Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DX-375 power button trouble
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, isojoern wrote:
Hi there, I have a DX-375 from the SHACK and the power button doesn't always work (sometimes I have to press it 20 times to fire it up...). Is there a resonable fix? Thanks, Joern The problem is that the power and sleep buttons are both attached to a bracket as thin as a piece of paper. The part that connects the power button to the bracket has probably broken. I contacted Radio Shack to get a replacement part, but they say that they can't help me. Yes, it's really irritating. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DX-375 power button trouble
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DX-375 power button trouble
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DX-375 power button trouble
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
Michael Black wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, wrote: On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, isojoern wrote: Hi there, I have a DX-375 from the SHACK and the power button doesn't always work (sometimes I have to press it 20 times to fire it up...). Is there a resonable fix? Thanks, Joern The problem is that the power and sleep buttons are both attached to a bracket as thin as a piece of paper. The part that connects the power button to the bracket has probably broken. I contacted Radio Shack to get a replacement part, but they say that they can't help me. Yes, it's really irritating. The problem is that it's fourteen years later, so your reply has no relevance to the original poster. Chances are pretty good he's not even here any more. If you've got something to say, don't use an old thread to say it. Michael Part of the beauty of Usenet is its timeless nature. Let's revel in the fact that there is a place where ancient thread necrology is even possible. I have noticed that you must have your feelers out pretty intensively, as you respond to many resurrected threads admonishing the necromancers not to practice their dark arts. May I ask, what's the harm to you? Because it's a bug at google. When google took over the archive from dejanews, you couldn't reply to old messages. Then one time when they changed the interface, to be more useful for their own "groups", they allowed replies to old posts. People like me complained, and that bug was fixed. Then another iteration of the interface, and the bug was back. The google idiots think usenet is what they see at google, I doubt they even know that they are not posting to a "web board". So they think everyone will see it like they do, all the messages on one page. I doubt most of the time they even notice that they are replying to an old post, though I can't figure out why they are looking for old posts to reply to. The "excuse" that replying to an ancient thread will keep the information together is crazy. Nobody will find the threads without a search, and that will turn up the other threads. When google was useful as an archive of Usenet, I'd have to check multiple threads to find the actual information, the same is true now. ANd it gets worse. It's not just google-idiots replying to old posts. They often don't quote what they are replying to, leaving no context, they are too often replying with something that no longer has value ("it's time to update your computer", when the computer was nice and new back in 1998), they may not even do a proper reply, so it looks like a new thread. And once they post, there are others who aren't paying attention either, so they add to the resurrected thread. There was one in sci.electronics.repair a week or so ago where back in the original thread (only five or so years old) the original poster had even posted a followup saying he'd fixed the problem and giving details. Yet someone felt the need to reply to that old thread, and then others jumped in, not noticing it was a zombie post they were replying to. That instance was a joke, since some of the original posters actually replied in the resurrected thread, not even remembering they'd done so in the past. A sad example is the infamous post where Linus Torvald announced Linux. The first time the google bug appeared, vandals decided they needed to tack their stupidity onto that thread. I assume because google put up a timeline of usenet, and so made it easy for the vandals to find the thread. The bug came back, and that thread was further vanadalized, it's just idiots thinking it's amusing to reply as if Linus was still reading the minix newsgroup, as if he'd just posted last week. So a historical thread is now cluttered with endless posts that have nothing to do with it. And the minix newsgroup just ends up with replies to old posts, rather than relevant on topic new posts. For "dead" newsgroups, many of the new posts are from these google idiots, wanting to know if that thing from 1995 is still forsale, or whatever. There is no reason to reply to old posts. I have posts going back to 1996 saved on various hard drives, but I don't reply to them. This is a google problem inflicted on the rest of usenet. Michael |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DX-375 power button trouble
On 2014-06-26 22:49:01 +0000, Michael Black said:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Oregonian Haruspex wrote: Michael Black wrote: On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, wrote: On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, isojoern wrote: Hi there, I have a DX-375 from the SHACK and the power button doesn't always work (sometimes I have to press it 20 times to fire it up...). Is there a resonable fix? Thanks, Joern The problem is that the power and sleep buttons are both attached to a bracket as thin as a piece of paper. The part that connects the power button to the bracket has probably broken. I contacted Radio Shack to get a replacement part, but they say that they can't help me. Yes, it's really irritating. The problem is that it's fourteen years later, so your reply has no relevance to the original poster. Chances are pretty good he's not even here any more. If you've got something to say, don't use an old thread to say it. Michael Part of the beauty of Usenet is its timeless nature. Let's revel in the fact that there is a place where ancient thread necrology is even possible. I have noticed that you must have your feelers out pretty intensively, as you respond to many resurrected threads admonishing the necromancers not to practice their dark arts. May I ask, what's the harm to you? Because it's a bug at google. When google took over the archive from dejanews, you couldn't reply to old messages. Then one time when they changed the interface, to be more useful for their own "groups", they allowed replies to old posts. People like me complained, and that bug was fixed. Then another iteration of the interface, and the bug was back. The google idiots think usenet is what they see at google, I doubt they even know that they are not posting to a "web board". So they think everyone will see it like they do, all the messages on one page. I doubt most of the time they even notice that they are replying to an old post, though I can't figure out why they are looking for old posts to reply to. The "excuse" that replying to an ancient thread will keep the information together is crazy. Nobody will find the threads without a search, and that will turn up the other threads. When google was useful as an archive of Usenet, I'd have to check multiple threads to find the actual information, the same is true now. ANd it gets worse. It's not just google-idiots replying to old posts. They often don't quote what they are replying to, leaving no context, they are too often replying with something that no longer has value ("it's time to update your computer", when the computer was nice and new back in 1998), they may not even do a proper reply, so it looks like a new thread. And once they post, there are others who aren't paying attention either, so they add to the resurrected thread. There was one in sci.electronics.repair a week or so ago where back in the original thread (only five or so years old) the original poster had even posted a followup saying he'd fixed the problem and giving details. Yet someone felt the need to reply to that old thread, and then others jumped in, not noticing it was a zombie post they were replying to. That instance was a joke, since some of the original posters actually replied in the resurrected thread, not even remembering they'd done so in the past. A sad example is the infamous post where Linus Torvald announced Linux. The first time the google bug appeared, vandals decided they needed to tack their stupidity onto that thread. I assume because google put up a timeline of usenet, and so made it easy for the vandals to find the thread. The bug came back, and that thread was further vanadalized, it's just idiots thinking it's amusing to reply as if Linus was still reading the minix newsgroup, as if he'd just posted last week. So a historical thread is now cluttered with endless posts that have nothing to do with it. And the minix newsgroup just ends up with replies to old posts, rather than relevant on topic new posts. For "dead" newsgroups, many of the new posts are from these google idiots, wanting to know if that thing from 1995 is still forsale, or whatever. There is no reason to reply to old posts. I have posts going back to 1996 saved on various hard drives, but I don't reply to them. This is a google problem inflicted on the rest of usenet. Michael Old posts have been replied to before Google took over Deja. HP for example still runs its own Usenet server, and I believe their retention goes back to the day it was set up (HP employees feel free to correct me, just heard it from an ex-HPer). I would agree that sometimes, a reply to an old post is worthless, but this is true with many replies in new threads too. I think that I understand your viewpoint, though. Is it that older posts should not be replied to, in order to keep the threads more of a time capsule of the day and age they were active? I think that the historical value of a thread is maintained, as one can just ignore the newer posts. While I do understand that you have your reasons for seeking out and chiding people who resurrect dead threads, I think that ultimately you're tilting at windmills because nobody "owns" Usenet and I'm not sure that there is any universal or even popular feeling that replying to old threads is wrong. You're certainly not going to stop anybody, at least, so why make trouble for yourself? That's my feeling. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DX-375 power button trouble
Michael Black wrote:
Because it's a bug at google. When google took over the archive from dejanews, you couldn't reply to old messages. Then one time when they changed the interface, to be more useful for their own "groups", they allowed replies to old posts. People like me complained, and that bug was fixed. Then another iteration of the interface, and the bug was back. You can reply to any Usenet post ever, if you can find it. You can reply to a nonexistent one you invented. If your newsreader will not let you do this, there are plenty of ways to create the headers, including typing them in manually, and of sending the completed message to your server. George Cornelius |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
midland handheld cd owner wants to increase transmission and reception power. (min investment and trouble) | CB | |||
TS-700SP button? | Boatanchors | |||
BC760Xlt - what does that button do? | Scanner | |||
repair of pwr button on ft-50 r?? | Equipment | |||
repair of pwr button on ft-50 r?? | Equipment |