.   
      
   I was doing things the wrong way, because I was overseas a lot and   
   buying (English language) books on the economy. Rather than toss them   
   when I finished reading, I'd often send a boxload back to the states   
   (especially if I had access to an APO or FPO).  When I started working   
   in the states again, I just continued buying locally.   
      
   >I bought a Nook a few months ago, and my frequency of buying has   
   >increased, though the price of what I do buy has plummeted.   
      
   I looked at buying one - but we've still got several decent sized   
   dead-tree stores here.  I also visit several "used books" stores on   
   a regular basis, buying out-of-print stuff. Ignoring the books on   
   that GPO DVD, I've bought 41 books so far this year, 28 of which are   
   used.   
      
   >The house was built in the early 1950s, so the brick wall itself   
   >has nothing in it.  There is foil-backed insulation behind the   
   >drywall (sheetrock), but that merely attenuates.   
      
   Our California house (built 1953) had R-11 (~4") roll insulation in   
   the roof and nothing else. The local utility had a program to provide   
   a zero interest loan to blow in insulation to something approaching   
   modern standards to the walls and ceiling. You had to repay the loan   
   in ten years, but the lower energy use more than paid for it.  When we   
   moved down here, the development was created by the company that owned   
   the electric utility, and they made these "all-electric" houses. While   
   we don't do much heating in winter, we sure to a lot of cooling in the   
   summer, and the houses were all well insulated (R-19 exterior walls,   
   R-36 overhead). The walls are glass roll with an aluminum foil   
   vapor-barrier, and I do notice poorer radio reception inside.   
      
   >Windows are mostly aluminum, but those added recently (replaced   
   >kitchen window, new windows for major extension of a corner room   
   >toward the street) are all vinyl.   
      
   Non-coated glass?  Here, the windows are two panes of glass separated   
   by a gas filled gap, and the interior of the outer sheet has a thin   
   metal film.  That has significant RF attenuation.   
      
   >None of that was done with rf shielding in mind, though, and   
   >should be counted on for zero effectiveness.   
      
   True - as you say:   
      
   >I remember a new building, built with careful attention to Tempest   
   >requirements.  At an advanced state of construction, the technical   
   >team checked effectiveness, and found the windows had not been   
   >installed properly.   
      
   Most people don't understand the substantial work needed to reach   
   even moderate levels of RF attenuation. The building I was working   
   in here was built to Tempest, with an all steel exterior and every   
   joint welded. The windows were low-E glass (the metal film noted   
   above) and screened.  One big advantage - cell phones and leashes   
   (pagers) didn't work inside.   
      
   >Today, not only enemies but friends and acquaintences can and do   
   >play.  My assumption is that anything I put on a computer hooked up   
   >to the 'Net will be accessed by someone without permission, and   
   >likely without my best interests at heart.   
      
   I read that as "with my best interest"     Yes, citizen   
      
      "Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the   
      Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first   
      time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker   
      may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing   
      truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than   
      any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one   
      resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and   
      we will bury them with their own confusion.   We shall prevail! "   
      
   (just watch out for the lady with that 16 pound hammer).   
      
   >I used to think my systems were secure enough that a cracker would   
   >have to work to get access, but I probably need to improve things   
   >just to have that level of security today.   
      
   Some of it is security by obscurity - using *nix and minimalist   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)