How to remount a USB drive
in [UK Mac]
|
From: T i m on 22 Jan 2010 12:48 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:09:47 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >> >But Mike Dee has experienced it, and so have others reporting. >> >> I've experienced it but what difference does that make. > ><shrug> So you know it's problematic. > >Seems stupid of you to do it the high risk way. It would wouldn't it. > >> You may have >> had food poisoning at some point but does that mean you never eat that >> food again (and I know some people don't). Or never ride a motorbike >> again because you came off once? > ><puzzled> No, in both cases I simply take the normal sensible >precautions to obviate the risks. As I do with computer data storage. As I do with data storage. > >> >That'll do me. >> >> And that's fine. I'm not advocating anyone should risk anything. There >> is a proper / slower way, please carry on doing it that way. > >I'll do what I do regardless of the opinions of others. Of course you will. > I always have >done. No? > Some might be shocked to read that... ;-) They might! ;-) > >> >> Ah, so if you are saying *you* daren't risk it because of *your* luck >> then that's fine. Some of us may just be luckier [1]. ;-) > >Tim, you want to unplug without unmounting, you go ahead. Er, thanks. ;-) > >But don't whinge when I point out it's stupid How can something that has worked reliably over many devices, machines, OS's and drives with rare a problem is being 'stupid'? If I was *you* <phew> I might suggest that wasting time clicking on an eject option then removing the drive by hand is also a STUPID waste of time (but I haven't eh). >- which I do because I'm >just a bit worried that some here might think that your example is a >sensible one to follow... I'm offended and insulted your libelous comments might ... no, hang on, sorry, that's your line in the script. ;-) So, if you don't believe what I say about using pen drives without (ever) ejecting them over many years and it being 'fine', what makes you think anyone else would think it was an ok thing to do (apart from Woody and all the others who regularly do so here and elsewhere and who aren't bothering to reply etc)? > >> Cheers, T i m >> >> [1] But as I've said before, it's little to do with luck and more to >> do with an understanding of what you are doing. > >And as I've pointed out, that's not merely wrong but also a patronising >insult. It's actually a fact (but you can have the other bits if you want and nothing I could say would persuade you otherwise). ;-) Remember, you were the one getting all excited about caches and buffers when it was a non issue (in this thread and the real world in general). Cheers, T i m
From: T i m on 22 Jan 2010 12:53 On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:25:55 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > >But of course you think that dim 17 year olds shouldn't have any >protection from callous and ruthless employers, don't you? But what if they saw a Superman film when at home? No seriously now, it's getting way too deep (here and in general) but thank you for your kind explanations. Cheers, T i m
From: Rowland McDonnell on 22 Jan 2010 13:22 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > > >> ... themselves in a nice little earner. ;-) > > > >Yes it does seem that way, but I guess it depends on the particular employer > >and employee. > > Yup. Don't get me wrong, I know all these people have good intentions > but from personal experience I also know some of these clubs have a > 'Jobs for the boys' component. Clubs? There's no `club' involved. How odd. Well, actually, that's not strictly true; but the funny handshake brigade get everywhere in the professions and that's not generally considered much of a problem by the rest of us, except maybe in the case of the police. > Like CORGI > Gas Safe. BIL fitted a gas water heater into an island > -bench in a school. The installation was rejected by the CORGI > inspector because the heater expansion outlet didn't stick out of the > unit but would have vented inside (it would be obvious because of the > louvre doors). BIL mentioned that if the vent was where they > suggested, in the event of it venting it could project steam over the > leg of any child / person who happened to be standing in front of it. > The vent when where the CORGI man said it must? I've had properly trained gas fitters describe CORGI registration as `slightly better than Crufts, but not much'. The CORGI chap was probably correct in his application of the regulations, mind you - but stupid in failing to spot the problem that the application of the regulations caused. I suspect that if you'd had it looked at by someone who really knew his job, it would have turned out to be the case that no safe AND legal fitment of the gas water heater could have been made in that position without fitting a duct to somewhere for venting. And it's vital that such things are done safely and legally - lots of people have been killed by faulty gas appliances, and the laws are designed to reduce the risks to the minimum practical level but blind application of the bare letter of the law still won't ensure a safe installation. That takes applying the law in full detail - the law insists that you do a competent job, not merely meet those requirements that can be laid down in particular instructions (vent to the outside, not closer than 30cm from a window or eaves as with my gas boiler, for example) but also meeting the ones that mean `Use your experienced noggin to make sure it's done safely'. [snip] > >> need information where there is a chance I could come across something > >> in a day to sense but I don't need telling not to thrust my hand into > >> a machine, not to drink *any* type of liquid or that I can't be sold a > >> particular chemical because someone else might drink it and die. > > > >Well you never know, what about tha pub/bar that ran out of one of those > >coloured shots (shockwave or something) so for display purposes filled a > >bottel with > >anti-freeze and placed it on teh top shelf so it wouldn;t be used. > >Following day someone wanted some and as there wasn't any left another > >bartender > >got the bottle down and served the customer. > > Then stupidity prevailed. Indeed - as it so often does, which is why we need H&S legislation. > Preventing 'accidents' is as much about not > doing something that could become a trap later on. That's why we need H&S regulations to make sure that people check that that's how things are done. And to make sure that management doesn't allow staff to do stupid things. Not everyone's bright and consciencious, you know. It's wrong that someone should suffer because of someone else's act - and H&S law means that you've actually got some comeback in law if they don't in cases when before H&S was introduced, you didn't. I heard a programme on the radio (R4 or the World Service, I forget) about the 20th century court rulings that lead to the compensation culture we've now got. That line was a separate development to the H&S culture which began in the 19th century with mining regulations and then the factories acts. > >> Put > >> instructions and advice how to use something and let Darwin look after > >> the details (and I'm not suggesting any of that is down to the HSE > >> etc). > > > >That's OK when only one person is involved, it's when the safety of others > >is > >involved is when it becomes more important. > > But my point is no rule or ruling is going to stop those people who do > stupid things from doing stupid things. No, but we have massively reduced the harm caused by the stupid things that stupid people do when at work by introducing and applying H&S law. [snip] > They also need cameras looking out the sides. Mates son was being > overtaken by an arctic yesterday and the arctic 'forgot' he hadn't > actually gone past and came back to the inside lane. Matey tried to > accelerate out of the quickly closing gap but was finally pinched > against the kerb, spun round and pushed sideways down the road another > 150 yards. > > Wait till HSE find out about that It's a police matter, that one. As you know. >(and I bet the lorry driver had done > 21 hours that day). ;-) Likewise an issue for the cops. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 22 Jan 2010 13:22 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > >> >But Mike Dee has experienced it, and so have others reporting. > >> > >> I've experienced it but what difference does that make. [snip] > >But don't whinge when I point out it's stupid > > How can something that has worked reliably over many devices, > machines, OS's and drives with rare a problem is being 'stupid'? The point is, it hasn't worked reliably. [snip] > Remember, you were the one getting all excited about caches and > buffers when it was a non issue [snip] Actually, that's nonsense. I was raising the issue as something which I could see might well be a significant one, and I carried on raising it until someone gave me a proper explanation. Please note the word `might'. I just wanted the issue explained. I can't help it if you insist on making the mistake of thinking that it's `getting all excited of me' when I won't accept blind assertion as a reliable answer. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: T i m on 22 Jan 2010 14:10
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:57:01 +0000, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: >Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > >> whisky-dave <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >> >> >> >> The HSE says that it is totally unneccessary to put a notice on a knife >> >> explaining that it's sharp and might cut you. >> > >> > That seems reasonable, but a maker of knives might do, in the same way >> > I see packets of peanuts labled "contains nuts" > >Exactly so - it's not the HSE that's the problem and it's not H&S law >that's the problem, it's the idiots getting it wrong that are the >problem. Hang on, isn't that what I was saying? > >And there is a problem - but caused by a failure to understand the point >of health and safety, not by the actual health and safety culture at >all. It's caused by paranoid moronic middle management culture and >cancerous compensation culture and such other aspects of `modern life'. And that! It's a cause and effect. People have been hurting themselves and claiming compensation way before HSE existed. Because it was costing industry a lot of money they tried to tighten it all up so people down the line could be held responsible for their actions. This hasn't stopped the 'accidents' nor the compensation of course but we are now clearer who to stick the blame on. > >> Which is odd, as they're actually legumes. > >Legumes which just appen to be associated with causing the sorts of >allergies caused by real nuts... Legumes which are so much like nuts >that they're even called `pea /nuts/' so you get the idea... As an asside, do you work for Mars chocolates by any chance? My daughter bought a bag of Revels a while back and ate something that made her mouth swell up just like peanuts (and only peanuts) do. She emailed them telling them what happened and including a photo of the half chewed nut but they said it was impossible? (She said) It looked like a peanut, tasted like a peanut and caused a reaction that only a peanut (so far) would but apparently it couldn't be a peanut? I wonder how long ago they replaced peanuts with raisin and what the chance of one (peanut) randomly dropping out of the system was? Cheers, T i m |