power supply

  Quoted Text Here  
You bring up a good point for the future. This box has 6 USB. They are full - mouse, keyboard, camera, memory stick, two hard drives.
Any big deal to add more USBs?
Also can you beat the 2Tb limit on USB hard drives. I've had no luck here.
FWIW, this is the box you helped pick out with a MB replacement. I'll give you the old MB if you can use it.
Karl

  Quoted Text Here  
For whatever reason, drives past 1TB are still fairly short-lived. Although I own (and fairly frequently replace) some of the larger drives (staying well backed-up), I still buy 1TB drives when I need some off- line storage.
Adding more USB? Just use an active hub to run the lower-bandwidth devices off a single physical port. At the least, you could 'hub' the mouse and keyboard, and probably the stick, too.
Lloyd

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 18:03:44 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm at 15Tb, making plans to go to 30Tb of storage. USB is of marginal use in this case.
karl

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:46:26 -0600, Karl Townsend
There may be some degrdation in bandwidth with USB 2.0, but USB hubs are widely available (external power supply better) For example http://tinyurl.com/pf533ob more expensive but USB 3.0 http://tinyurl.com/mlhf5jj Theoretically you could daisy chain up to 127 ports off of one master computer port, but there are other limits. see http://tinyurl.com/p5rkdaz
Heres a 5T USB 3.0 drive http://tinyurl.com/m55t68b
You may want to evaluate high capacity HDDs for the computer. http://tinyurl.com/nqzm7mw

  Quoted Text Here  
I'm seeing a 5 TB Seagate Expansion as size = 4.54 TB and I can open the folders and play a video with 32 bit XP SP3 on a Pentium M laptop made in 2005. https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/8fd33944-0202-4dff-a432-356e2b231f2e/windows-xp-hard-drive-size-limit?forum=itproxpsp
Low-power devices like a mouse, keyboard and memory stick can be combined on an unpowered hub. AC-powered external drives can use a hub too, but when I copy between drives I put them on different Mobo ports.
"Portable" USB drives take operating power from the USB port and need to be plugged in directly or into a powered hub.
The 2007-vintage Dell D820 laptop beside me can host 10 USB ports; 2x USB3 on an ExpressCard, 4x USB2 on the Mobo and 4 more on a CardBus expander. With 1 TB drives in the boot drive and CD bays it can have over 20 TB plugged in directly.
There are PCI adapter cards for USB3, like this, if you don't have PCI-E slots left: (Amazon.com product link shortened)25775663&sr=8-6&keywords=pci+usb+3+card
They won'r run at full USB3 speed because the PCI bus is too slow, but neither will external hard drives. I've seen a little over 100 MB/S from the USB3 ExpressCard which also won't meet the full spec.
-jsw

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Most of the good used ones will ber SCSI though. Nothing wrong with SCSI - fast and strong, not like in the early days when it was just a short-form for "incompatible"

On 3/8/2015 4:44 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Let's look at it again. Karl has a lot of video for entertainment. He likes the idea of it all in one box. I have a lot of video distributed across my network boxes of which none are complex or expensive, they are just old reconditioned PC's from the office. All of my video is on USB drives that sleep until called on. Everything is on power strips with MOV's. I've had to repair the box connected to the TV twice now due to failure to blow the dust out once in a while. I think I have the cheapest best solution.

  Quoted Text Here  
yep got 15Tb of movies goes up about 10 gig a week. each one on two hard drives, so 30 Tb needed now.
I move 2000 miles every year. One box easier to take along.
Networking was easy with XP, can't make it work well with W7. Too many security things. Never did get a movie to play over a network. For the same reason, I shy away from RAID. Just not enough of a techy any more.
I do see the downside of this approach. But it seems the best route to me by taking appropriate steps.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I think it's more likely to degrade to rolling blackouts as in the Third World. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_blackout
We can't install new overhead transmission lines because they are unsightly and decrease property values, or bury electric or gas lines because blasting will harm wells. http://www.outdoors.org/conservation/wherewework/wmnf/northern-pass-project.cfm
http://www.wmur.com/news/residents-protest-proposed-natural-gas-pipeline-in-mason-saturday/30222190

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:25:02 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
  Quoted Text Here  
We haven't had a terrorist take a shot at our grid yet. Just wait. It's not going to be simple, and it will surely be a helluva lot worse than a rolling black or brownout. Got PREP?
  Quoted Text Here  
So the fix is: modular nuclear power! Or fusion, whenever.
  Quoted Text Here  
They have a pipeline planned here in Oregon, too.
With the advent of the super ground-hungry tunnel boring machines, why aren't they burying transmission lines and pipelines yet, I wonder?
With Keystone, I can't imagine how it could be a good thing to put all that oil, under high pressure, directly -over- 60%(?) of the nation's fresh water sources.

  Quoted Text Here  
Putting them a few (or a few tens) of feet below the surface won't affect that, and might make it harder to detect and fix any leaks.
Lloyd

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:06:28 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
  Quoted Text Here  
As far as Keystone goes, I am absolutely against it. It's not our oil and it's not being sold to us, so why endanger our fresh water for it?

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 11:46:03 PM UTC-4, Larry Jaques wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The Canadian oil is going to be produced regardless of whether a pipeline is built or not. If no pipeline is built it will be transported to Vancouv er, Canada and shipped on Tankers from there. Shipping by rail car is more dangerous and costly than shipping by pipeline.
If the keystone pipeline is built, some of the money will come to the U.S. as fees for using the pipeline. And more of the money will come to the U.S . as the refining will be done in the U.S. In addition the refined oil cou ld be sent by pipeline to the East Coast. So even if the refined oil is sh ipped over seas by tanker, it will mean that the costs of gasoline and heat ing oil will be slightly less in the U.S.
Not building the Keystone Pipeline will not mean that the oil will not be u sed and will not keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Dan

And if war breaks out, a supply that is safe. Remember the tanker issue with Japan - take them out and the boats stop. Planes stop and back then even the trains. Coal was the best then oil. Oil then was for the war.
East Texas was drained rather deeply sending it to the East in the Big and little 'Inch' pipelines. All tax free. Texas got nothing from it.
Keystone is an independence key point.
Martin
On 3/15/2015 6:23 AM, snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 22:56:51 -0500, Martin Eastburn
  Quoted Text Here  
They why aren't they building their own pipeline in their own country? Or, why aren't we using short runs of pipe and building refineries in Montana, etc. so it could be refined here in the US instead? That would do us some good, drop the price of gas, keep the oil safe and available, etc.
  Quoted Text Here  
I thought all the refining would be done elsewhere; all we got were the labor charges for building it and a pittance for flowing it. BUT, if the US has so much refining capacity, why are they closing refineries everywhere over the past 2+ decades? Answer: They keep the price of gas up by pinching off the refining capacity. If anything, the Canadian glut will raise them even more. How does that suit anyone but the oil companies and their refineries?
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 11:37:34 AM UTC-4, Larry Jaques wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
They may end up building a pipeline to the West Coast if the Keystone one i s not approved. The Keystone pipeline is intended to connect to existing pipelines in the U.S. so the oil could be sent to Texas and refined there. So a lot of the needed pipeline already exists. There are already refine ries in Texas.
Building more refineries would raise more hate and discontent than building the pipeline.
  Quoted Text Here  
They close some refineries because they are old and it would be expensive t o upgrade them to current technology. If you already have a refinery it is easier to get permits to enlarge it than to get a permit to build a new on e.
Dan
  Quoted Text Here  
be used and will not keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere.
  Quoted Text Here  
ts.
  Quoted Text Here  
ll

Remember the cold war kept 1/3 of the planes in the air at a time. That is a lot of gas. Most Air force bases were served by 3 refineries. It allowed on to go down for repair and used 1 or 2.
Now with a lot of the aircraft in mothballs, and the replacements are fewer with less flights, we have fewer refineries...
Navy down, down, down, ....down in size. Less fuel oil, gasoline and jet fuel needed on the fleets.
Let WWIII really break out - as it isn't - trade lines are in danger, either from the sender or the route taken. Look at the crazy pirates working the tankers and ships now and they are small fry. Not a navy with work to do.
And Keystone has branches to the central time zone already. Just none to make OK to send Oklahoma sands down here as well as Canada.
Martin
On 3/16/2015 10:37 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:06:28 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
  Quoted Text Here  
I meant that crossing rivers with pipelines is simply a dumbass thing to do, ever. Well, unless one doesn't care about humanity, and is looking to pare the population down. (I don't doubt that about the politicians of today.)

  Quoted Text Here  
My usual reaction is "if those are the best parts I'm not paying to watch the rest".
-jsw, once a techie on a film crew.