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 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngqg0v01dmi@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163467 |
On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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... >> >> What About Earth? >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ >> >> 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. Spoilsport. And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the Ultimate Answer. -- /~\ 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 | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005327C142E8DAF@aca4069b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163476 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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... >>> >>> What About Earth? >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ >>> >>> 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. > > Spoilsport. > > And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the > Ultimate Answer. > I never liked 42 because it has factors. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gqednZO8Pb-M4a7KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #163508 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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... >>>> >>>> What About Earth? >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Spoilsport. >> >> And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the >> Ultimate Answer. >> > I never liked 42 because it has factors. I thought that was the whole point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 21:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vrcc0d-ed2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163592 |
In article <gqednZO8Pb-M4a7KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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... >>>>> >>>>> What About Earth? >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Spoilsport. >>> >>> And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the >>> Ultimate Answer. >>> >> I never liked 42 because it has factors. > >I thought that was the whole point? What is 6 times nine? -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160512.1150.983501snz@twoplaces.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #163603 |
On Wednesday, in article
<vrcc0d-ed2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
first@last.name.invalid "Morten Reistad" wrote:
> In article <gqednZO8Pb-M4a7KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What About Earth?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Spoilsport.
>>>>
>>>> And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the
>>>> Ultimate Answer.
>>>>
>>> I never liked 42 because it has factors.
>>
>>I thought that was the whole point?
>
> What is 6 times nine?
Almost right: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nh2fo102vp1@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163632 |
On 2016-05-12, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote: > On Wednesday, in article > <vrcc0d-ed2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> > first@last.name.invalid "Morten Reistad" wrote: > >> In article <gqednZO8Pb-M4a7KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@supernews.com>, >> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What About Earth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Spoilsport. >>>>> >>>>> And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the >>>>> Ultimate Answer. >>>>> >>>> I never liked 42 because it has factors. >>> >>> I thought that was the whole point? >> >> What is 6 times nine? > > Almost right: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" That depends on whether you're working in base 13. -- /~\ 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 | simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160513.1110.983575snz@twoplaces.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #163640 |
On 12 May, in article <nh2fo102vp1@news1.newsguy.com>
cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid "Charlie Gibbs" wrote:
> On 2016-05-12, Simon Turner <simon@twoplaces.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, in article
>> <vrcc0d-ed2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
>> first@last.name.invalid "Morten Reistad" wrote:
>>
>>> In article <gqednZO8Pb-M4a7KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What About Earth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoilsport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the
>>>>>> Ultimate Answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I never liked 42 because it has factors.
>>>>
>>>> I thought that was the whole point?
>>>
>>> What is 6 times nine?
>>
>> Almost right: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"
>
> That depends on whether you're working in base 13.
Quite so.
Douglas Adams was often asked about base 13... (he said he hadn't
realised it until it was pointed out to him, some time after he wrote
it).
--
Simon Turner DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
Trust me -- I know what I'm doing! -- Sledge Hammer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 13:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000532A47327EDBF@aca41f2e.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163592 |
Bud Frede wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> On 2016-05-09, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> 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... >>>>> >>>>> What About Earth? >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Spoilsport. >>> >>> And we still don't have the Ultimate Question to which 42 was the >>> Ultimate Answer. >>> >> I never liked 42 because it has factors. > > I thought that was the whole point? Then it can't be the ultimate answer; it's the [ultimate-2n] answer. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 11:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb4cd0f3-3b7c-44a1-80a2-5450f3f28144@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163635 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > Bud Frede wrote: > > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> I never liked 42 because it has factors. > > I thought that was the whole point? > Then it can't be the ultimate answer; it's the [ultimate-2n] answer. But if you add 2n for any integer n to 42, the result will still be composite, so if the ultimate answer must be prime, 42 can't be that answer minus 2n, John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000532E1EBD7F24B@aca424e3.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163671 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Bud Frede wrote: >> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> >> I never liked 42 because it has factors. > >> > I thought that was the whole point? > >> Then it can't be the ultimate answer; it's the [ultimate-2n] answer. > > But if you add 2n for any integer n to 42, the result will still be composite, > so if the ultimate answer must be prime, 42 can't be that answer minus 2n, RAts. I did write it wrong but I don't know how to express it in mathematical terms. 42 = 6 * 7 = 2 * 3 * 7. So it takes 2 steps to determine the ultimate answer. How would I write that? I just remembered that one my todo's is to figure out a geometrical formula for any prime. I was beginning to see a pattern but got side-tracked and never went back. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 21:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pklhjb517le29v31u43pvl7qb1o0qf0ir4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163698 |
On 15 May 2016 14:09:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Quadibloc wrote: >> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> Bud Frede wrote: >>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> >>> >> I never liked 42 because it has factors. >> >>> > I thought that was the whole point? >> >>> Then it can't be the ultimate answer; it's the [ultimate-2n] answer. >> >> But if you add 2n for any integer n to 42, the result will still be >composite, >> so if the ultimate answer must be prime, 42 can't be that answer minus 2n, > >RAts. I did write it wrong but I don't know how to express it in >mathematical terms. > >42 = 6 * 7 = 2 * 3 * 7. So it takes 2 steps to determine the ultimate >answer. How would I write that? > >I just remembered that one my todo's is to figure out a geometrical >formula for any prime. I was beginning to see a pattern but got >side-tracked and never went back. > >/BAH Looking for any series to generate an infinite number of primes has proved difficult. Looking for a series to generate all primes is fools gold ! This is not to be recommended, even if you have feline ancestry. The wiki page below gives a good summary of the state of play in the search for primes, a trip down the memory lane of my youth. My passion was Fermats Last theorem. At one time I even blagged my way into the British Museum in London to physically get my hands on an original copy of "Oeuvres de Fermat". Only to find that my schoolboy 20th century french did not allow me to make sense of Fermats 17th century french. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics Carl Goldsworthy -- No reasonable offer refused. Everything must go !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 12:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000532F493A3E71F@aca41ee3.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163704 |
Ibmekon wrote: > On 15 May 2016 14:09:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> Bud Frede wrote: >>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> >> I never liked 42 because it has factors. >>> >>>> > I thought that was the whole point? >>> >>>> Then it can't be the ultimate answer; it's the [ultimate-2n] answer. >>> >>> But if you add 2n for any integer n to 42, the result will still be >>composite, >>> so if the ultimate answer must be prime, 42 can't be that answer minus 2n, >> >>RAts. I did write it wrong but I don't know how to express it in >>mathematical terms. >> >>42 = 6 * 7 = 2 * 3 * 7. So it takes 2 steps to determine the ultimate >>answer. How would I write that? >> >>I just remembered that one my todo's is to figure out a geometrical >>formula for any prime. I was beginning to see a pattern but got >>side-tracked and never went back. >> >>/BAH > > Looking for any series to generate an infinite number of primes has > proved difficult. I know. There are certain "holes" which need to be skipped over. > Looking for a series to generate all primes is fools gold ! > This is not to be recommended, even if you have feline ancestry. <grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. > > The wiki page below gives a good summary of the state of play in the > search for primes, a trip down the memory lane of my youth. > My passion was Fermats Last theorem. At one time I even blagged my way > into the British Museum in London to physically get my hands on an > original copy of "Oeuvres de Fermat". Only to find that my schoolboy > 20th century french did not allow me to make sense of Fermats 17th > century french. That must have been a disappointment. Did you understand the proof when it did come out? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2559ef9d-b7ed-436c-a321-132b759d8ae3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163712 |
On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > <grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my > high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an > imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why > I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits > the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. When I was in Junior High, _Mechanix Illustrated_ published a geometrical construction by means of which the angle was trisected by the use of a straightedge and compasses. I went through the proof, and verified that it was correct; following the steps described by the author, one would, in fact, accurately trisect an angle. However, the world of mathematics was not overturned. You see, in one of his steps, the author... did something _clever_ with the straightedge and compasses; he held the compasses against the straightedge, so that he could draw a line satisfying the condition that it passed through a given point, and the distance along the line between its intersections with one straight line and one arc would equal that to which the compass was spread. The mathematical proof that an angle can't be trisected "using straightedge and compasses" actually refers to trisecting it by means of the basic operations which those two tools perform in their normal use. That something like the author's construction could trisect the angle was known to mathematicians all along - as one such trisection of the angle was due to Archimedes. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053308E5B03FBB@aca40db8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163713 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> <grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my >> high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an >> imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why >> I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits >> the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. > > When I was in Junior High, _Mechanix Illustrated_ published a geometrical > construction by means of which the angle was trisected by the use of a > straightedge and compasses. > > I went through the proof, and verified that it was correct; following the steps described by the author, one would, in fact, accurately trisect an angle. > > However, the world of mathematics was not overturned. > > You see, in one of his steps, the author... did something _clever_ with the > straightedge and compasses; he held the compasses against the straightedge, so > that he could draw a line satisfying the condition that it passed through a > given point, and the distance along the line between its intersections with one > straight line and one arc would equal that to which the compass was spread. > > The mathematical proof that an angle can't be trisected "using straightedge and > compasses" actually refers to trisecting it by means of the basic operations > which those two tools perform in their normal use. > > That something like the author's construction could trisect the angle was known > to mathematicians all along - as one such trisection of the angle was due to > Archimedes. I didn't use that method. I don't remember the proof because I forgot it when the teacher said I'd cheated. The only way it can be done is to pick an aribitrary point outside the given dimensions. I was told I couldn't do that. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 10:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhfcpp$bhj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163736 |
On 5/17/2016 7:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > Quadibloc wrote: >> On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> <grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my >>> high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an >>> imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why >>> I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits >>> the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. >> >> When I was in Junior High, _Mechanix Illustrated_ published a geometrical >> construction by means of which the angle was trisected by the use of a >> straightedge and compasses. >> >> I went through the proof, and verified that it was correct; following the > steps described by the author, one would, in fact, accurately trisect an > angle. >> >> However, the world of mathematics was not overturned. >> >> You see, in one of his steps, the author... did something _clever_ with the >> straightedge and compasses; he held the compasses against the straightedge, > so >> that he could draw a line satisfying the condition that it passed through a >> given point, and the distance along the line between its intersections with > one >> straight line and one arc would equal that to which the compass was spread. >> >> The mathematical proof that an angle can't be trisected "using straightedge > and >> compasses" actually refers to trisecting it by means of the basic operations >> which those two tools perform in their normal use. >> >> That something like the author's construction could trisect the angle was > known >> to mathematicians all along - as one such trisection of the angle was due to >> Archimedes. > > I didn't use that method. I don't remember the proof because I forgot it > when the teacher said I'd cheated. The only way it can be done is to > pick an aribitrary point outside the given dimensions. I was told I > couldn't do that. > Unfortunately, some teachers find kids who think outside the box to be too much of a PITA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1025970314.485263670.911382.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163742 |
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 5/17/2016 7:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> <grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my >>>> high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an >>>> imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why >>>> I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits >>>> the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. >>> >>> When I was in Junior High, _Mechanix Illustrated_ published a geometrical >>> construction by means of which the angle was trisected by the use of a >>> straightedge and compasses. >>> >>> I went through the proof, and verified that it was correct; following the >> steps described by the author, one would, in fact, accurately trisect an >> angle. >>> >>> However, the world of mathematics was not overturned. >>> >>> You see, in one of his steps, the author... did something _clever_ with the >>> straightedge and compasses; he held the compasses against the straightedge, >> so >>> that he could draw a line satisfying the condition that it passed through a >>> given point, and the distance along the line between its intersections with >> one >>> straight line and one arc would equal that to which the compass was spread. >>> >>> The mathematical proof that an angle can't be trisected "using straightedge >> and >>> compasses" actually refers to trisecting it by means of the basic operations >>> which those two tools perform in their normal use. >>> >>> That something like the author's construction could trisect the angle was >> known >>> to mathematicians all along - as one such trisection of the angle was due to >>> Archimedes. >> >> I didn't use that method. I don't remember the proof because I forgot it >> when the teacher said I'd cheated. The only way it can be done is to >> pick an aribitrary point outside the given dimensions. I was told I >> couldn't do that. >> > > Unfortunately, some teachers find kids who think outside the box to be > too much of a PITA. > > Two things about that. First, the teacher has to cover the required material in a limited time and doesn't often have time for digressions, however interesting. From seeing the work my wife brought home every night, they don't have a lot of extra time outside of class, either. Second, unfortunately, many teachers don't have a wide knowledge of their subject outside of the material they teach, and so aren't able to work with or interact with students beyond that. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005331CD84CAAFE@aca414ec.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163742 |
Dave Garland wrote: > On 5/17/2016 7:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> <grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my >>>> high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an >>>> imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why >>>> I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits >>>> the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. >>> >>> When I was in Junior High, _Mechanix Illustrated_ published a geometrical >>> construction by means of which the angle was trisected by the use of a >>> straightedge and compasses. >>> >>> I went through the proof, and verified that it was correct; following the >> steps described by the author, one would, in fact, accurately trisect an >> angle. >>> >>> However, the world of mathematics was not overturned. >>> >>> You see, in one of his steps, the author... did something _clever_ with the >>> straightedge and compasses; he held the compasses against the straightedge, >> so >>> that he could draw a line satisfying the condition that it passed through a >>> given point, and the distance along the line between its intersections with >> one >>> straight line and one arc would equal that to which the compass was spread. >>> >>> The mathematical proof that an angle can't be trisected "using straightedge >> and >>> compasses" actually refers to trisecting it by means of the basic operations >>> which those two tools perform in their normal use. >>> >>> That something like the author's construction could trisect the angle was >> known >>> to mathematicians all along - as one such trisection of the angle was due to >>> Archimedes. >> >> I didn't use that method. I don't remember the proof because I forgot it >> when the teacher said I'd cheated. The only way it can be done is to >> pick an aribitrary point outside the given dimensions. I was told I >> couldn't do that. >> > > Unfortunately, some teachers find kids who think outside the box to be > too much of a PITA. And the ones smarter than them. What bugged me is that he wouldn't tell me why I couldn't place a point outside the given dimensions. that should have been easy to do since geometry starts with a few basic (can't think of the term now) assumptions. There wasn't any that I knew of which outlawed extending 2D to 3D. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnjpg8n.19c.mausg@Smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #163768 |
On 2016-05-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Dave Garland wrote: >> On 5/17/2016 7:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> Quadibloc wrote: >>> when the teacher said I'd cheated. The only way it can be done is to >>> pick an aribitrary point outside the given dimensions. I was told I >>> couldn't do that. >>> >> >> Unfortunately, some teachers find kids who think outside the box to be >> too much of a PITA. > > And the ones smarter than them. What bugged me is that he wouldn't tell > me why I couldn't place a point outside the given dimensions. that should > have been easy to do since geometry starts with a few basic (can't think > of the term now) assumptions. There wasn't any that I knew of which > outlawed extending 2D to 3D. > > > /BAH Axioms?.. The Greeks were not into 3d. -- greymaus iD|marrA Raa|fLa Ireland
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sidd@situ.com (sidd) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 20:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nhj0j2$5ff$1@Lazarus.situ.com> |
| In reply to | #163772 |
In article <slrnnjpg8n.19c.mausg@Smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >Axioms?.. >The Greeks were not into 3d. i distinctly remember the last couple books of Euclid had 3D ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 08:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <opidnWpTV68K-KDKnZ2dnUU78I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #163779 |
On 19/05/2016 01:15, sidd wrote: > In article <slrnnjpg8n.19c.mausg@Smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >> Axioms?.. >> The Greeks were not into 3d. > > > i distinctly remember the last couple books of Euclid had 3D ... > Pity all the 'official' tools were 2D.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web