On Jan 4, 2018 22:17, "TeoZ via cctalk" wrote:
100GB M-Discs are dual layer BlueRay media correct (not readable on a DVD
player)? I actually have a BDXL BR burner.
They are three-layer, and will ONLY work on BDXL drives, not older BD
drives.
You forgot "Outer Limits". I put that show in the same category.
Wayne Sudol
Riverside PressEnterprise
A DigitalFirst Media Newspaper.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>
>> Funny, I've been saying since the 19
For other reasons, I was just at costco and bought a 500Gig solid state for
$150. It is about the size of a postcard ( only square ).
It is USB though, so loading that much may take a while.
Dwight
From: cctalk on behalf of TeoZ via cctalk
Sent: Thursday, Ja
100GB M-Discs are dual layer BlueRay media correct (not readable on a DVD
player)? I actually have a BDXL BR burner. I also have the M-Disc capable
DVD burners but never tried that media on them.
-Original Message-
From: Fred Cisin via cctalk
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:38 PM
T
On 01/04/2018 12:00 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
a question: Are the 'old/classic' uprocessors using x86 technology in
the same boat? The very earliest ones, i.e., 1970s and early 80's.
probably not. How many are act
On 01/04/2018 05:50 PM, TeoZ via cctalk wrote:
> Hard drives NEVER keep up. Bragging about how many DVD's (90's
> technology) you can store on current HD means little to people who have
> ultra HD Blueray videos that take up to 100GB of space. Heck even a
> single game download can be 50GB these da
Files grew up in size, in an unbelieable scale.
I follow the tips of my friends: Buy new HDs and use old ones for
storage. I have a 5TB (expensive) external 3 1/2 HD on my home server,
and some 1TB HDs used as backups. If you count capacity, cheaper than
DVDs-DL or BDs.
Em 05/01/2018 00:38,
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, TeoZ wrote:
Hard drives NEVER keep up. Bragging about how many DVD's (90's technology)
you can store on current HD means little to people who have ultra HD Blueray
videos that take up to 100GB of space. Heck even a single game download can
be 50GB these days.
I'd be intere
Hard drives NEVER keep up. Bragging about how many DVD's (90's technology)
you can store on current HD means little to people who have ultra HD Blueray
videos that take up to 100GB of space. Heck even a single game download can
be 50GB these days.
And I wouldn't mind one of those old networked
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Wayne Sudol wrote:
You forgot "Outer Limits". I put that show in the same category.
I'll be adding the Original Series later this month.
I haven't made a decision about the revival.
I use a Seagate GoFlex-TV; 2TB is the largest thin 2.5" SATA currently
available. also in
Chuck,
You do have to repower your machine. You never know what is still laying
around in memory. If the byte are anywhere in memory, there is always some way
to find them.
Dwight
From: cctalk on behalf of Chuck Guzis via
cctalk
Sent: Thursday, January 4,
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
Funny, I've been saying since the 1980s that it you have something
that's critical to your survival, keep it offline.
Until any of my PCs develop the ability to go to my storage cabinet and
fetch a DVD and load it into itself, I'm not sorried.
> Funny, I've been saying since the 1980s that it you have something
> that's critical to your survival, keep it offline.
Here here! I hope this is a wakeup call to all the people out there with all
the unnecessary connected "lives". Forget all the social media BS but also the
cloud storage,
On 01/04/2018 01:08 PM, Sophie Haskins via cctalk wrote:
> It's kind of fascinating to run in to a cross-platform vulnerability
> like this! Is anyone else aware of similar vulnerabilities from
> history that also affected multiple processors, but relied on their
> implementation details?
Funny,
This should be public, so visible even if you don't have a FB login.
https://www.facebook.com/jserwach/posts/1804323786269276
--
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/Lin
I misspoke - Spectre potentially affects all processors that use
*pipelining and speculative execution*, not just superscalar ones (I
mis-parsed "all modern processors capable of keeping many instructions
in flight").
There's been ongoing patches to the Linux kernel for Meltdown (and for
other OSe
http://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-starts-issuing-patches-for-meltdown-spectre-vulnerabilities/?loc=newsletter_large_thumb_related&ftag=TREc64629f&bhid=46856739
this just hit my email box. Ed#
In a message dated 1/4/2018 1:54:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes
oh oh
hopefully software fix soon?
Ed#
In a message dated 1/4/2018 1:54:43 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
From the exploit homepage (https://spectreattack.com/) , it seems like the
Meltdown vulnerability affects all out-of-order executing Intel *branded
>From the exploit homepage (https://spectreattack.com/) , it seems like the
Meltdown vulnerability affects all out-of-order executing Intel *branded*
CPUs (from the P6 onward), and the Spectre vulnerability potentially
impacts all superscalar processors of...all brands potentially :(
Sophie
On Th
On 1/4/2018 12:34 PM, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
what about xenon processors??
ed#
In a message dated 1/4/2018 1:18:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
There is no difference between them and any other intel x86 or x64
processor as far as the flaw involved.
what about xenon processors??
ed#
In a message dated 1/4/2018 1:18:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
- Original Message -
From: "Warner Losh via cctalk"
To: "Murray McCullough" ; "General Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Thursday, Janu
- Original Message -
From: "Warner Losh via cctalk"
To: "Murray McCullough" ; "General Discussion:
On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Spectre & Meltdown
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
> cctalk@classic
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Murray McCullough via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
> a question: Are the 'old/classic' uprocessors using x86 technology in
> the same boat? The very earliest ones, i.e., 1970s and ear
This may be off-topic but these latest uprocessor exploits has raised
a question: Are the 'old/classic' uprocessors using x86 technology in
the same boat? The very earliest ones, i.e., 1970s and early 80's.
probably not. How many are actually in use and/or on the Net?
Happy computing!
Murray :)
On 4 January 2018 at 08:21, Rob Jarratt via cctalk
wrote:
>
> I am still hoping someone will know if I can try swapping the ULA with a
> newer one from a later model I have. I may also look at getting a NebULA as
> they are not expensive.
Possibly helpful...
https://spectrumforeveryone.com/techn
25 matches
Mail list logo
