Can a voltage drop affect a computer?

[curious]

Please adjust your newsreader to use shorter line lengths.
80 characters is often considered the max but lower tends to
be more readable. That may result in more replies, too.

Yes the drop can effect a computer, but on most (better) PSU
several stages of capacitor filters will buffer it enough.
you might want to run some stress tests on CPU, memory,
video (if you're a gamer) to verify stability while the
heavy applicances like an AC unit are power cycling.

You might also consider a separate circuit for the AC, or
the computer, or even an online UPS (with line conditioner
built-in) if it continues to concern you.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I'm getting this Belkin UPS:

http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProd...t_Id=&Section_Id=77&pcount=&Product_Id=186802

Hope it works.


Now regarding the fact that I am using "quoted printable" which results in long line lengths... the author of my newsreader (Colin Wilson) actually recommended that we use the "quoted printable" (or "flowed") format. Here's a message he posted to a thread who's subject was the splitting of really long URLs:


"Everyone seems to be confusing the length of 'sent' lines and the
length of lines that their newsreaders display.

Wrapping lines - to 72 characters or whatever before sending them
should be completey unnecessary. However, because the NNTP protocol
restricts lines to around 990 characters, you've got to break them
somewhere.

The point of 'format = flowed' and 'quoted printable' is so that modern
clients can re-assemble these lines so that they are as long as the
author originally intended. Using '72' as the break point is just a
convenience in case anyone is using an old, teletype-era news client
(is anyone??). But every newsreader in the world these days will
correctly reassemble the lines.

So you should use format=flowed or format=quoted printable. The lines
in your messages will be as long as you intended. URLs won't break in
the middle, and everyone will be happy!

But of course some people don't like reading great long lines. They
prefer them to wrap, so that they don't need to move their eyeballs so
much. That's their decision. You - as the sender of the message -
shouldn't concern yourself with this. Some people might like their
messages to wrap at '40'. Some at '72'. Others at the margin of the
text display. You can't cater for them all.

So it's up to the *reader* of the messages - not the *sender* to wrap
them if that's what they want to do. You can configure XanaNews to do
this in Tools/Options/Message Pane, 'Wrap lines at 'n' characters'."

 

[kony]

So it's up to the *reader* of the messages - not the *sender* to wrap
them if that's what they want to do. You can configure XanaNews to do
this in Tools/Options/Message Pane, 'Wrap lines at 'n' characters'."

No, it is not.

Note the format everyone else uses.

One nut telling you otherwise is not a justification.

 

[CBFalconer]

No, it is not. Note the format everyone else uses.

In fact, an appropriate wrap point is purely self defense against
having your deathless prose mangled by an unfeeling boorish quote
mechanism. Keeping lines down to about 65 to 70 chars accomplishes
this, because the quoted lines with added '>' quotemarks will not
cause wrapping at the destination, even after passing through
several quote levels.

 

[curious]

No, it is not.

Note the format everyone else uses.

It doesn't look like everyone in this thread uses the same format. Some posts appear to have the lines broken up at less than 80 characters, while other posts appear to have the lines not broken up at all.

One nut telling you otherwise is not a justification.

So what is the purpose of the "quoted printable" format? Why does the software offer it if it's not supposed to be used?

 

[kony]

It doesn't look like everyone in this thread uses the same format.
Some posts appear to have the lines broken up at less than 80
characters,

Not some, most.

while other posts appear to have the lines not broken
up at all.

Very few, the exceptions to the rule. In fact if you use
Google to search for "usenet rules" and click the first link
(if not other links..) you will see this, the 80 characters
mentioned.

So what is the purpose of the "quoted printable" format?

It has none on usenet, unless you are on a private news
server, a private forum that has specifically deviated from
the usenet conventions. More commonly it is used to
deliberately not have hard returns, line lengths until the
end of paragraphs which might be desirable in some use but
not usenet.

Why does the software offer it if it's not supposed to be used?

Because the author wasn't acting responsibly? It's a
feature but the same can be said about any feature in any
software. For example, In MS Word you can change the font
size to 150, but does this validate it for a specific use?
Of course not, it's far too large for most uses then. Same
goes for any other software feature, that it exists is not
evidence that it is appropriate for any particular use.

Anyone can put literally anything into software. If the
author had put in a button that logged into a government
server and tried to hack it, would THAT be ok too? Of
course not.

Usenet is not based around one lone newsreader, it is
deliberately and purposefully designed to be accessed by
many many different machines, readers, etc. What your
particular newsreader can or can't do, doesn't change usenet
conventions. It might be able to hide text inside images
and decode them again but would it mean you can converse on
usenet in general with only these pictures with hidden
text? No.

 

[Jasen Betts]

It doesn't look like everyone in this thread uses the same format. Some posts appear to have the lines broken up at less than 80 characters, while other posts appear to have the lines not broken up at all.

yeah... some people are follwing the established standards.

So what is the purpose of the "quoted printable" format? Why does the software offer it if it's not supposed to be used?

encoding text in a way that makes it hard to read but "preseves line breaks"

AFAICT it doesn't belong on usenet.

 

[Bazzer Smith]

?

Because the author wasn't acting responsibly? It's a
feature but the same can be said about any feature in any
software. For example, In MS Word you can change the font
size to 150, but does this validate it for a specific use?
Of course not, it's far too large for most uses then. Same
goes for any other software feature, that it exists is not
evidence that it is appropriate for any particular use.

Anyone can put literally anything into software. If the
author had put in a button that logged into a government
server and tried to hack it, would THAT be ok too? Of
course not.

Usenet is not based around one lone newsreader, it is
deliberately and purposefully designed to be accessed by
many many different machines, readers, etc. What your
particular newsreader can or can't do, doesn't change usenet
conventions. It might be able to hide text inside images
and decode them again but would it mean you can converse on
usenet in general with only these pictures with hidden
text? No.

Well I have to say his text wraps beautifully on my comp
whatever the size of the window whereas below a certain size your look an
ugly mess.
You could take the view that just because usenet was designed badly
does that mean we should stick with a bad design forever?

 

[Bazzer Smith]

Well I have to say his text wraps beautifully on my comp
whatever the size of the window whereas below a certain size your look an
ugly mess.
You could take the view that just because usenet was designed badly
does that mean we should stick with a bad design forever?

Incidently my posts also wrap badly.

 

[kony]

Well I have to say his text wraps beautifully on my comp

usenet is not designed for one computer or application,
rather the opposite that it does not need any particular
client config. Since even the old terminals did 80
characters, it was sufficient.

whatever the size of the window whereas below a certain size your look an
ugly mess.

Window, as in MS Windows. Usenet is not here to serve MS
windows, it pre-dates it and will probably still be around
when Windows is a past memory.

Why would you deliberately downsize the window you're trying
to use anyway?

Nobody is suggesting you have to like the format. You don't
really have to like driving on the right side of the road
either, but it will not work well for people to pick their
own side instead of staying with the conventions everyone
else uses.

You could take the view that just because usenet was designed badly
does that mean we should stick with a bad design forever?

.... or we could take the view that while everyone may have a
subjective opinion of which is better, the majority has
spoken.

 

[Bazzer Smith]

usenet is not designed for one computer or application,
rather the opposite that it does not need any particular
client config. Since even the old terminals did 80
characters, it was sufficient.

What usenet was designed for many years ago is pretty much
irrelevent, it is what it is use for no that matters..

Window, as in MS Windows. Usenet is not here to serve MS
windows, it pre-dates it and will probably still be around
when Windows is a past memory.

Why would you deliberately downsize the window you're trying
to use anyway?

Nobody is suggesting you have to like the format. You don't
really have to like driving on the right side of the road
either, but it will not work well for people to pick their
own side instead of staying with the conventions everyone
else uses.



... or we could take the view that while everyone may have a
subjective opinion of which is better, the majority has
spoken.

Yea and the majority or people are not useing computer systems
designed over a deade ago.

The Dodo couldn't fly, but that didn't stop other birds flying.
The Dodo is extinict, most birds which can fly are not.