Subscription still active?

Okay... I started all this stuff... and I'll end it... it *was* a mistake.... but now, at least we know that until something BIG happens, the 10 yr. definition is safe... but I don't think that anyone (At least I wouldn't) would get really mad at someone who makes a reference to something new (IE Yeah, the OS A was kind of like Windows 95), or if they bend the 10 years to 9 1/2, or 9 3/4, or even call something 10 years old when the technology (Not actual system design) Is 10 yrs old, so forth... or if anyone asks about emulation software for a computer a made in 1984 for a Pentium PC... Tony Duell wrote: > > 1) I vote strongly in favor of keeping the 10-year rule. It's simple, it's > > hard to start an argument over, and it has worked wonderfully so far. It is > > a "moving window", but that's appropriate. Time is moving on... > > I think the 10 year rule is working well, but that it should continue to > be treated flexibly. No, I don't want a flood of posts on Pentium PC's > here, but lets face it - the AMT DAP (Distributed Array Processor) is > only 9 years old, but it's such a strange machine (NO WAY could you call > it a PC clone, or an _anything_ clone :-)) that I don't think people > would mind if they were discussed here. > > > it!*") Worse, 5 years from now Tony may have been hit by a truck (er... > > lorry. and no offense intended, Tony!) and no one will be able to help you > > No offence taken - You're correct. I spend a lot of my time working on > high-voltage systems (both at work and at home - I'm not afraid to dive > into a monitor or an SMPS). Yes, I'm careful. Yes, I check everything as > I go. But accidents do happen. > > That's one reason why I try to ensure that like-minded people learn how > to repair/test things without me. If you ask me to fix your PSU, you'll > get a (probably) polite refusal. If you want help in sorting it out > yourself, you'll get me digging out printsets (if I have them), going > through it, suggesting tests, etc. Yes, it does take a lot more time that > way, but IMHO it's worth it. > > > - Mark > > -tony