Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163292 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 268 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-05-06 11:00 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-06 16:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-06 18:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-07 07:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 19:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:16 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-08 04:22 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 21:46 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-08 06:58 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 07:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 02:30 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-05-06 17:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-06 19:41 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 02:43 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-09 06:58 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-09 17:05 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:13 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-12 12:50 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-13 12:10 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-12 13:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-15 21:53 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-16 12:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:22 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:23 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-18 20:15 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-19 08:06 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-19 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-21 04:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:14 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 04:45 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-24 14:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 09:22 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-25 17:31 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 21:41 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:17 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-16 20:08 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-09 16:29 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 02:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 06:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 07:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 09:06 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:47 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 09:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 10:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 11:11 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 20:02 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 12:05 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 14:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-12 03:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 06:13 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-12 14:46 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 14:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 14:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 17:50 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 16:01 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 02:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-12 10:07 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 11:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 21:55 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-12 13:12 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-05-12 00:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 21:40 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-14 23:47 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:40 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 15:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 21:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 15:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 23:36 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-12 10:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 15:11 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-15 17:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 20:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-15 22:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 06:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-16 13:12 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-16 23:25 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:23 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 09:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:40 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 16:59 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 13:42 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 11:56 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 12:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-17 19:58 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-18 02:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 23:51 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-18 14:28 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2016-05-19 11:07 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-19 10:00 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-19 12:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 10:56 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 12:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-24 00:01 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-23 18:48 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:18 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-19 07:03 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-19 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-21 21:26 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-18 10:39 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:21 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:35 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 21:06 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 15:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 14:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:53 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 19:44 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 22:40 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 14:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 17:01 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-17 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-17 14:31 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 12:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-16 20:37 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-17 11:12 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 05:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:21 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 12:23 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-16 22:03 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 05:09 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 09:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-23 09:48 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 13:51 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:49 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-11 14:06 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-11 16:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-12 03:11 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2016-05-14 16:59 +0800
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-14 10:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-14 15:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-14 09:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-14 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 12:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:17 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-22 05:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:26 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:13 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-22 06:43 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:14 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 13:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-22 07:29 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 06:41 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:11 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-23 16:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-23 16:50 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 01:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 13:40 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-24 19:33 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 21:33 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:54 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 16:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-24 20:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 22:24 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-25 12:45 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 17:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 18:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-24 13:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 17:03 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:53 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:47 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:44 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:32 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-06 13:55 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-06 19:29 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 05:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 11:35 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 17:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 22:30 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 13:25 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 17:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 20:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-07 21:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 22:49 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-08 07:08 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-08 20:58 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:09 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-07 10:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-08 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-08 16:20 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-09 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-05-09 15:34 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-10 13:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 16:57 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 16:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:38 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-10 15:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 11:07 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:16 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-11 16:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:47 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-11 10:52 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 13:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:46 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Thomas Lake <tomlake07@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 10:47 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-10 18:36 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-17 06:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400
Page 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 12:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ngvocj$ijt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163581 |
On 2016-05-11 12:22 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:06:36 -0400 Walter Banks > <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would >> they have more computing power that a modern tablet? > > Perhaps, but the IO is tricky. > Billions of people all speaking at once. Bandwidth is not too bad error noise rather high. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <573fb22e.33934575@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #163560 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:06:36 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would they >have more computing power that a modern tablet? You'd have to define the computing power of an abacus first. In terms of simple storage space, and given how an abacus is normally used, a single abacus can only represent numbers that are much smaller than 2**32. So 7+ billion abacuses would be less than 28GB of memory. In terms of arithmetic operations, one abacus might be considered the equivalent of one processor register. Obviously modern CPUs don't have seven billion registers. But with clock speeds of over a couple of GHz, I think they could simulate seven billion operations as fast if not faster than seven billion humans. Given my napkin calculations, I'd say one tablet has the memory and processor power of 7+ billion abacuses, within an order of magnitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-20 22:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31a98f3ed188cd4598a1b2@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163799 |
In article <573fb22e.33934575@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > > On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:06:36 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would they > >have more computing power that a modern tablet? > > You'd have to define the computing power of an abacus first. > > In terms of simple storage space, and given how an abacus is > normally used, a single abacus can only represent numbers > that are much smaller than 2**32. So 7+ billion abacuses would > be less than 28GB of memory. ??? 9 wire abacus can handle 2**33 I believe. > > In terms of arithmetic operations, one abacus might be considered > the equivalent of one processor register. Obviously modern CPUs > don't have seven billion registers. But with clock speeds of over > a couple of GHz, I think they could simulate seven billion operations > as fast if not faster than seven billion humans. > > Given my napkin calculations, I'd say one tablet has the memory and > processor power of 7+ billion abacuses, within an order of magnitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 05:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <574148b1.6516520@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #163803 |
On Fri, 20 May 2016 22:17:27 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <573fb22e.33934575@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >> >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:06:36 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> >The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would they >> >have more computing power that a modern tablet? >> >> You'd have to define the computing power of an abacus first. >> >> In terms of simple storage space, and given how an abacus is >> normally used, a single abacus can only represent numbers >> that are much smaller than 2**32. So 7+ billion abacuses would >> be less than 28GB of memory. > >??? 9 wire abacus can handle 2**33 I believe. Nine digits is a billion minus 1; 2**32 is 4+ billion (both unsigned). My original assertion stands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nhs19r$c3r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163812 |
"Questor" <usenet@only.tnx> wrote in message news:574148b1.6516520@nntp2.rawbw.com... > On Fri, 20 May 2016 22:17:27 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: >>In article <573fb22e.33934575@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... >>> On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:06:36 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> >>> wrote: >>> >The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would they >>> >have more computing power that a modern tablet? >>> You'd have to define the computing power of an abacus first. >>> In terms of simple storage space, and given how an abacus is >>> normally used, a single abacus can only represent numbers >>> that are much smaller than 2**32. So 7+ billion abacuses would >>> be less than 28GB of memory. >>??? 9 wire abacus can handle 2**33 I believe. > Nine digits is a billion minus 1; 2**32 is 4+ billion (both unsigned). > My original assertion stands. Misleading question, for the abacus has no more computng power than has a long-division written out on a piece of paper, for it is the human brain does the computing, and any normal human brain***** certainly has more computing power than a modern tablet. ***** I used to worry that I had schizophrenia, but now I'm in two minds about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 07:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31ab5e6e1fc7fcdf98a1be@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163812 |
In article <574148b1.6516520@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > > On Fri, 20 May 2016 22:17:27 -0400, "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> > wrote: > >In article <573fb22e.33934575@nntp2.rawbw.com>, usenet@only.tnx says... > >> > >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:06:36 -0400, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> >The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would they > >> >have more computing power that a modern tablet? > >> > >> You'd have to define the computing power of an abacus first. > >> > >> In terms of simple storage space, and given how an abacus is > >> normally used, a single abacus can only represent numbers > >> that are much smaller than 2**32. So 7+ billion abacuses would > >> be less than 28GB of memory. > > > >??? 9 wire abacus can handle 2**33 I believe. > > Nine digits is a billion minus 1; 2**32 is 4+ billion (both unsigned). > My original assertion stands. OK, make it a ten wire abacus. 14 wire abaci are not uncommon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <573fb21e.33918662@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #163551 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: >It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below > >When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the galaxies >above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom proved > strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles kept > in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. Electrons are not kept in orbit around the atomic nucleus by gravity, but by the electromagnetic force. The effects of gravity are negliable at atomic scale compared to the other three fundamental forces.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 06:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160522064316.33f6e58fc6af14e0e2bfe833@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163798 |
On Sat, 21 May 2016 00:56:11 GMT usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Neo Fortune > <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: > >It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below > > > >When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the galaxies > >above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom > >proved > > strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles > > kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. > > Electrons are not kept in orbit around the atomic nucleus by gravity, but > by the electromagnetic force. The effects of gravity are negliable at > atomic scale compared to the other three fundamental forces. More to the point electrons are not solid balls orbiting round another ball - they are *much* stranger than that. -- 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 | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 11:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nhs13f$bfp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163813 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20160522064316.33f6e58fc6af14e0e2bfe833@eircom.net... > On Sat, 21 May 2016 00:56:11 GMT > usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Neo Fortune >> <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: >> >It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below >> >When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the >> >galaxies >> >above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom >> >proved >> > strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles >> > kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. >> Electrons are not kept in orbit around the atomic nucleus by gravity, but >> by the electromagnetic force. The effects of gravity are negliable at >> atomic scale compared to the other three fundamental forces. > > More to the point electrons are not solid balls orbiting round > another ball - they are *much* stranger than that. ISTR that it is only quarks that are strange?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 07:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31ab5ea3ee8add9d98a1bf@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163814 |
In article <nhs13f$bfp$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid says... > > "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message > news:20160522064316.33f6e58fc6af14e0e2bfe833@eircom.net... > > On Sat, 21 May 2016 00:56:11 GMT > > usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Neo Fortune > >> <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below > >> >When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the > >> >galaxies > >> >above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom > >> >proved > >> > strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles > >> > kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. > >> Electrons are not kept in orbit around the atomic nucleus by gravity, but > >> by the electromagnetic force. The effects of gravity are negliable at > >> atomic scale compared to the other three fundamental forces. > > > > More to the point electrons are not solid balls orbiting round > > another ball - they are *much* stranger than that. > > ISTR that it is only quarks that are strange? Are you trying to make a funny or are you channelling Sheldon?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 13:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nhs8si$4dq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163818 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.31ab5ea3ee8add9d98a1bf@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <nhs13f$bfp$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid > says... >> >> ISTR that it is only quarks that are strange? > > Are you trying to make a funny or are you channelling Sheldon? Nil comprendo ici.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eff8f16e-5b8d-438e-b610-56eecdd0638d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163820 |
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 6:35:56 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.31ab5ea3ee8add9d98a1bf@news.eternal-september.org... > > In article <nhs13f$bfp$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid > > says... > >> ISTR that it is only quarks that are strange? > > Are you trying to make a funny or are you channelling Sheldon? > Nil comprendo ici. Your comment compounded, confounded, and conflated two senses of the word "strange". There is the ordinary sense of the word strange. In that sense, electrons, rather than being solid balls, behave in a manner very much outside of our everyday experience because of quantum mechanics. Then there is a specific technical sense of the word "strange", in which certain particles which have an anomalously long life were called "strange", and later those particles were recognized as those which contain the strange quark. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 08:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2cd3kb17sh5e1r7j00bop96vrt2nibajo3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163814 |
On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:22:59 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message >news:20160522064316.33f6e58fc6af14e0e2bfe833@eircom.net... >> On Sat, 21 May 2016 00:56:11 GMT >> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Neo Fortune >>> <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below >>> >When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the >>> >galaxies >>> >above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom >>> >proved >>> > strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles >>> > kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. >>> Electrons are not kept in orbit around the atomic nucleus by gravity, but >>> by the electromagnetic force. The effects of gravity are negliable at >>> atomic scale compared to the other three fundamental forces. >> >> More to the point electrons are not solid balls orbiting round >> another ball - they are *much* stranger than that. > >ISTR that it is only quarks that are strange? > At least they have charm. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 06:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160523064145.e2305631d0f14f3504b620d3@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163824 |
On Sun, 22 May 2016 08:35:13 -0500 JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:22:59 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" > <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > > >"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message > >news:20160522064316.33f6e58fc6af14e0e2bfe833@eircom.net... > >> On Sat, 21 May 2016 00:56:11 GMT > >> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote: > >>> On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Neo Fortune > >>> <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below > >>> >When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the > >>> >galaxies > >>> >above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom > >>> >proved > >>> > strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of > >>> > particles kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. > >>> Electrons are not kept in orbit around the atomic nucleus by gravity, > >>> but by the electromagnetic force. The effects of gravity are > >>> negliable at atomic scale compared to the other three fundamental > >>> forces. > >> > >> More to the point electrons are not solid balls orbiting round > >> another ball - they are *much* stranger than that. > > > >ISTR that it is only quarks that are strange? > > > > At least they have charm. You never know what they're up to down there. -- 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 | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 16:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <slfb1d-1n2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163824 |
In article <2cd3kb17sh5e1r7j00bop96vrt2nibajo3@4ax.com>, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 22 May 2016 11:22:59 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" ><no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > >>"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message >>news:20160522064316.33f6e58fc6af14e0e2bfe833@eircom.net... >>> On Sat, 21 May 2016 00:56:11 GMT >>> usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote: >>>> On Wed, 11 May 2016 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Neo Fortune >>>> <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below >>>> >When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the >>>> >galaxies >>>> >above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom >>>> >proved >>>> > strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles >>>> > kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. >>>> Electrons are not kept in orbit around the atomic nucleus by gravity, but >>>> by the electromagnetic force. The effects of gravity are negliable at >>>> atomic scale compared to the other three fundamental forces. >>> >>> More to the point electrons are not solid balls orbiting round >>> another ball - they are *much* stranger than that. >> >>ISTR that it is only quarks that are strange? >> > >At least they have charm. They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and bottoms all the time. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 16:43 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87fut8a7bl.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163866 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and > bottoms all the time. Never mind quarks. What's so exciting about neutrinos that every country with two particle physicists to rub together has to have a megabuck neutrino detector? Last off, China has a big one and is working on plans for a huge one. Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems and/or enable total global dominance? Puzzled. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 16:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nhvq7o$5gi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163872 |
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes: > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > >> They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and >> bottoms all the time. > > Never mind quarks. What's so exciting about neutrinos that every > country with two particle physicists to rub together has to have a > megabuck neutrino detector? Last off, China has a big one and is > working on plans for a huge one. > > Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers > of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring > minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they > think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of > bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems > and/or enable total global dominance? > > Puzzled. I'm sure weapons are on the list, but nobody knows what more knowledge will bring. The way neutrinos fly through everything, a good generator/detector would make a cool way to communicate. If you could aim the stuff, it would be pretty private. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 01:50 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <877fek9i0r.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163875 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes: > >> Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers >> of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring >> minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they >> think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of >> bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems >> and/or enable total global dominance? > > I'm sure weapons are on the list, but nobody knows what more knowledge > will bring. Oh, yes. But spending big bucks on pure knowledge, the LHC notwithstanding, is kinda contrary to the current trend (can I say enantiodromic? :-) of funding the next quarter's (or next season's or next retail cycle's) anticipated Big Thing. > The way neutrinos fly through everything, a good generator/detector > would make a cool way to communicate. If you could aim the stuff, > it would be pretty private. Hah! Can we apply Moore's Law to a hardrock mine full of water, get it down to, say, backpack size? I never thought of communication. Tnx, -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533957D216D07@aca423de.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163889 |
Mike Spencer wrote: > > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > >> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes: >> >>> Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers >>> of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring >>> minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they >>> think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of >>> bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems >>> and/or enable total global dominance? >> >> I'm sure weapons are on the list, but nobody knows what more knowledge >> will bring. > > Oh, yes. But spending big bucks on pure knowledge, the LHC > notwithstanding, is kinda contrary to the current trend (can I say > enantiodromic? :-) of funding the next quarter's (or next > season's or next retail cycle's) anticipated Big Thing. > >> The way neutrinos fly through everything, a good generator/detector >> would make a cool way to communicate. If you could aim the stuff, >> it would be pretty private. > > Hah! Can we apply Moore's Law to a hardrock mine full of water, get it > down to, say, backpack size? > > I never thought of communication. Long distance billards? ;-) Until we learn about new things, we don't know what the possible uses until the knowledge is wide-spread enough for "kiddies" to play with it. I'm still waiting for the "kiddie" stage of quantum computers. I don't think I'll live long enough to see it. Greg Bear has an amusing short story about the subject called "The Machine Starts". /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 13:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160524134033.a239fc2778be8c0d57f00f1f@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163894 |
On 24 May 2016 12:11:35 GMT jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > I'm still waiting for the "kiddie" stage of quantum computers. > I don't think I'll live long enough to see it. You already have, IBM have a five qubit rig that you can play with online details at http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum/. -- 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]
Page 10 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web