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 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 08:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8m6mjbpm64rinfajafb5pe5rr1u99tsd86@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163718 |
On 16 May 2016 23:25:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2016-05-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >> On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You >>> seem determined to discard it. >> >> To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the >> small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, >> though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say >> "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements will >> be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. Likewise >> in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate >> volumetric measurements will be made. > >On the other hand, if I asked for half a dozen eggs, I'd be unhappy >if I was only given five. Unless I was given 6, I would feel, and be, cheated. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 12:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_oydndtwsu0As97KnZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #163738 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: > On 16 May 2016 23:25:51 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> > wrote: > >>On 2016-05-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >>> >>>> Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You >>>> seem determined to discard it. >>> >>> To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the >>> small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, >>> though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say >>> "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements will >>> be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. Likewise >>> in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate >>> volumetric measurements will be made. >> >>On the other hand, if I asked for half a dozen eggs, I'd be unhappy >>if I was only given five. > > Unless I was given 6, I would feel, and be, cheated. They're low cholesterol - 5/6 the cholesterol of regular eggs!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 22:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e9ljb1pvtnipm6h9bf42v2eo1gsithslk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163711 |
On Mon, 16 May 2016 06:57:03 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <j2mijbl80p4j4vkv11dlb6d0tfhauc3dds@4ax.com>, genew@telus.net
>says...
>>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2016 20:32:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nhatar$kd2$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com
>> >says...
>> >>
>> >> On 5/15/2016 4:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> > In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com
>> >> > says...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> >> Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant
>> >> >> digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too,
>> >> >> just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and
>> >> >> a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1.
>> >> >
>> >> > So if somebody says asks for one and a third gross it's OK to send him
>> >> > 173 instead of 192?
>> >> >
>> >> If somebody asks for one and a third gross, I'd ask them for the
>> >> precise number they wanted. Unless it was something that was normally
>> >> packed 3 cartons to the gross.
>> >
>> >They just told you. One and third gross.
>>
>> That is not a unit of measure that I see used in fractions so
>> like Dave Garland, I would confirm. Sixteen dozen is far more likely
>> to be used.
>
>Now you're stating your opinions as fact.
I am discussing what I see. That is fact.
>> >> If somebody says your destination is 1 and a third km away, are you
>> >> going to complain if it turns out to be 1.42 km?
>> >
>> >Probably not because it's not worth the effort of going back and
>> >complaining at the guy.
>>
>> And if you did, you would look like a fool.
>
>Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You
>seem determined to discard it.
In your opinion.
I would not be discarding; I would be confirming. Learn the
difference, please.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 05:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dphebuFlbr6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163579 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:ngvle4$8dc$1@dont-email.me... > On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:33:58 -0500, Dave Garland >> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/11/2016 8:06 AM, Walter Banks wrote: >>>> On 2016-05-11 4:49 AM, Neo Fortune wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:43:32 PM UTC+1, JimP wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:42:46 -0400, Peter Flass >>>>>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 2:58:18 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 3:43:04 AM UTC-6, Neo Fortune >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 6:42:00 PM UTC+1, Melzzzzz >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no ultimate computer... >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The Meaning Of Life = 42 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was just a novel >>>>>>>>> (and a radio play, and a miniseries, and a movie), it didn't >>>>>>>>> really happen. Thus, the fact that the Earth was a greater >>>>>>>>> computer than Deep Thought, which was itself a greater >>>>>>>>> computer than various other contenders for the title, such as >>>>>>>>> the Milliard Gargantubrain, in the fictional universe of that >>>>>>>>> novel means nothing in so far as the real existence of an >>>>>>>>> ultimate computer is concerned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John Savard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I Think The Universe Is A Vast Quantum Computer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This Is The Order Of Quantum Computation: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Universe >> Galaxy >> Solar System >> Planet >> Countries >> >>>>>>>> Country >> Area >> Place >> Human >> Cells >> Brain >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can Anyone Define This Better? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some scientists have suggested (seriously!) that our entire >>>>>>> universe is a simulation program running in an ultimate >>>>>>> computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also if you go down small enough visually, you see pixels. Morgan >>>>>> Freeman's 'Through the Worm Hole'. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Like Fractals Can You Zoom In Forever!!! >>>>> >>>> >>>> The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would they >>>> have more computing power that a modern tablet? >>>> >>> >>> They would certainly solve more problems that require computation than >>> a person with a modern tablet. And that's even overlooking the fact >>> that in a contest in Japan in 1946, a soroban (abacus) operator >>> soundly trounced the US Army's best user of an electric calculator in >>> speed and accuracy of all four basic arithmetic functions. >>> >>> Isn't arriving at solutions the real measure of computing power? >> >> I read a book several years ago where a guy was doing public demos of >> using an abacus. One of the people challenging him used a calculator >> and did square and cube roots. Turns out an abacus is slower doing >> that level of math. >> > > Sure, I'm not saying calculators (or tablets) are useless. But the last > time I needed to calculate a cube root was... I don't remember. Decades, > certainly. The average person, never. I can calculate a square root in my > head by successive approximation to maybe 1.5 significant figures*, which > is good enough for ballpark calculations, and to several significant > figures the same way using a 4-function calculator. So I could live with > some level of slowness for greater precision. There are indeed people who > do more serious calculations every day at work, but the average person > never needs anything more than adding and subtracting, and once in a great > while multiplication and division. That last isn't true when calculating which of the variety of packs is the best value in a supermarket etc. > * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant > figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". > > ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era > understand perfectly well. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 09:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <XbGdnUItc5O1ld7KnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #163579 |
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: > On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: > > * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant > figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be > "1.3333333". > > ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era > understand perfectly well. I have a couple of Post slide rules. :) I also have a few Pickett ones. My favorite is a K&E rule that belonged to my father. I don't have a circular slide rule, so that's next on my list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 09:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dqgjilFedbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163850 |
"Bud Frede" wrote: > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: > >> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: >> >> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be >> "1.3333333". >> >> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era >> understand perfectly well. > > I have a couple of Post slide rules. :) I also have a few Pickett ones. My > favorite is a K&E rule that belonged to my father. > > I don't have a circular slide rule, so that's next on my list. I had a ten inch Pickett that froze up solid after not being used for several years. I also have a six inch Pickett, made of a different material, that was still OK the last time I saw it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605231350450.19252@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163850 |
On Mon, 23 May 2016, Bud Frede wrote: > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: > >> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: >> >> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be >> "1.3333333". >> >> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era >> understand perfectly well. > > I have a couple of Post slide rules. :) I also have a few Pickett ones. My > favorite is a K&E rule that belonged to my father. > > I don't have a circular slide rule, so that's next on my list. > Even before I had any real idea of what a slide rule was, I remember seeing pictures of circular ones, and for some reason, they seemed really impressive to me. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhvj4o$ac3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163850 |
On 5/23/2016 8:39 AM, Bud Frede wrote: > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes: > >> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: >> >> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be >> "1.3333333". >> >> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era >> understand perfectly well. > > I have a couple of Post slide rules. :) I also have a few Pickett ones. My > favorite is a K&E rule that belonged to my father. > > I don't have a circular slide rule, so that's next on my list. > I've got one of those, an aluminum 8", I was gonna say it was a Post but there isn't any trademark on it. Looking online, it was probably made by Gilson, and seems to have been OEM'd for a bunch of companies, including Post and Dietzgen. My 7th grade math teacher did a group buy. Fast and accurate, but difficult to carry around (if you sandwiched it between books, the axle nut started punching holes in their covers). My college rule was a Lafayette Radio Vectorlog (made by Relay/Ricoh, who OEM'd a lot of bamboo rules), it had a bunch of scales including for vector math and electronics. My favorite is the one that calculates angle, range, and powder load for my 105mm howitzer. But I still need a howitzer to go with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <062b8999-e92c-43d7-b51a-d9a4a1d73050@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163568 |
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:34:07 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: > They would certainly solve more problems that require computation than > a person with a modern tablet. And that's even overlooking the fact > that in a contest in Japan in 1946, a soroban (abacus) operator > soundly trounced the US Army's best user of an electric calculator in > speed and accuracy of all four basic arithmetic functions. > > Isn't arriving at solutions the real measure of computing power? But I think that even a Cray I would solve many mathematical problems more quickly than any number of people operating either abaci or mechanical calculators in parallel. A modern desktop computer with suitable software would do even better in many cases. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dphe5nFlaitU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163590 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:062b8999-e92c-43d7-b51a-d9a4a1d73050@googlegroups.com... > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:34:07 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: > >> They would certainly solve more problems that require computation than >> a person with a modern tablet. And that's even overlooking the fact >> that in a contest in Japan in 1946, a soroban (abacus) operator >> soundly trounced the US Army's best user of an electric calculator in >> speed and accuracy of all four basic arithmetic functions. >> >> Isn't arriving at solutions the real measure of computing power? > > But I think that even a Cray I would solve many mathematical problems more > quickly than any number of people operating either abaci or mechanical > calculators in parallel. > > A modern desktop computer with suitable software would do even better in > many > cases. Another factor would be the errors made by human beings. During the depression the US government produced several books of mathematical tables, such as AMS 55 and it's cousins. I believe these are remarkably error free and there must have been some people who really knew what they were doing to detect and correct errors. There must be an interesting book on the subject of producing that series of books. I would guess that by now someone has gone through them to see what errors managed to creep in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 17:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gt0c0d-2q.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163560 |
In article <ngvaor$1pav$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >On 2016-05-11 4:49 AM, Neo Fortune wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:43:32 PM UTC+1, JimP wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:42:46 -0400, Peter Flass >>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Some scientists have suggested (seriously!) that our entire >>>> universe is a simulation program running in an ultimate >>>> computer. >>> >>> Also if you go down small enough visually, you see pixels. Morgan >>> Freeman's 'Through the Worm Hole'. > > >> >> Like Fractals Can You Zoom In Forever!!! >> > >The real question if you gave everyone on earth an abacus would they >have more computing power that a modern tablet? You really want an answer? ~7 billion people times ~3 instructions per second should give ~21 bips. Or the equivalent of a 4-8 processor ARM. So it is about the same. You need to refine your assumptions to decide on an answer. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngvo1f0ifb@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163576 |
On 2016-05-11, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <ngvaor$1pav$1@gioia.aioe.org>, > 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 really want an answer? > > ~7 billion people times ~3 instructions per second should give > ~21 bips. > > Or the equivalent of a 4-8 processor ARM. > > So it is about the same. You need to refine your assumptions > to decide on an answer. Ah, but it's the network overhead that'll get you. I always love to challenge the assumption that intelligence scales linearly with the size of the group. Rather than calculating total intelligence like you would for resistances in series, the result all too often seems to more closely follow the formula for resistances in parallel. "The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned to the task." -- Fred Brooks -- /~\ 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 | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 03:11 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87shxn4xg1.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163582 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> I always love to challenge the assumption that intelligence scales
> linearly with the size of the group. Rather than calculating total
> intelligence like you would for resistances in series, the result
> all too often seems to more closely follow the formula for resistances
> in parallel.
The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square
of the number of participants.
-- Adam Walinsky, assistant to Robert F. Kennedy
And many putative "discussions" start with participants who have an
agenda and are not open to the kind of thing that makes for a
discussion.
> "The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women
> are assigned to the task." -- Fred Brooks
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 16:59 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <a16j0dx2bt.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
| In reply to | #163582 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2016-05-11, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >> 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 really want an answer? >> >> ~7 billion people times ~3 instructions per second should give >> ~21 bips. >> >> Or the equivalent of a 4-8 processor ARM. >> >> So it is about the same. You need to refine your assumptions >> to decide on an answer. When I started school in 1964, I also has a 2-ARM tablet. And bits of chalf to make it work. >Ah, but it's the network overhead that'll get you. >I always love to challenge the assumption that intelligence scales >linearly with the size of the group. Rather than calculating total >intelligence like you would for resistances in series, the result >all too often seems to more closely follow the formula for resistances >in parallel. AFAICT, "group IQ" is 100 times the product of (individual member's IQ's divided by 100) -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Somewhere in Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. / \ and postings | --HL Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 10:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160514104820.4a04ac596e35371d7c0ec4f6@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163675 |
On Sat, 14 May 2016 16:59:54 +0800 Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >I always love to challenge the assumption that intelligence scales > >linearly with the size of the group. Rather than calculating total > >intelligence like you would for resistances in series, the result > >all too often seems to more closely follow the formula for resistances > >in parallel. > > AFAICT, "group IQ" is 100 times the product of (individual member's IQ's > divided by 100) Way too optimistic - more like the lowest individual IQ among the members divided by the square of the number of members. Consider the sequence - solitary thinker, small group of co-workers, committee, government department, rioting mob, nation deciding policy by referendum. -- 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 | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nh7hm80ln5@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163676 |
On 2016-05-14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2016 16:59:54 +0800 > Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I always love to challenge the assumption that intelligence scales >>> linearly with the size of the group. Rather than calculating total >>> intelligence like you would for resistances in series, the result >>> all too often seems to more closely follow the formula for resistances >>> in parallel. >> >> AFAICT, "group IQ" is 100 times the product of (individual member's IQ's >> divided by 100) > > Way too optimistic - more like the lowest individual IQ among the > members divided by the square of the number of members. Consider the > sequence - solitary thinker, small group of co-workers, committee, > government department, rioting mob, nation deciding policy by referendum. "A committee is an organism with six or more feet and no brain." -- /~\ 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 | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87wpmw8ujk.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #163676 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > Way too optimistic - more like the lowest individual IQ among the > members divided by the square of the number of members. Consider the > sequence - solitary thinker, small group of co-workers, committee, > government department, rioting mob, nation deciding policy by referendum. an analog is synchronized signal to propagate thru all member brain cells and return ... in chips, synchronized clocks became limiting factor as the number of circuits and clock speed increased ... prompting looking at various ways of not requiring complete synchronization. in fiber links ... move away for half-duplex, serialized, end-to-end synchronization to continuus asynchronization flow in both directions. as organizations get larger, synchronized coordinated operation becomes increasingly problematic. Boyd talks about providing high level objective and then leaving to individuals to make local, on-the-spot decision. A variation on it was his periodic example of Guderian and the blitzkrieg ... to further promote individual decision freedom, Guderian directed "Verbal Orders Only" ... he didn't want individuals being worried about after-action reviews (when they were making on the spot decisions). Boyd posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html Note however, bureaucracies will also leverage large committees to obstruct changing the status quo (including constant flow of have you adequately considered an infinite number of alteratives) as well as obfuscating responsibility and accountability -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dpp4d9F8f2gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163676 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" rote;
<WRT group IQ>
> Way too optimistic - more like the lowest individual IQ among the
> members divided by the square of the number of members. Consider the
> sequence - solitary thinker, small group of co-workers, committee,
> government department, rioting mob, nation deciding policy by referendum.
The referendum idea was in the news the other day, with the results opposite
yours. I don't have any opinion of my own and not sufficient interest to
form one. Here is a clip I made at the time.
swarm intelligence could be gambler's key to betting: here's how it
works
Artificial intelligence UNU seems to have conquered not just the
Super Bowl and the Oscars, but also the Kentucky Derby: it
just made betters $11,000 richer with the correctly predicted derby
winner
I don't know what UNU stands for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000532E1FF519D15@aca424e3.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163675 |
Bernd Felsche wrote: > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>On 2016-05-11, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: >>> 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 really want an answer? >>> >>> ~7 billion people times ~3 instructions per second should give >>> ~21 bips. >>> >>> Or the equivalent of a 4-8 processor ARM. >>> >>> So it is about the same. You need to refine your assumptions >>> to decide on an answer. > > When I started school in 1964, I also has a 2-ARM tablet. And bits > of chalf to make it work. ROTFLMAO. > >>Ah, but it's the network overhead that'll get you. > >>I always love to challenge the assumption that intelligence scales >>linearly with the size of the group. Rather than calculating total >>intelligence like you would for resistances in series, the result >>all too often seems to more closely follow the formula for resistances >>in parallel. > > AFAICT, "group IQ" is 100 times the product of (individual member's IQ's divided by 100) That may be true quantitavely but not qualitavely. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 17:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160511172213.632a2e645bdef459fda2ebbe@eircom.net> |
| 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? Perhaps, but the IO is tricky. -- 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 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web