Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:30:28 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <>
References: <p19qv4$1f8c$>
<181220172047100279%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p19rs6$1gce$>
<181220172123331269%nospam@nospam.invalid> <p1b4qj$17kh$>
<191220171145292036%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
<p1dsh3$1837$> <>
<p1empl$m2o$> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <201220172217559014%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 3209
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1491281717
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/20/2017 10:17 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<>, Bill W
><> wrote:
>>>>   A simple hard drive clone that keeps reporting
>>>> source disk errors has me stumped.
>>> what kind of errors? maybe the drive is failing.
>> That's what it looks like. Running chkdsk takes so long I had to
>> cancel it, and running the disk check from Windows also takes forever.
> a quick smart test might show some relevant info, but a full smart test
> (which can take many hours) would be more telling. on the other hand,
> if the drive is failing, the more you use it and run tests, the closer
> to total failure you get.
>> I already have the new drive, so all I need to do is get the data onto
>> that drive, but cloning won't work with the software I've tried. I'm
>> thinking to try a system backup, and then restore to the new drive,
>> but I don't know if that will work either.
> don't you have a backup of this drive?
>> Just doing a fresh Windows install on the new drive isn't such a big
>> deal on the laptop - there's very little software to reinstall. I just
>> have no idea where the Windows software key might be.
> if it's win10, you don't need a key. otherwise, it can be extracted.
>> The reason I didn't consider a failing drive, and kept fighting this
>> is that there are no other signs of it. No crashes, no errors in
>> normal use, nothing at all.
> drives can fail in mysterious and sometimes sudden ways.
> one of mine randomly decides it's read-only. an unmount/mount fixes it,
> at least for a while. needless to say, it's queued for replacement.

With my attitude it would not be qued for replacement,n Replacement 
would take place within a few minutes of ensuring that there was a 
proper backup.