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 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 02:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05410502-660a-4d90-a0b3-1b7dc7149861@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163467 |
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... > > > > 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. > > 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 06:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <28456011.484569539.894674.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163501 |
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... >>> >>> 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. >> >> 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. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 07:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <aol3jbht0bpp15j9p74bni00o9chd2drf0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163506 |
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... >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> 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'. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 01:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b72516f4-f334-4342-a979-b8b7fbc4c869@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163514 |
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... > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> 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'. > > -- > JimP. It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the galaxies above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom proved strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. Modern technology had reiterated the wisdom of the ancients, who coined the very same discovery in the adage: As Above so Below. "Tis true without lying, certain and most true. That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below.” – Isaac Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism http://www.arkintime.com/as-above-so-below/ http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/below_above.html http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/ontablet.pdf Is There An Infinite Zoom? Like Fractals Can You Zoom In Forever!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 09:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ngvaor$1pav$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163551 |
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? w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 09:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605110946460.30685@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163560 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016, 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? > I didn't read it, but just the other day the local paper had some story about some kid who is really good on the abacus. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 09:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngvfm9$hb7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163560 |
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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 10:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ukj6jbtg2qiu65gmjpfdl85so21nii7o32@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163568 |
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. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 11:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngvle4$8dc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163572 |
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. * 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 | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 17:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160511174853.482bea3960f954dd696adbf4@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163579 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant > figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". Very few seem to understand significant figures, orders of magnitude or doing a rough calculation in your head to sanity check the answer you get. I managed to get all three through to one friend's daughter I helped through her leaving cert maths, I even managed to stop her reaching for the calculator to multiply by 10! I gather it all helped. -- 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 | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 20:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-21B3C7.20024816052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163585 |
In article <20160511174853.482bea3960f954dd696adbf4@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500 > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > > > * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant > > figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". > > Very few seem to understand significant figures, orders of > magnitude or doing a rough calculation in your head to sanity check the > answer you get. I managed to get all three through to one friend's daughter > I helped through her leaving cert maths, I even managed to stop her > reaching for the calculator to multiply by 10! I gather it all helped. I would have trouble multiplying by ten factorial too. -- To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world? Christopher Hitchens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 12:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ggp6jb98hdb75s1vkp7e4arcivn6iuvccb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163579 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >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. > >* 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. It could have been a slide rule he challenged the guy with. Its been years since I read it. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nh02np$uiq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163586 |
On 5/11/2016 12:05 PM, JimP wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500, Dave Garland > <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: >>> 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. >> >> * 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. > > It could have been a slide rule he challenged the guy with. Its been > years since I read it. So long as you were ok with 3 significant digits, I'd expect a slide rule to be faster than a calculator. Move the cursor and read the answer off, it's pre-programmed. I'm sure that with an abacus the procedure is far more complicated and lengthy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 21:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qoq7jbhq7p379e3sumllq95qbei451rj5d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163601 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:59:03 -0500, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >On 5/11/2016 12:05 PM, JimP wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500, Dave Garland >> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: > >>>> 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. >>> >>> * 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. >> >> It could have been a slide rule he challenged the guy with. Its been >> years since I read it. > >So long as you were ok with 3 significant digits, I'd expect a slide >rule to be faster than a calculator. Move the cursor and read the >answer off, it's pre-programmed. I'm sure that with an abacus the >procedure is far more complicated and lengthy. It took a number of minutes on the abacus. When the guy was told that it would be faster with log tables, he didn't know what that was. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 19:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-419FF5.19594516052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163616 |
In article <qoq7jbhq7p379e3sumllq95qbei451rj5d@4ax.com>, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:59:03 -0500, Dave Garland > <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >On 5/11/2016 12:05 PM, JimP wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500, Dave Garland > >> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: > > > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> * 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. > >> > >> It could have been a slide rule he challenged the guy with. Its been > >> years since I read it. > > > >So long as you were ok with 3 significant digits, I'd expect a slide > >rule to be faster than a calculator. Move the cursor and read the > >answer off, it's pre-programmed. I'm sure that with an abacus the > >procedure is far more complicated and lengthy. > > It took a number of minutes on the abacus. When the guy was told that > it would be faster with log tables, he didn't know what that was. Cue joke about Noah and the adders when he told them to go forth and multiply. -- To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world? Christopher Hitchens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 21:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <urq7jbl0kc7kvff717ki86s23ejn9ugq1q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163601 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:59:03 -0500, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >On 5/11/2016 12:05 PM, JimP wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500, Dave Garland >> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: > >>>> 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. >>> >>> * 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. >> >> It could have been a slide rule he challenged the guy with. Its been >> years since I read it. > >So long as you were ok with 3 significant digits, I'd expect a slide >rule to be faster than a calculator. Move the cursor and read the >answer off, it's pre-programmed. I'm sure that with an abacus the >procedure is far more complicated and lengthy. On a calculator, I would use 4/3 to get 1 and 1/3. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 03:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <UradnSmv2sUHca7KnZ2dnUU78fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #163601 |
On 11/05/2016 20:59, Dave Garland wrote: > On 5/11/2016 12:05 PM, JimP wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:11:58 -0500, Dave Garland >> <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/11/2016 10:26 AM, JimP wrote: > >>>> 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. >>> >>> * 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. >> >> It could have been a slide rule he challenged the guy with. Its been >> years since I read it. > > So long as you were ok with 3 significant digits, I'd expect a slide > rule to be faster than a calculator. Move the cursor and read the answer > off, it's pre-programmed. I'm sure that with an abacus the procedure is > far more complicated and lengthy. > Slide rules multiply and divide faster than calculators. They work to fewer significant figures and ones with a log scale cannot add & subtract. Abacus can add and subtract faster than a calculator but multiplication and division are slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 06:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160512061316.022d80a6d27083517872d8da@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163601 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:59:03 -0500 Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > So long as you were ok with 3 significant digits, I'd expect a slide > rule to be faster than a calculator. Move the cursor and read the > answer off, it's pre-programmed. I'm sure that with an abacus the > procedure is far more complicated and lengthy. A slide rule is faster than a calculator, in practised hands. I was in the transition generation, we learned slide rules from the age of 11 with daily drill. Some time around age 14 calculators were permitted in the daily drill (which had become races by then) - nobody with a calculator was ever first with the correct answer. But to maintain speed and accuracy with a slide rule takes constant practise. I still have the slide rule I used at school, but now I'm faster with a calculator than the slide rule. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 14:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605121443540.511@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163624 |
On Thu, 12 May 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:59:03 -0500 > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >> So long as you were ok with 3 significant digits, I'd expect a slide >> rule to be faster than a calculator. Move the cursor and read the >> answer off, it's pre-programmed. I'm sure that with an abacus the >> procedure is far more complicated and lengthy. > > A slide rule is faster than a calculator, in practised hands. I was > in the transition generation, we learned slide rules from the age of 11 > with daily drill. Some time around age 14 calculators were permitted in the > daily drill (which had become races by then) - nobody with a calculator was > ever first with the correct answer. > > But to maintain speed and accuracy with a slide rule takes constant > practise. I still have the slide rule I used at school, but now I'm faster > with a calculator than the slide rule. > Someone gave me a slide rule about 1974, he was the first person I knew to have a pocket calculator (specifically an HP-35). But it was a small one, so I don't think he'd been using the slide rule professionally. But I learned the rudiments. However, it was the time of pocket calculators, and I soon had mine, a TI-30 in 1976 or 77, a scientific calculator with more functions than that HP-35. So I never really used the slide rule, so anything I knew is long forgotten. I later got a longer one, a neighbor moving out leaving lots of interesting things. I just saw an article in an old magazine that was an introduction to the slide rule, I should relearn, and then use the slide rule in public. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605111430410.30970@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163579 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland 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. > > In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy disks". Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web