A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

All-in-One PCs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1131  
Old February 3rd 16, 03:59 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default All-in-One PCs

On 2/2/2016 8:27 PM, nospam wrote:

snip


http://www.superstreetbike.com/how-to/engine-oil-viscosity-mythbusters

Point out where in that they say it is in any way bad to mix engine oil
weights. It doesn't, because it isn't.


it's better to not do it.

if you're going to add oil only to run the engine for a few minutes and
drain it, then you should use the same oil you normally use.


That's just costing you extra money unnecessarily.


it's only a couple of bucks for a quart, which is a *lot* less than the
4-5 quarts for your method, *particularly* if it's synthetic.

an extra quart can extend the life of the engine, which saves money in
the long term.


According to what I learned in the Army, Not necessarily.
If the oil level is too high, it does not contact the moving parts
evenly. You can get air pockets oil galleries, and less liquid oil to
cool parts such as piston skirts. The "foam" also sticks in place and
doesn't drain back to the pan, and insulates parts from normal heat
transfer.






--
PeterN
  #1132  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default All-in-One PCs

In article , Bill W
wrote:

if what you're saying is true, then what drains is as clean as what was
poured in and that's *definitely* not true. have you even done it??

refilling oil and running it is obviously better than a single quart.
nobody said otherwise. it's also more expensive and more time
consuming. the point is using the *same* oil as you normally use.


You can accomplish the same thing, well actually much more, by just
letting the oil drain overnight. No need to waste a quart of oil.


i originally said that, although not doing it overnight.

if i'm not in a rush, i let it drip for 5-10 minutes longer.

the point of the extra quart is to accelerate that process.

I don't know much about photography, but I am an ASE, Caddy, Chevy,
Pontiac, and Olds certified master tech. Or was, at least...


how long does it take you to do an o/c with a jack & stands?
  #1133  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:05 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Jolly Roger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default All-in-One PCs

Your Name wrote:

There is no real Mac malware. There has never ever been a verifiable
report of any normal user ever having an infected Mac since Mac OS X
began and very little in ye olde days before that either. Only
theoretical scaremongering by anti-malware sellers and utter nonsense
from anti-Apple know-nothing morons.


That's not exactly true.

While it is true that there have been very few OS X *viruses* found in the
wild, there is plenty of malware, mostly in the form of trojans
masquerading as legitimate commercial software that shows up on pirated
software sources.

It is true that most of the highly publicized malware that has been
reported are proof-of-concept exploits (not in the wild) written by
security researchers who often work for firms that sell security software.

It's also true that there are OS X bot nets, but those are typically the
result of infections by trojans masquerading as pirated software. There is
also adware out there, typically bundled with otherwise legitimate
software. None of that stuff can be installed without the user'S permission
though.

In general all Mac users have to do to avoid such malware is simply refrain
from downloading software from untrusted sites.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
  #1134  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:05 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Jolly Roger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default All-in-One PCs

Your Name wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On 2 Feb 2016 15:12:20 GMT, Sandman wrote:

So far, if you use a Mac, there is exactly no need to worry about malware.


The URL above doesn't seem to agree with you. Nor would there be the
need for the security updates described in
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222


Most such security updates are proactive rather than reactive.

Apple has very good security but it's not totally impenetrable.


True.

Security updates are to stop *potential* and *theoretical* issues ...
they aren't there to stop actual existing malware, because there is
none.


There is plenty of malware (mostly Trojans masquerading as pirated
commercial software), but no viruses in the wild.


--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
  #1135  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:05 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Jolly Roger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default All-in-One PCs

Your Name wrote:

There is no real Mac malware.


That's simply not true. And it doesn't help when you repeat the lie.

All platforms have malware. The difference with OS X is the vast majority
of malware is not viruses and requires user permission to install. In
general this makes OS X more problem free in that regard.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
  #1136  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:06 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default All-in-One PCs

In article , PeterN
wrote:

if you're going to add oil only to run the engine for a few minutes and
drain it, then you should use the same oil you normally use.

That's just costing you extra money unnecessarily.


it's only a couple of bucks for a quart, which is a *lot* less than the
4-5 quarts for your method, *particularly* if it's synthetic.

an extra quart can extend the life of the engine, which saves money in
the long term.


According to what I learned in the Army, Not necessarily.
If the oil level is too high, it does not contact the moving parts
evenly. You can get air pockets oil galleries, and less liquid oil to
cool parts such as piston skirts. The "foam" also sticks in place and
doesn't drain back to the pan, and insulates parts from normal heat
transfer.


whoosh.

read the entire subthread before posting, particularly this part:

In article , nospam
wrote:
easy. once the dirty oil flow has stopped (or slowed to a trickle), add
a quart of new oil before you put the drain plug back, then wait a
while for it to flow through. once it stops, put the drain plug back
and fill as usual.

  #1137  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default All-in-One PCs

On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:02:57 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

if what you're saying is true, then what drains is as clean as what was
poured in and that's *definitely* not true. have you even done it??

refilling oil and running it is obviously better than a single quart.
nobody said otherwise. it's also more expensive and more time
consuming. the point is using the *same* oil as you normally use.


You can accomplish the same thing, well actually much more, by just
letting the oil drain overnight. No need to waste a quart of oil.


i originally said that, although not doing it overnight.

if i'm not in a rush, i let it drip for 5-10 minutes longer.

the point of the extra quart is to accelerate that process.


I admittedly wasn't following the thread.

I don't know much about photography, but I am an ASE, Caddy, Chevy,
Pontiac, and Olds certified master tech. Or was, at least...


how long does it take you to do an o/c with a jack & stands?


I can't do it any faster than the next person...
  #1138  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:25 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Your Name[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default All-in-One PCs

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:00:25 -0500, nospam
wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Apple has very good security but it's not totally impenetrable.


nothing is.


And claiming otherwise is nonsense.


Nobody ever said it was "impenetrable" ... just that there nothing that
has actually "penetrated" it yet and that it's damn difficult to do so
unlikely to be anything in the forseeable future.
  #1139  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:27 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default All-in-One PCs

On 2/2/16 6:59 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/2/2016 8:27 PM, nospam wrote:

snip


http://www.superstreetbike.com/how-to/engine-oil-viscosity-mythbusters

Point out where in that they say it is in any way bad to mix engine oil
weights. It doesn't, because it isn't.


it's better to not do it.

if you're going to add oil only to run the engine for a few minutes and
drain it, then you should use the same oil you normally use.

That's just costing you extra money unnecessarily.


it's only a couple of bucks for a quart, which is a *lot* less than the
4-5 quarts for your method, *particularly* if it's synthetic.

an extra quart can extend the life of the engine, which saves money in
the long term.


According to what I learned in the Army, Not necessarily.
If the oil level is too high, it does not contact the moving parts
evenly. You can get air pockets oil galleries, and less liquid oil to
cool parts such as piston skirts. The "foam" also sticks in place and
doesn't drain back to the pan, and insulates parts from normal heat
transfer.







That's not what he's talking about.

He's talking about just pouring a quart of oil through the engine...

....WHILE YOU ARE DRAINING THE OLD OIL.
  #1140  
Old February 3rd 16, 04:47 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default All-in-One PCs

In article , Your Name
wrote:

Apple has very good security but it's not totally impenetrable.

nothing is.


And claiming otherwise is nonsense.


Nobody ever said it was "impenetrable" ... just that there nothing that
has actually "penetrated" it yet and that it's damn difficult to do so
unlikely to be anything in the forseeable future.


wrong.

http://www.cnet.com/news/more-than-6...ith-flashback-
botnet/
More than half a million Macs are infected with the Flashback Trojan,
a malware package designed to steal personal information, according
to a Russian antivirus company.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.