Can a voltage drop affect a computer?

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

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 =3D 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=3Dflowed or format=3Dquoted 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'."

No, it is not.

Note the format everyone else uses.

One nut telling you otherwise is not a justification.

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.

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.

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

Not some, most.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.