Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 388 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-11 17:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:44 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 14:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 15:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:41 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:47 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-15 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 06:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-16 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-17 03:21 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:46 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-11 01:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:05 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-01 13:27 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 19:47 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:09 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:28 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 18:44 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 18:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 04:34 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 04:54 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:38 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 01:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 07:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 19:56 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 21:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 00:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 13:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 19:30 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 09:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 12:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 18:35 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:22 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 20:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 05:36 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-02 12:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 16:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 01:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 08:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:51 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-31 14:09 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:46 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-31 20:16 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:19 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 14:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 15:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 12:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 17:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-01 10:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 10:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-01 16:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-02 17:05 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-02-02 00:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:58 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:26 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:06 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:02 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:55 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:40 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500
Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 15:58 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 14:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 15:27 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 18:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:07 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:13 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:03 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-31 02:58 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:32 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-30 07:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-30 11:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-30 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:54 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:41 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 13:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:03 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 20:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 07:03 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 10:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn99nn8.173.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156452 |
On 2016-01-11, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <20160111140758.6bafbe6db84b0bcf075cae9e@eircom.net>, > steveo@eircom.net says... >> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:27 -0500 >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Lockheed mini >> >> That ought to be a small flying car. > > It really should, but Lockheed was in the computer business for a while. AAFAIRemeember, the data company, called Digilog(I Think) was a airplane manafactures developement that was spun off. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87egdmrf17.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156486 |
mausg@mail.com writes: > AAFAIRemeember, the data company, called Digilog(I Think) was a > airplane manafactures developement that was spun off. DIALOG ... article lookup ... sort of like lexis/nexis but different. would go by and visit them periodically ... i have some vague recollection that the guy that ran it was relative of some famous rock star ... this URL redirected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialog_%28online_database%29 previous refs have gone 404, need to go to the wayback machine http://web.archive.org/web/20050123104257/http://www.dialog.com/about/history/pioneers1.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20050123104318/http://www.dialog.com/about/history/pioneers2.pdf some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#33 Did AT&T offer Unix to Digital Equipment in the 70s? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001g.html#46 The Alpha/IA64 Hybrid http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#0 Search for Joseph A. Fisher VLSI Publication (1981) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002l.html#61 10 choices that were critical to the Net's success http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#30 Empires and Imperialism http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#38 blast from the past ... macrocode http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#60 3350 failures http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009m.html#88 Continous Systems Modelling Package http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#24 Old datasearches http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#44 Old datasearches http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#46 Old datasearches http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010j.html#55 Article says mainframe most cost-efficient platform http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011j.html#47 Graph of total world disk space over time? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#39 Before the Internet: The golden age of online services http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014i.html#90 IBM Programmer Aptitude Test -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87a8oarejb.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156500 |
somewhat along the same lines ... M/D acquired TYMSHARE in 84 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tymshare ... also in silicon valley (like dialog) ... and would go by and periodically visit ... they were also regulars at the monthly baybunch user group meetings held at SLAC. past posts mentioning virtual machine based commercial online services http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#online TYMSHARE also developed their own online computing system for ibm mainframe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOSIS I was brought in to audit/review GNOSIS as part of M/D purchase and GNOSIS spinoff to Key Logic. past posts mentionin monthly baybunch meetings http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#46 ... the need for a Museum of Computer Software http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#35 VR vs. Portable Computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#44 Linux paging http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005u.html#40 POWER6 on zSeries? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#22 vmshare http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007c.html#12 Special characters in passwords was Re: RACF - Password rules http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008m.html#64 CHROME and WEB apps on Mainframe? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#27 CPU time/instruction table http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#12 New machine code http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#66 Computer History Museum http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#44 Old datasearches http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#64 spool file tag data http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009s.html#12 user group meetings http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#4 360 programs on a z/10 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#58 LPARs: More or Less? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#10 Need tool to zap core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#38 Need tool to zap core http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#68 Entry point for a Mainframe? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010j.html#76 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#74 z millicode: where does it reside? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#58 Other early NSFNET backbone http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#25 Multiple Virtual Memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#68 Other early NSFNET backbone http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#48 A brief history of CMS/XA, part 1 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#73 Wylbur, Orvyl, Milton, CRBE/CRJE were all used (and sometimes liked) in the past http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#75 Wylbur, Orvyl, Milton, CRBE/CRJE were all used (and sometimes liked) in the past http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#2 First Website Launched 20 Years Ago Today http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#102 Question on PR/SM dispatcher http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#114 Start Interpretive Execution http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#69 Has anyone successfully migrated off mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#62 An approach to Dump formatting of Control Blocks http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#38 A bit of IBM System 360 nostalgia http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#46 A bit of IBM System 360 nostalgia http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#63 Typeface (font) and city identity http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#78 What are you experiences with Amdahl Computers and Plug-Compatibles? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#18 VM Workshop 2012 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#25 Can anybody give me a clear idea about Cloud Computing in MAINFRAME ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#39 Just a quick link to a video by the National Research Council of Canada made in 1971 on computer technology for filmmaking http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#40 GNOSIS & KeyKOS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#72 zEC12, and previous generations, "why?" type question - GPU computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#22 What is a Mainframe? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#59 Was MVS/SE designed to confound Amdahl? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#68 Linear search vs. Binary search http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#13 Colossal Cave Adventure in PL/I http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013n.html#46 'Free Unix!': The world-changing proclamation made30yearsagotoday http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013n.html#91 rebuild 1403 printer chain http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#17 Write Inhibit http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#44 [CM] Ten recollections about the early WWW and Internet http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#88 Silicon Valley: an army of geeks and 'coders' shaping our future http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#98 After the Sun (Microsystems) Sets, the Real Stories Come Out http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#161 Slushware http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015b.html#17 What were the complaints of binary code programmers that not accept Assembly? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#44 John Titor was right? IBM 5100 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#14 3033 & 3081 question http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#91 IBM 4341, introduced in 1979, was 26 times faster than the 360/30 -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n73i0j216vr@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156486 |
On 2016-01-12, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote: > On 2016-01-11, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article <20160111140758.6bafbe6db84b0bcf075cae9e@eircom.net>, >> steveo@eircom.net says... >>> >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:27 -0500 >>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Lockheed mini >>> >>> That ought to be a small flying car. >> >> It really should, but Lockheed was in the computer business for a while. > > AAFAIRemeember, the data company, called Digilog(I Think) was a > airplane manafactures developement that was spun off. The story I heard about the Lockheed SUE (probably tongue in cheek) was that the it sufficiently resembled another manufacturer's mini that Lockheed chose the name as a dare to the other company to launch a lawsuit. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <948910597.474308565.906090.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156452 |
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <20160111140758.6bafbe6db84b0bcf075cae9e@eircom.net>, > steveo@eircom.net says... >> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:55:27 -0500 >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Lockheed mini >> >> That ought to be a small flying car. > > It really should, but Lockheed was in the computer business for a while. > _EVERYBODY_ was in the computer business, for a while. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7172a4ac-e6c2-41d4-87cc-f18e3d535c32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156368 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:49:25 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > If the movie was _made_ in 1975 it probably reflects conditions from a few > > years before. I think most computers were still in glass houses in 75. In > > my recollection personal computers only became common a couple of years > > later, and only a few geeks would have a terminal on a desk. > > Minis were fairly common--I drove a Lockheed mini one summer when I was > in college producing computer output microfilm. Micros existed but were > mostly a hobbyist thing. I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was still done in batch mode. If an office worker used a computer, they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly coming, but would not explode until a few years later. That is, an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than 1975. A few specific applications might have had terminal access, perhaps using a Selectric printing terminal or equivalent. In 1975, an office might have one or two terminals used on a sharable basis, not one on every desk. There were, of course, some big on-line reservation and credit- card systems, but I think the battery of terminals for them were still located in a central back room. Point of sale clerks who wanted to make a reservation or check credit had to telephone in their request to one of those processing centers. Maybe airline and car rental ticket counters had terminals at the agent's position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n70isf$lc1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156377 |
On 1/11/2016 9:24 AM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was > still done in batch mode. If an office worker used a computer, > they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to > code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly > coming, but would not explode until a few years later. That is, > an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than 1975. > > A few specific applications might have had terminal access, perhaps > using a Selectric printing terminal or equivalent. In 1975, an > office might have one or two terminals used on a sharable basis, > not one on every desk. Mounted on a lazy susan at the junction of several desks, so that they could be spun around to face the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160111160447.df6b4dd1efbce1bf309a7455@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156382 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:51:01 -0600 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: ... terminals > Mounted on a lazy susan at the junction of several desks, so that they > could be spun around to face the user. Do not turn in complete circles, the cabling won't like it. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f16b1f0c-a16b-4d1b-a643-a40b94a18dec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156386 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 11:30:04 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > Mounted on a lazy susan at the junction of several desks, so that they > > could be spun around to face the user. > > Do not turn in complete circles, the cabling won't like it. I recall seeing terminals set up on such an arrangement, but they didn't last long because the cabling didn't do well with even a little movement. The cable would kink where it met the connector and fail or work poorly. Coax cables could bend, but they weren't like a lamp cord that could freely be twisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <874mek57lv.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156377 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was > still done in batch mode. If an office worker used a computer, > they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to > code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly > coming, but would not explode until a few years later. That is, > an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than 1975. I've periodically commented about financial industry overnight batch settlement window. During the 70s, these financial dataprocessing applications started getting front-ended with online transactions (ATMs, point-of-sale terminals, bank teller, etc) ... but actual settlement was still left to the overnight batch window. In the 90s, there were billions spent on (failed) attempts to convert to straight through processing ... settlement happened in real-time as part of the online transaction ... converting from (cobol batch) mainframe to large number of parallel "killer micros". The issue was the upswing in workload and increasing globalization shortening the window ... but breaking the overnight batch window. Unfortunately they were usually using some standard parallelizing libraries ... where a number of us explained/warned had 100 times the overhead of cobol batch ... they ignored the warnings ... and went ahead to deployments that went down in flames (overhead totally swamped the expected throughput improvements with large numbers of "killer micros"). slightly related ... posts references celebrating former SJR co-worker ... credited with formalizing transaction definition ... enabling uptake in financial dataprocessing where aditors can better trust computer records. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#32 A Tribute to Jim Gray: Sometimes Nice Guys Do Finish First http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#36 A Tribute to Jim Gray: Sometimes Nice Guys Do Finish First http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008p.html#27 Father Of Financial Dataprocessing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009m.html#78 ATMs by the Numbers http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#4 70 Years of ATM Innovation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#13 Is the ATM still the banking industry's single greatest innovation? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#21 Mainframe Hall of Fame (MHOF) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010n.html#85 Hashing for DISTINCT or GROUP BY in SQL http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#80 Which building at Berkeley? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#32 Selectric Typewriter--50th Anniversary http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#28 Some interesting post about the importance of Security and what it means for the Mainframe http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012p.html#64 IBM Is Changing The Terms Of Its Retirement Plan, Which Is Frustrating Some Employees http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#24 Old data storage or data base http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#45 Why is the mainframe so expensive? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#24 Tandem Memos http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#69 Is end of mainframe near ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014k.html#2 Flat (VSAM or other) files still in use? past posts mentioning "overnight batch window" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006s.html#40 Ranking of non-IBM mainframe builders? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007e.html#31 Quote from comp.object http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#15 John W. Backus, 82, Fortran developer, dies http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007m.html#36 Future of System/360 architecture? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#19 Distributed Computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#21 Distributed Computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#37 folklore indeed http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#44 Distributed Computing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#61 folklore indeed http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#19 Education ranking http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#27 folklore indeed http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#64 folklore indeed http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#69 Controlling COBOL DDs named SYSOUT http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#72 whats the world going to do when all the baby boomers retire http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#81 Tap and faucet and spellcheckers http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008b.html#74 Too much change opens up financial fault lines http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#30 Toyota Sales for 2007 May Surpass GM http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#31 Toyota Sales for 2007 May Surpass GM http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#73 Price of CPU seconds http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#87 Berkeley researcher describes parallel path http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#89 Berkeley researcher describes parallel path http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#55 performance of hardware dynamic scheduling http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008h.html#50 Microsoft versus Digital Equipment Corporation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008h.html#56 Long running Batch programs keep IMS databases offline http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008p.html#26 What is the biggest IT myth of all time? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008p.html#30 Automation is still not accepted to streamline the business processes... why organizations are not accepting newer technolgies? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#7 If you had a massively parallel computing architecture, what unsolved problem would you set out to solve? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#87 Cleaning Up Spaghetti Code vs. Getting Rid of It http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#43 Business process re-engineering http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#14 Legacy clearing threat to OTC derivatives warns State Street http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#55 Cobol hits 50 and keeps counting http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009h.html#1 z/Journal Does it Again http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009h.html#2 z/Journal Does it Again http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#21 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#23 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX? (Are settlements a good argument for overnight batch COBOL ?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#26 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#30 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#38 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#43 Why are z/OS people reluctant to use z/OS UNIX? (Are settlements a good argument for overnight batch COBOL ?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#60 In the USA "financial regulator seeks power to curb excess speculation." http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#57 IBM halves mainframe Linux engine prices http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009m.html#81 A Faster Way to the Cloud http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#13 UK issues Turning apology (and about time, too) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#57 MasPar compiler and simulator http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009q.html#67 Now is time for banks to replace core system according to Accenture http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#35 70 Years of ATM Innovation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009r.html#47 70 Years of ATM Innovation http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#77 Korean bank Moves back to Mainframes (...no, not back) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010b.html#16 How long for IBM System/360 architecture and its descendants? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010b.html#19 STEM crisis http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010e.html#77 Madoff Whistleblower Book http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010f.html#56 Handling multicore CPUs; what the competition is thinking http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010g.html#37 16:32 far pointers in OpenWatcom C/C++ http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#47 COBOL - no longer being taught - is a problem http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#78 Software that breaks computer hardware( was:IBM 029 service manual ) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010i.html#41 Idiotic programming style edicts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010k.html#3 Assembler programs was Re: Delete all members of a PDS that is allocated http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#14 Age http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#13 Is the ATM still the banking industry's single greatest innovation? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#37 A Bright Future for Big Iron? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#71 They always think we don't understand http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010p.html#48 WikiLeaks' Wall Street Bombshell http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#19 zLinux OR Linux on zEnterprise Blade Extension??? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#42 Looking for a real Fortran-66 compatible PC compiler (CP/M or DOSor Windows http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011c.html#35 If IBM Hadn't Bet the Company http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#15 At least two decades back, some gurus predicted that mainframes would disappear in future and it still has not happened http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#19 At least two decades back, some gurus predicted that mainframes would disappear in future and it still has not happened http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#91 Mainframe Fresher http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011e.html#93 Itanium at ISSCC http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#32 At least two decades back, some gurus predicted that mainframes would disappear http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#5 Home prices may drop another 25%, Shiller predicts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#8 At least two decades back, some gurus predicted that mainframes would disappear in future and it still has not happened http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#25 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM! http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#52 At least two decades back, some gurus predicted that mainframes would disappear in future and it still has not happened http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#15 Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#70 New IBM Redbooks residency experience in Poughkeepsie, NY http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#71 Don't Dump the Volcker Rule Just Because It's Not Perfect http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#1 Banks Awash in Cash, Which Isn't Good News http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#10 Has anyone successfully migrated off mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#23 Why are organizations sticking with mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#9 John R. Opel, RIP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#79 Why are organizations sticking with mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#8 Why are organizations sticking with mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#12 Why are organizations sticking with mainframes? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#49 No internet in 1984 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#13 Study links ultrafast machine trading with risk of crash http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#25 Goldman Sachs P.R. Chief's Accidental Exit Interview http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#49 US payments system failing to meet the needs of the digital economy http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#0 Burroughs B5000, B5500, B6500 videos http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#24 Time to competency for new software language? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#69 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#77 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#19 X86 server http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#31 X86 server http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#47 I.B.M. Mainframe Evolves to Serve the Digital World http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#18 System/360--50 years--the future? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#24 System/360--50 years--the future? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#42 Professor Coffee Hits a Nerve at SEC http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#42 COBOL will outlive us all http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#84 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#57 The cloud is killing traditional hardware and software http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#6 The cloud is killing traditional hardware and software http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#50 The cloud is killing traditional hardware and software http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#30 'Big four' accountants 'use knowledge of Treasury to help rich avoid tax' http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#42 The Mainframe is "Alive and Kicking" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#49 Internet Mainframe Forums Considered Harmful http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#35 Why is the mainframe so expensive? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013o.html#80 "Death of the mainframe" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#29 Royal Pardon for credit unions http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#81 CPU time http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#83 CPU time http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#22 US Federal Reserve pushes ahead with Faster Payments planning http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#90 Why do bank IT systems keep failing ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#10 Can the mainframe remain relevant in the cloud and mobile era? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#69 Is end of mainframe near ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#78 Over in the Mainframe Experts Network LinkedIn group http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#14 Is end of mainframe near ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014j.html#38 Meet Cobol's hard core fans http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014l.html#76 This Was the Very First Website In the US http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#71 Decimation of the valuation of IBM http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#119 Holy Grail for parallel programming language http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#170 IBM Continues To Crumble http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#78 Is there an Inventory of the Inalled Mainframe Systems Worldwide http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#65 A New Performance Model ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015h.html#2 More "ageing mainframe" (bad) press http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015h.html#112 Is there a source for detailed, instruction-level performance info? -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e47130fd-7296-44a8-b1bf-0d9a44db72e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156397 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 12:49:52 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > Unfortunately they were usually using some standard parallelizing > libraries ... where a number of us explained/warned had 100 times the > overhead of cobol batch ... they ignored the warnings ... and went > ahead to deployments that went down in flames (overhead totally swamped > the expected throughput improvements with large numbers of "killer > micros"). It seems that the history of computers is filled with unrealistic expectations of automation. The vendors would promise far too much to make the sale, the tech department heads would promise too much to keep their jobs or justify a promotion, and some techies themselves would be so infaturated with new technology that they failed to understand its limitations. There were many major projects where they threw the switch and nothing happened (for a variety of reasons). The idea of building a major system in functional incremental steps, or implementing it in incremental steps (ie one unit at a time instead of company-wide) just was not acceptable. As a result, workers on the project had to feverishly slave away to fix the problems and get the thing rolling. Sometimes customers got screwed. I made an ATM deposit by coincidence of the weekend of a major bank systems change, and my deposit was lost. I kept arguing with them that I had my receipt, so where was my desposit. I think they finally just credited my account to make me go away even though they didn't actually find my deposit. (I've avoided making ATM deposits ever since). Employees get screwed too, forced to work tons of extra hours and only to lose their jobs at the end. Anyway, no one ever seemed to learn from the mistakes. The IBM fiasco with OS/360 is well documented, yet it gets repeated. I don't understand why they keep doing this. Maybe they think it's healthy to push their workers to the limit (one manager told me that was the reason).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <klkdmc-8t3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156397 |
In article <874mek57lv.fsf@garlic.com>,
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was
>> still done in batch mode. If an office worker used a computer,
>> they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to
>> code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly
>> coming, but would not explode until a few years later. That is,
>> an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than 1975.
>
>I've periodically commented about financial industry overnight batch
>settlement window. During the 70s, these financial dataprocessing
>applications started getting front-ended with online transactions (ATMs,
>point-of-sale terminals, bank teller, etc) ... but actual settlement
>was still left to the overnight batch window.
The overnight batch window is still alive and well in interbank
settlements and transfert, except it is now 5 times a day on workdays,
3 times on 24/12, 31/12 and Ash Wednesday; and once a day on holidays.
This is when the money is actually transferred outside of non-cooperating
banks.
And the banks usually have settlements internally every 15 minutes during
the work day. Having transaction batches does make the settlement a lot
easier of the back end computers and the auditors.
Banks usually have front end systems ("available" funds) that are updated
immediatly, but they are only used to validate payouts. They are reset
every 15 minutes to what the actual balance is. You may see if flick
up and down during the ~10 second window when it is updated.
>In the 90s, there were billions spent on (failed) attempts to convert to
>straight through processing ... settlement happened in real-time as part
>of the online transaction ... converting from (cobol batch) mainframe to
>large number of parallel "killer micros". The issue was the upswing in
>workload and increasing globalization shortening the window ... but
>breaking the overnight batch window.
>
>Unfortunately they were usually using some standard parallelizing
>libraries ... where a number of us explained/warned had 100 times the
>overhead of cobol batch ... they ignored the warnings ... and went
>ahead to deployments that went down in flames (overhead totally swamped
>the expected throughput improvements with large numbers of "killer
>micros").
There is a reason the settlements are still in batches.
-- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfid3hFre6nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156377 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:7172a4ac-e6c2-41d4-87cc-f18e3d535c32@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:49:25 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: >> > If the movie was _made_ in 1975 it probably reflects conditions from a >> > few >> > years before. I think most computers were still in glass houses in 75. >> > In >> > my recollection personal computers only became common a couple of years >> > later, and only a few geeks would have a terminal on a desk. >> >> Minis were fairly common--I drove a Lockheed mini one summer when I was >> in college producing computer output microfilm. Micros existed but were >> mostly a hobbyist thing. > > I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was > still done in batch mode. None of the mini stuff we did in the 60s and the first half of the 70s was. Most of the mainframe stuff certainly was. If an office worker used a computer, > they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to > code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly coming, They'd come well before that with minis. We didn't use punched cards on any of the minis except the 11s that were RJE nodes for the mainframes. > but would not explode until a few years later. With the mainframes, yes. The minis had teletypes before video terminals. > That is, an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than > 1975. No so much in our case. The VT100s did get replaced by later stuff and micros. > A few specific applications might have had terminal access, All of our mini apps did. > perhaps using a Selectric printing terminal or equivalent. ASR33s mostly with minis. > In 1975, an office might have one or > two terminals used on a sharable basis, We had a lot more than one or two by that time. > not one on every desk. We did have that with our privately owned LSI-11s. > There were, of course, some big on-line reservation and credit- > card systems, but I think the battery of terminals for them were > still located in a central back room. Point of sale clerks who > wanted to make a reservation or check credit had to telephone > in their request to one of those processing centers. Maybe airline > and car rental ticket counters had terminals at the agent's position. I can no longer remember the fine detail there even tho I did a lot of flying at that time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <slidmc-4n3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156377 |
In article <7172a4ac-e6c2-41d4-87cc-f18e3d535c32@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:49:25 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: >> > If the movie was _made_ in 1975 it probably reflects conditions from a few >> > years before. I think most computers were still in glass houses in 75. In >> > my recollection personal computers only became common a couple of years >> > later, and only a few geeks would have a terminal on a desk. >> >> Minis were fairly common--I drove a Lockheed mini one summer when I was >> in college producing computer output microfilm. Micros existed but were >> mostly a hobbyist thing. > >I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was >still done in batch mode. If an office worker used a computer, >they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to >code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly >coming, but would not explode until a few years later. That is, >an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than 1975. 1975 was just at the start of the rollout of interactive systems, running on pre-v.23 multidrop lines. Banks and travel agencies were the first. They started in 1974, and had most affiliates online by ca 1977. >A few specific applications might have had terminal access, perhaps >using a Selectric printing terminal or equivalent. In 1975, an >office might have one or two terminals used on a sharable basis, >not one on every desk. > >There were, of course, some big on-line reservation and credit- >card systems, but I think the battery of terminals for them were >still located in a central back room. Point of sale clerks who >wanted to make a reservation or check credit had to telephone >in their request to one of those processing centers. Maybe airline >and car rental ticket counters had terminals at the agent's position. The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal based. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601111817120.15391@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156446 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: > The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond > trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then > it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal > based. > How did that work? I thought the average store, they'd just get the imprint of the card, the buyer would sign the receipt and then somehow the store would claim it's money later, and of course face the risk of a bad card. I worked for a small mail order business in 1980, and they'd call the card company to make sure the card was good. If I recall properly, they gave the card info by voice, not touch tone. But there, with phone and even mail order, they didn't even get to see the card, so it made sense to make sure it was legit. But was it more like more expensive purchases at stores would routinely be checked by phone? Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2df39c9d-fa25-481c-8673-0ad5dc7f86b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156450 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:16:55 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: > > The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond > > trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then > > it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal > > based. > > > How did that work? The simplest units merely transmitted the account number and transaction amount. The central computer would verify the card was valid and the amount within credit limit, and send an ok, not ok, or call-us signal back. Those units saved the credit card companies a lot of money, since they eliminated the need for most human operators and phone center. > But was it more like more expensive purchases at stores would routinely be > checked by phone? More expensive purchases were always checked. In addition, some merchants would run additional checks to verify the identify of a mail order purchaser. One technique was to call directory assistance in the purchaser's home town to double check the address and phone. This practice was significantly driving up usage of long distance D.A. (once free as a service) and was a factor in the phone company discontinuing or charging for it. In the past, one could dial 1+areacode+555-1212 to reach directory assistance, free for any city, to get a distant phone number. This was offered to make long distance calling easier and save phone company operators effort. Since it was a free service, the phoneco didn't give such calls the best trunk lines. Often on such calls echo or static was bad. Today I think you can dial 411 and get a number from anywhere, but they'll charge you at least $1 (maybe more). Since many numbers are unlisted today, you could pay $1 for nothing. There are web services, but their accuracy is incredibly bad. They still list me with a number I gave up 15 years ago! They still list my mother with a number she only had _briefly_ 10 years ago. Today, I think many companies we do business with share our telephone numbers, even when we don't want them to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n722i4$r3b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156450 |
On 11-Jan-16 17:21, Michael Black wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: >> The call to credit card companies for validation of anything >> beyond trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was >> manual, then it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 >> it was terminal based. >> > How did that work? > > I thought the average store, they'd just get the imprint of the > card, the buyer would sign the receipt and then somehow the store > would claim it's money later, and of course face the risk of a bad > card. Yes, that was a risk; merchants had to balance the cost of slowing down the transaction (and maybe losing other customers waiting in line) vs the risk that it would be rejected later. However, in the early years, banks only issued cards to people with excellent credit, particularly "travel" cards like AX and DC that had no preset limits. If the name on the persons' card matched their photo ID and their signature matched both, the odds were very good that the transaction would clear. It wasn't like today where everyone has a card--and they're frequently declined. > I worked for a small mail order business in 1980, and they'd call > the card company to make sure the card was good. If I recall > properly, they gave the card info by voice, not touch tone. But > there, with phone and even mail order, they didn't even get to see > the card, so it made sense to make sure it was legit. > > But was it more like more expensive purchases at stores would > routinely be checked by phone? By the late 1980s or early 1990s, most transaction were preauthorized, usually by swipe terminals but some still by phone. Due to the high time cost and high merchant fees, many merchants had minimums, e.g. $10-$20, and many simply didn't accept cards at all. The early terminals I remember used quick-connect modems; they'd swipe the card and enter the amount, and it'd dial the appropriate network, send the merchant ID, card number/expiration and amount via DTMF, get back an authorization code, disconnect, and display the result, all in less than a minute. Cashiers would write the code on the imprint slip, which had to be mailed somewhere for them to get paid--though later, they were only needed if the charge was disputed. Today, with online services offering authorization under a second, merchant fees that are cheaper than handling cash and payment in a matter of hours, most merchants want every customer to use plastic. They have almost completely replaced checks--especially travelers' checks, and are now quickly replacing money orders too. Also, banks have learned to match merchants' fees and processes to chargeback rates; that is why one merchant may let customers swipe and go while another merchant will scrutinize the card, signature, ID, etc. and reject anything (or anyone--blatant profiling) that looks even remotely questionable. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160112063110.342259b598504147de56869c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156450 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:21:01 -0500 Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: > > > > The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond > > trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then > > it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal > > based. > > > How did that work? > > I thought the average store, they'd just get the imprint of the card, the > buyer would sign the receipt and then somehow the store would claim it's > money later, and of course face the risk of a bad card. I worked in a Tandy shop in the late 1970s, there we had a floor limit under which we would simply swipe the card, get a signature and store the paper. For anything over the floor limit we called in, read the details and wrote an authorisation number on the slip. In 1994 when I was running a business and we got a merchant account we had the same system. The online machines were around but I think they were only available to merchants with big enough turnover. It wasn't much later that I noticed the imprint machines going away. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601121336080.16751@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156474 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:21:01 -0500 > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >> >>> The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond >>> trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then >>> it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal >>> based. >>> >> How did that work? >> >> I thought the average store, they'd just get the imprint of the card, the >> buyer would sign the receipt and then somehow the store would claim it's >> money later, and of course face the risk of a bad card. > > I worked in a Tandy shop in the late 1970s, there we had a floor > limit under which we would simply swipe the card, get a signature and > store the paper. For anything over the floor limit we called in, read the > details and wrote an authorisation number on the slip. > > In 1994 when I was running a business and we got a merchant > account we had the same system. The online machines were around but I think > they were only available to merchants with big enough turnover. It wasn't > much later that I noticed the imprint machines going away. > I was in a store last year or maybe the year before, and something was wrong with the system, so they'd pulled out an old imprint machine to handle the credit cards. The store has changed hands, but it's been there since the early eighties, at least. So I suppose they just kept it "in case". But I was surprised that they could find it, let alone that they still had it around. It was the first time in a very long time that I'd seen them. I remember when they were so novel, going to the department store in the sixties with my mother, she'd use the department store's credit card, something not uncommon at the time but preceeding the common use of general credit cards. One used bookstore closed here, and among the books and other junk they left outside for the garbage (I found a small monitor) was was the gizmo for reading the cards. That's the shift, it can now be thrown out. I wasn't even sure if they owned it, or they should have returned it to the card company. I'm not even sure what the reader entails, there was a mini-DIN plug on it (as seen on Macintoshes at one point), so I wasn't sure if it fitted into a general system or needed some other card company device. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <471034392.474322198.776623.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156526 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:21:01 -0500 >> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond >>>> trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then >>>> it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal >>>> based. >>>> >>> How did that work? >>> >>> I thought the average store, they'd just get the imprint of the card, the >>> buyer would sign the receipt and then somehow the store would claim it's >>> money later, and of course face the risk of a bad card. >> >> I worked in a Tandy shop in the late 1970s, there we had a floor >> limit under which we would simply swipe the card, get a signature and >> store the paper. For anything over the floor limit we called in, read the >> details and wrote an authorisation number on the slip. >> >> In 1994 when I was running a business and we got a merchant >> account we had the same system. The online machines were around but I think >> they were only available to merchants with big enough turnover. It wasn't >> much later that I noticed the imprint machines going away. >> > I was in a store last year or maybe the year before, and something was > wrong with the system, so they'd pulled out an old imprint machine to > handle the credit cards. The store has changed hands, but it's been there > since the early eighties, at least. So I suppose they just kept it "in > case". But I was surprised that they could find it, let alone that they > still had it around. It was the first time in a very long time that I'd > seen them. I remember when they were so novel, going to the department > store in the sixties with my mother, she'd use the department store's > credit card, something not uncommon at the time but preceeding the common > use of general credit cards. > > One used bookstore closed here, and among the books and other junk they > left outside for the garbage (I found a small monitor) was was the gizmo > for reading the cards. That's the shift, it can now be thrown out. I > wasn't even sure if they owned it, or they should have returned it to the > card company. I'm not even sure what the reader entails, there was a > mini-DIN plug on it (as seen on Macintoshes at one point), so I wasn't > sure if it fitted into a general system or needed some other card company > device. > Probably like cable modems. The cable company owned them, but I saw lots in garage sales and flea markets. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web