Test

Candidate for "World's Best FAQ", methinks. From the man I nearly
didn't recognise last Saturday

 

Zan (CBR1000F) - www.zanziba.prodigynet.co.uk/Pictures made up the
following gibberish:

At this point, I feel morally obliged to evengalise Gravity. I won't
though...
http://lightning.prohosting.com/~tbates/gravity/super.html
....ok, I lied...

It's simply the most powerful, intuitive amd easy to use newsreader I've
ever had the pleasure to use. I switched to it about six years ago and
despite trying a few alternatives (Agent, pan and knews), I keep coming
back to Gravity.

 

Heh, but she's sweet...

 

True

 

last time I looked a Gravity it was limited in the OSes it ran on. So I
use pan.

 

buggery bollox

 

I've been away

 

....and she puts up with you.

 

Which version of pan you using? Can't recall if it was 0.13 or
0.1something else, but it was a little unstable (unsurprisingly) and
even though I managed to configure it to be 80% Gravity-like, the
scoring/scoring colouration wasn't quite there.

I did then try running Gravity under wine but that was too painful. I'm
back on Windoze at the moment and keep Linux on my laptop.

 

Well, ackshirley, as others have mentioned, some newsreaders don't seem
to care about the trailing CR. Gravity, otoh, does.

 

IIRC, OE can do it automagically. You just have to find the option in
the tools bit.

 

Cab says...

I'm doing what ukrm does best, letting the reader do the thinking.

It has to be, when was the last time you saw any terrorist sit and
clean his weapon after use?

 

On the curtains?

 

You're not far wrong.

I know - the old gimmer keeps getting younger in appearance: there
must be a deeply, deeply fucked portrait in an attic in Oz somewhere.

 

Not before time either.

 

Heh, cont

 

even
0.14, but I have been using it since 0.12 or there abouts with no problem.

I don't overly use the colours.

I've got wine, but as the only app I want to run is a really really badly
written one I don't use it on the laptop. The laptop runs Solaris 10
exclusivly with Solaris 9 on my desktop ('cos I can't be arsed upgrading
yet :=) )

 

It's entirely possible at any point on the earth, given the height of
the bridge and of our observation point. I'm struggling to remember
the height above sea level, but it must be several hundred metres,
plus the bridge itself rising 341m from the valley floor. The road
where I though I saw it from is also 'several' hundred metres above
sea level.

The simplest equation, assuming curvature at the equator and no
refractive dip, shows us that two points would have to be 1000 metres
above sea level to be visible in a straight line at 100 miles. Using
'normal' values for dip[1] this would drop to around 950m.

So it's quite feasible, but actually much more unlikely that you'd
have a clear enough atmosphere to actuall see clearly that far. Which
I guess is what you're referring to about the arctic circle, unless
you're suggesting that the 'flatter' curvature of the earth would be
significant. Which it would, of course, but only within a relatively
small amount of variation.


[1] There can be a significant 'dip' in apparent horizon due to
refraction, such that light actually travels in a curve following the
Earth's surface. In extreme conditions this can approach the same
radius of curvature as the earth, so there would be _no_ horizon.
Maybe this is what you're alluding to in the Arctic?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

</b>
Phew, me back hurts.

 

I bribe her with motorbikes