Dave, we all have been hit one time or another with a computor problem. One
time many on this newsgroup got hit with a hiddious virus that upset many so
I think you are a bit out of step on this one ,even tho you see your main
duty as being a Net Cop.
The fact of the matter is that the main core of premier antenna help
contributors all posted on this subject which shows that not only do these
members have special expertise with antennas but also have the expertise
relative to the computor connection with respect to antennas and the like,
and are willing to share with less ability minded people like myself.
Remember the main core of contributors to this group are no lesser an Elmer
to that which you pump yourself to be to give you the verbal justification
, but I assure you that if a thread unrelated to the primary interests of
this group
appeared on a regular basis the initiator would either be ignored or quickly
put into his place.
I note that a recent poster stated he was a ham by fraudulent means but
apparently you view his thread as more legitamate than mine which is so
intertwined and connected to the direction that antennas are moving today
and where I am sure you must have posted many times on this particular
newsgroup where such programs can be executed ( I assume I have overlooked
your antenna contributions) on a $5 Walmart calculator as to make the
computor irrelavent to this group.
Since you state that many readers are upset or unhappy with the lack of true
antenna
content of this newsgroup now would be the time for an Elmer so proficient
as you with respect to what is "right" and what is "wrong" to start a new
antenna newsgroup to satisfy the needs of like minded people who are more
interested in political correctness than in technical content, of the latter
none of which was evident in your posting that only added to the length to
the thread without a modicom of antenna content. I think you would have a
real hard time in attracting the
groups membership that has such a deep knoweledge and expertise that they
are willing to share where the content of their postings must satisfy total
political correctness and subject to your absolute rules of what can be
written or replied to.
However, if all antenna questions were directed to you for a response you
would not have the problem that you ascribe to this newsgroup and amateur
radio most certainly would be the beneficiory in your mind of having an
alternative.

Let me just assume this is just a consequence of you having a bad day so I
can push it all aside
and wish you and your family a happy holiday.
Regards
Art


"Dave Bushong" wrote in message
...
Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Bushong wrote:

wrote:

I am finding that WindowsXP is allowing 20 cookies (plus other stuff
) a day
[...]



HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REC . RADIO . AMATEUR . ANTENNA


Yo! NetCop! Wassup?

- Mike KB3EIA


Hi Mike,

Thanks for your followup posting, and here is Wassup.

I'm not a "NetCop", but instead, an "Elmer". I teach new hams not to
stick a fork into the light socket, not to transmit on a dual-band radio
on band "B" when you are listening on band "A", and other embarrassing
things. I also teach new newsgroup posters that posting an article, and
then nearly 30 followups, to an antenna newsgroup, is wrong. It is
wrong because people who subscribe to the rec.radio.amateur.antenna
newsgroup have a reasonable expectation that postings here will have
something to do with ham radio antennas, or at least ham radio, or maybe
radio, or at least antennas, or maybe even CB microphones. Not cookies.

With 40,000+ newsgroups out there, there is just no reason to post a
generic "help-me" message about Windows XP cookies, into a newsgroup
about ham radio antennas. I've been wrong before, but this time, I'm not.

73,
Dave
KZ1O

Art,

There was nothing wrong with your posting. It's just in the wrong
newsgroup. I don't know how to make any more simple.

All the best, and good luck with your "cumputor",
Dave


wrote:
Dave, we all have been hit one time or another with a computor problem. One
time many on this newsgroup got hit with a hiddious virus that upset many so
I think you are a bit out of step on this one ,even tho you see your main
duty as being a Net Cop.
The fact of the matter is that the main core of premier antenna help
contributors all posted on this subject which shows that not only do these
members have special expertise with antennas but also have the expertise
relative to the computor connection with respect to antennas and the like,
and are willing to share with less ability minded people like myself.
Remember the main core of contributors to this group are no lesser an Elmer
to that which you pump yourself to be to give you the verbal justification
, but I assure you that if a thread unrelated to the primary interests of
this group
appeared on a regular basis the initiator would either be ignored or quickly
put into his place.
I note that a recent poster stated he was a ham by fraudulent means but
apparently you view his thread as more legitamate than mine which is so
intertwined and connected to the direction that antennas are moving today
and where I am sure you must have posted many times on this particular
newsgroup where such programs can be executed ( I assume I have overlooked
your antenna contributions) on a $5 Walmart calculator as to make the
computor irrelavent to this group.
Since you state that many readers are upset or unhappy with the lack of true
antenna
content of this newsgroup now would be the time for an Elmer so proficient
as you with respect to what is "right" and what is "wrong" to start a new
antenna newsgroup to satisfy the needs of like minded people who are more
interested in political correctness than in technical content, of the latter
none of which was evident in your posting that only added to the length to
the thread without a modicom of antenna content. I think you would have a
real hard time in attracting the
groups membership that has such a deep knoweledge and expertise that they
are willing to share where the content of their postings must satisfy total
political correctness and subject to your absolute rules of what can be
written or replied to.
However, if all antenna questions were directed to you for a response you
would not have the problem that you ascribe to this newsgroup and amateur
radio most certainly would be the beneficiory in your mind of having an
alternative.

Let me just assume this is just a consequence of you having a bad day so I
can push it all aside
and wish you and your family a happy holiday.
Regards
Art


"Dave Bushong" wrote in message
...

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Bushong wrote:


wrote:


I am finding that WindowsXP is allowing 20 cookies (plus other stuff
) a day
[...]



HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

REC . RADIO . AMATEUR . ANTENNA


Yo! NetCop! Wassup?

- Mike KB3EIA


Hi Mike,

Thanks for your followup posting, and here is Wassup.

I'm not a "NetCop", but instead, an "Elmer". I teach new hams not to
stick a fork into the light socket, not to transmit on a dual-band radio
on band "B" when you are listening on band "A", and other embarrassing
things. I also teach new newsgroup posters that posting an article, and
then nearly 30 followups, to an antenna newsgroup, is wrong. It is
wrong because people who subscribe to the rec.radio.amateur.antenna
newsgroup have a reasonable expectation that postings here will have
something to do with ham radio antennas, or at least ham radio, or maybe
radio, or at least antennas, or maybe even CB microphones. Not cookies.

With 40,000+ newsgroups out there, there is just no reason to post a
generic "help-me" message about Windows XP cookies, into a newsgroup
about ham radio antennas. I've been wrong before, but this time, I'm not.

73,
Dave
KZ1O

Thank You

Now if only some of the other folks would listen

Dave Bushong wrote in part:
Mike Coslo wrote:

With 40,000+ newsgroups out there, there is just no reason to post a
generic "help-me" message about Windows XP cookies, into a newsgroup
about ham radio antennas. I've been wrong before, but this time, I'm not.


Then I hope you wiil be filtering me along with the Cialis ads and the
wierd Sexually oriented posts! I probably have nothing of worth to offer
you.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dave Bushong wrote in part:
Mike Coslo wrote:

With 40,000+ newsgroups out there, there is just no reason to post a
generic "help-me" message about Windows XP cookies, into a newsgroup
about ham radio antennas. I've been wrong before, but this time, I'm
not.


Then I hope you wiil be filtering me along with the Cialis ads and the
wierd Sexually oriented posts! I probably have nothing of worth to offer
you.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Let's see. I regular poster asks a question in a newsgroup where a) he is
known and b) he knows the other regular poster -- kinda helpful in judging
answers.

I suppose you COULD have posted it in alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum but I see no
problem posting it here.

BTW, Firefox is great. grin

Paul AB0SI

There may be some readers who are not sure what the postings are all about
and why the "Fuss"
..I just linked up to the "BBC "home page which shows their policy
towards"privacy and cookies"
For those who are illiterate with respect to computors and just accept what
is
supplied with the computor as purchased, reviewing the privacy policy
provided
allows the viewer simplified steps to take to protect oneself based on the
browser IN USE.
It does not provide the expertise offered by this knoweledgable group but it
does offer a
preliminary stage of protection by providing step by step computor
instructions to get started
for the illiterate such as I , plus a bit more indepth discussion of what
unknown attachments and cookies
actual do when invading your privacy.
On a side note with respect to some computors slowing down. Are the Windows
based computor programs
with respect to antenna modelling also subject to overload or slowing down
problems or are they some how
immune to the described problems?
Fortunately my program is DOS based so I still enjoy the benefits of the 3
Gig time saver of the processor.
But then......... ignorance could be seen as bliss.
Art

" wrote in message
news:aT2ud.231357$R05.32013@attbi_s53...
I am finding that WindowsXP is allowing 20 cookies (plus other stuff ) a
day
to attach to my computor which requires the use of another program to be
activated
every day to quarentine them. Thinking of going back to the Netscape
browser
so as to
keep the computor cleen. Also interested in how much it would cost for
firewalls to bring
WindowsXP back to the protective level of Netscape 7.1.
Comments
(Yes I know it is not antenna related, unless you
need a computor to read antenna postings or use WindowsXP for antenna
software!)
Art

Unlike DOS, Windows is a multi-tasking environment. Therefore, if you
have many programs running at once, each will run slower. (You can, if
you want, apportion the CPU time unequally among them.) However, as far
as I can tell, the total time it takes for all of them to do their
calculations isn't inherently slower with Windows than DOS.
Windows-based antenna simulation programs are no different than other
Windows applications.

When running in "DOS mode" (under Windows systems prior to XP -- it's
not available in XP), you are running in a true, single-tasking DOS
environment. This is the mode you have to boot separately into when
starting the computer. But if you choose the "DOS prompt" (or "command
prompt") while running Windows, you're really running in the full
Windows environment, and emulating DOS as just another Windows task.
Programs running in this mode can't run any faster than a normal, native
Windows program, since they're also subject to the time sharing of the
multi-tasking system. There might actually be some additional overhead
from the emulation process.

The first Windows version of EZNEC, v. 3.0, ran calculations about 20%
faster than the DOS version, possibly due to a compiler change. There
was certainly no major slowing down of the calculations due to the
different operating system. The current version of EZNEC, v. 4.0, runs
up to several *times* faster than that due to code changes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . .
On a side note with respect to some computors slowing down. Are the Windows
based computor programs
with respect to antenna modelling also subject to overload or slowing down
problems or are they some how
immune to the described problems?
. . .

Roy
Believe it or not I understand what you have posted so the info you have
provided will be good news to antenna modelers.
I really do not know how my personal antenna program works except I have a
small disc inserted that when I start the computor I have to press the F12
key when prompted and somehow it does not display the normal windows entry
but
goes straight into a DOS managed antenna modeler program. I suspect that the
disc somehow partitions the Dos emulator from the windows program and makes
it a seperate entity in a similar way that previous widows programs did
before they were bundled together.When I model closely coupled antenna
elements designs where one has to make it 80 segments a shot a slow down of
the coprocessor would be unacceptable
Regards
Art

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Unlike DOS, Windows is a multi-tasking environment. Therefore, if you
have many programs running at once, each will run slower. (You can, if
you want, apportion the CPU time unequally among them.) However, as far
as I can tell, the total time it takes for all of them to do their
calculations isn't inherently slower with Windows than DOS.
Windows-based antenna simulation programs are no different than other
Windows applications.

When running in "DOS mode" (under Windows systems prior to XP -- it's
not available in XP), you are running in a true, single-tasking DOS
environment. This is the mode you have to boot separately into when
starting the computer. But if you choose the "DOS prompt" (or "command
prompt") while running Windows, you're really running in the full
Windows environment, and emulating DOS as just another Windows task.
Programs running in this mode can't run any faster than a normal, native
Windows program, since they're also subject to the time sharing of the
multi-tasking system. There might actually be some additional overhead
from the emulation process.

The first Windows version of EZNEC, v. 3.0, ran calculations about 20%
faster than the DOS version, possibly due to a compiler change. There
was certainly no major slowing down of the calculations due to the
different operating system. The current version of EZNEC, v. 4.0, runs
up to several *times* faster than that due to code changes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

wrote:
. . .
On a side note with respect to some computors slowing down. Are the
Windows
based computor programs
with respect to antenna modelling also subject to overload or slowing
down
problems or are they some how
immune to the described problems?
. . .