12 New Messages
Digest #9520
Messages
Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:54 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
> Open one of the emails and check the long headers. Otherwise I have no clue.
>
> Brent
"Long Headers" is grayed out.
Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Brent
"Long Headers" is grayed out.
Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
> When you read them on the iPhone, did you use Mail.app or did you view them by webmail at Yahoo?
>
> Open one up and read the long headers. That will identify them faster than I can.
>
> Brent
I read these on the iPhone using Mail for iOS.
"Long Headers" in Mail (on Mac) is grayed out.
Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Open one up and read the long headers. That will identify them faster than I can.
>
> Brent
I read these on the iPhone using Mail for iOS.
"Long Headers" in Mail (on Mac) is grayed out.
Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:57 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
> The date in the screen shot Dave posted, was that they were received in the last few days, not in 1966.
Bizarre.
> BTW, there was no internet in 1966.
Doubly bizarre.
> Brent
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bizarre.
> BTW, there was no internet in 1966.
Doubly bizarre.
> Brent
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:28 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Barbara Adamski" bkadamski
Yes, I know there was no Internet then. That's what makes mine totally bizarre. I haven't had one recently, though...
b
On 2013-04-29, at 11:55 PM, Dave C <davec2468@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > The date in the screen shot Dave posted, was that they were received in the last few days, not in 1966.
>
> Bizarre.
>
> > BTW, there was no internet in 1966.
>
> Doubly bizarre.
>
> > Brent
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
b
On 2013-04-29, at 11:55 PM, Dave C <davec2468@yahoo.
> > The date in the screen shot Dave posted, was that they were received in the last few days, not in 1966.
>
> Bizarre.
>
> > BTW, there was no internet in 1966.
>
> Doubly bizarre.
>
> > Brent
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:46 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
>> The date in the screen shot Dave posted, was that they were received in the last few days, not in 1966.
>> BTW, there was no internet in 1966.
>
> Yes, I know there was no Internet then. That's what makes mine totally bizarre. I haven't had one recently, though...
Are you sure it wasn't 1969?
"The Dawn of Time" in Unix-based systems was midnight at the start of 1 January, 1970, Zulu time.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>> BTW, there was no internet in 1966.
>
> Yes, I know there was no Internet then. That's what makes mine totally bizarre. I haven't had one recently, though...
Are you sure it wasn't 1969?
"The Dawn of Time" in Unix-based systems was midnight at the start of 1 January, 1970, Zulu time.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:00 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dave C" davec2468
I have an iPhone 3Gs (iOS 6.xx) and iPod Touch (first gen, iOS 4.xx).
How can I copy the Address Book from the iPhone (or the Mac used to sync it) to the iPod?
Thanks,
Dave
How can I copy the Address Book from the iPhone (or the Mac used to sync it) to the iPod?
Thanks,
Dave
Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:09 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Oneal Neumann" newalander
> On 2013 April 25 (at 01:10) NA Nada wrote:
>
> So you know how to fix it yourself the next time, after you escape from full screen mode or view, there are three ways to enter full screen:
>
> - the Green dot
> - Control + Command + F
> or Mail > Menu Bar > View > Enter Full Screen
>
> If you have a strange issue like this, check each tab of the Menu Bar to see if you can find and escape, or in this case try the Escape key.
Strange, only the green dot works for me.
I run Mail version 4.6 on OSX 10.6.8.
Neither the keystroke shortcut nor the Mail > View > Enter Full Screen exists for me.
Mail Help is no help here.
Oneal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:41 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
>> So you know how to fix it yourself the next time, after you escape from full screen mode or view, there are three ways to enter full screen:
>>
>> - the Green dot
>> - Control + Command + F
>> or Mail > Menu Bar > View > Enter Full Screen
>>
>> If you have a strange issue like this, check each tab of the Menu Bar to see if you can find and escape, or in this case try the Escape key.
>
> Strange, only the green dot works for me.
>
> I run Mail version 4.6 on OSX 10.6.8.
>
> Neither the keystroke shortcut nor the Mail > View > Enter Full Screen exists for me.
This is likely because true Full Scree Mode doesn't exist in 10.6.8 in the same sense as 10.7 and 10.8
Further, if you are truly IN Full Screen Mode in 10.8, there *is* no green dot available. That is for maximizing the window *within* the screen, not going into Full Screen Mode.
In Mail in 10.8, there is an icon in the upper right corner of the main window -- 2 opposed short arrows pointing outward towards the corner -- that triggers Full Screen Mode.
And <Escape> gets me out of it, as well as <Command><Control><f>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>>
>> - the Green dot
>> - Control + Command + F
>> or Mail > Menu Bar > View > Enter Full Screen
>>
>> If you have a strange issue like this, check each tab of the Menu Bar to see if you can find and escape, or in this case try the Escape key.
>
> Strange, only the green dot works for me.
>
> I run Mail version 4.6 on OSX 10.6.8.
>
> Neither the keystroke shortcut nor the Mail > View > Enter Full Screen exists for me.
This is likely because true Full Scree Mode doesn't exist in 10.6.8 in the same sense as 10.7 and 10.8
Further, if you are truly IN Full Screen Mode in 10.8, there *is* no green dot available. That is for maximizing the window *within* the screen, not going into Full Screen Mode.
In Mail in 10.8, there is an icon in the upper right corner of the main window -- 2 opposed short arrows pointing outward towards the corner -- that triggers Full Screen Mode.
And <Escape> gets me out of it, as well as <Command>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:02 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Agreed. Why is there no iBooks for the Mac??? It beggars belief. (I assume
iBooks Author won't open purchased books?)
Otto
On 29 April 2013 23:52, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Apple DRM books are locked and there is nothing to unlock them that I have
> seen. It's the stupidest system to buy a book and not be able to read it on
> a computer.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
iBooks Author won't open purchased books?)
Otto
On 29 April 2013 23:52, HAL9000 <jrswebhome@yahoo.
> Apple DRM books are locked and there is nothing to unlock them that I have
> seen. It's the stupidest system to buy a book and not be able to read it on
> a computer.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:42 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"bob morin" rbmorin2002
On Apr 29, 2013, at 7:42 PM, Tim O'Donoghue <tjod@runbox.
> Worth a read, depending on how strongly you feel about the subject:
> https://apprenticea
>
Yes that is the program that I have and used. Yesterday it was freezing my computer. I reinstalled it.
don't have a DRM protected book to test it. Finds book and does it job automatically.
bob
Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:59 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Bill B." kernos501
At 2:59 PM -0400 4/20/13, Jon Kreisler wrote:
>My thinking now; stick to 2 TB or smaller partitions unless you need really
>large file sizes because there is more wasted space with an 8K allocation
>block size than with 4K.
>Anyone else care to chime in with their thoughts? (Opinions always
>welcomed.)
I just created mirrored RAID via DIsk Utility (OS 10.6.8) and was given a choice of block sizes. IMO with these giant drives i/o speed is more important than wasted space. I do lots of images ranging from 20Kb to several megs. But the OS is constantly creating numerous small files in logs, caches etc. I used the default with the RAID. If using it only for video data, I'd probably have picked the largest block size 256kb IIRC.
Bill
>My thinking now; stick to 2 TB or smaller partitions unless you need really
>large file sizes because there is more wasted space with an 8K allocation
>block size than with 4K.
>Anyone else care to chime in with their thoughts? (Opinions always
>welcomed.
I just created mirrored RAID via DIsk Utility (OS 10.6.8) and was given a choice of block sizes. IMO with these giant drives i/o speed is more important than wasted space. I do lots of images ranging from 20Kb to several megs. But the OS is constantly creating numerous small files in logs, caches etc. I used the default with the RAID. If using it only for video data, I'd probably have picked the largest block size 256kb IIRC.
Bill
Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:22 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
You can control block size, though maybe not with Disk Utility. These are simply defaults that have been chosen as performance trade-offs by Apple, though 4k/8k is pretty routine across the modern formats and applications. The circumstances where an alternate block size would be meaningful are pretty unusual. There are very few applications these days which would involve massive numbers of sub-8k files, much less sub-4k. It was more common for performance addicts to increase the block size to 32k or even 128k to enhance performance on drives dedicated to large files, such as photos and video, but these days, there are far better methods for increasing speed, especially RAID arrays. Frankly, I haven't seen discussions of block size for quite a while.
Cheers,
tod
On Apr 20, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Jon Kreisler wrote:
> I just acquired a 4 TB hard disk. As I was experimenting with my new "toy"
> I discovered something interesting. If I used a large partition size (3 TB
> or more) the cluster size (allocation block size) increased from 4 KB to 8
> KB (HFS+.} So, comparing a 4 TB partition to a 2 TB partition, you can have
> larger files, but the maximum number of files will be the same. If I take
> that a step further and compare a 3 TB partition to a 2 TB partition, you
> could theoretically store more small files on a 2 TB partition.
> My thinking now; stick to 2 TB or smaller partitions unless you need really
> large file sizes because there is more wasted space with an 8K allocation
> block size than with 4K.
> Anyone else care to chime in with their thoughts? (Opinions always
> welcomed.)
>
> Jon
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Cheers,
tod
On Apr 20, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Jon Kreisler wrote:
> I just acquired a 4 TB hard disk. As I was experimenting with my new "toy"
> I discovered something interesting. If I used a large partition size (3 TB
> or more) the cluster size (allocation block size) increased from 4 KB to 8
> KB (HFS+.} So, comparing a 4 TB partition to a 2 TB partition, you can have
> larger files, but the maximum number of files will be the same. If I take
> that a step further and compare a 3 TB partition to a 2 TB partition, you
> could theoretically store more small files on a 2 TB partition.
> My thinking now; stick to 2 TB or smaller partitions unless you need really
> large file sizes because there is more wasted space with an 8K allocation
> block size than with 4K.
> Anyone else care to chime in with their thoughts? (Opinions always
> welcomed.)
>
> Jon
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
