Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
| From | Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0049c7efe3eeef0-a531c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #155857 |
On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 08:42:37PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-7, Uncle Steve wrote: > > I wonder whether > > some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon technological > > developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the potential > > we now see looming. > > Generally speaking, in the distant past, people didn't notice change within > their lifetimes, and so it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that the > possibility really entered the popular consciousness. > > However, long before that, Roger Bacon wrote his vision of a future with > increased technical capabilities. > > And then, perhaps the earliest, the Bible speaks of a time when "people shall > go to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased". Myths of a fountain of youth and such, and perhaps even the tale of Achilles, suggest a more fully developed understanding of progress. At least among scholars. I suspect the phenomenon of vivisection in ancient times was instructive on the nature of mortality to a degree it is difficult to appreciate at this distance. So to the arts of ship-building, metallurgy, civil engineering, and so forth at least in relation to the time of the Roman Empire -- the collapse of which appears to have delayed progress considerably. The current climate of unreason, blind faith, unrestrained corporatism, insular clannish psychology, and no small amount of naked cultural aggression is not terribly helpful. -- We all cannot be intelligent, but at least we can all be polite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s8mqlc-1b1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #155851 |
In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> >> > Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what >> > another 35 years will bring. >> >> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard scaling has already >> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life left in it. > >Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be >reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the atom-by-atom >approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a >discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I am too >ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor >clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As the fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than linearly up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about financing their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take a lot of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. But we may see one-off, "hand made" chips emerge at mainframe prices on fabs that don't support industrial scales. All predicted by The Economist a decade ago. >> However, other areas of technological progress are about to start their sigmoid >> curves. >> >> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they >> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as >> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead >> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through >> rebuilding telomeres... > >I came to the realization some time ago that the natural apotheosis of >medicine was the eventual cure of disease and ageing. Looking back it >seems a rather obvious projection of capability, and I wonder whether >some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon technological >developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the potential >we now see looming. Well, with people in better health in higher age we will have to do something about pensions. The medical industry need not worry, though. Medication generally go up with age, even if they handle the ailments a lot better than the precursors did a generation ago. >> One way or another, the future will be exciting. > >That's one way of putting it. I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for all" emerge in the far future. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6eb7g01u1j@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #155889 |
On 2016-01-04, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, > Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >> >>> One way or another, the future will be exciting. >> >> That's one way of putting it. > > I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for all" emerge > in the far future. FSVO "all", unless we're careful. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <907420288.473633634.203954.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155889 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, > Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>> >>>> Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what >>>> another 35 years will bring. >>> >>> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard scaling has already >>> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life left in it. >> >> Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be >> reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the atom-by-atom >> approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a >> discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I am too >> ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor >> clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. > > The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As the > fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than linearly > up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about financing > their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take a lot > of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt > a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. I think IBM has now gotten out of the chip business. They sold everything to GlobalFoundries, if it's been approved by now. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <676e58ec-9e1c-44d1-8b86-cd2b06f16926@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155905 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:10:40 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > I think IBM has now gotten out of the chip business. They sold everything > to GlobalFoundries, if it's been approved by now. Does IBM _manufacture_ anything now? It's weird. When you go to the website of a company today, they don't tell you their product list. Rather, they speak of "solutions" in fancy language. This includes old companies like IBM or Lucent, and some of the old companies I found in C&A that are still in business. IBM has stuff online about their Z13, but it's very technical. I wonder how many people actually understand what they're saying and the impact for what they want to do. Admittedly, a lot of the computer sales literature of 50-60 years ago was just as opaque. Obviously, the typical businessmen who would make the decision to buy a computer was clueless as to mircoseconds or density. It was very rare that there'd be an ad claiming the XYZ computer could get out the payroll at 30% less cost than with manual methods---the real question a decision maker would want to know. As the industry moved from tab machines to basic computers and from basic computers to fancy ones, I know decision makers from the old days grew increasingly frustrated with slow development of systems (I heard many complain). They did not give a crap that System/360 has "Solid logic technology", or that their company's S/360 had 128k vs. only 16k in their old 1401. They did want to know why it took so damn long to add a new application to their accounting systems. IBM and the others were pretty good at confusing the issue. (I will give a lot of credit to my comp sci prof back at college. He did not allow buzz words, and he expected precise figures and specifics on statements of improvement in proposals. In other words, he would not accept, "the new system will improve payroll processing", rather, he expected something like "the new system will get out the payroll in 20% less time because manual adjustment calculations will now be automatically done.")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f4fb146a84f6f0989d90@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155911 |
In article <676e58ec-9e1c-44d1-8b86-cd2b06f16926@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:10:40 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > > > I think IBM has now gotten out of the chip business. They sold everything > > to GlobalFoundries, if it's been approved by now. > > Does IBM _manufacture_ anything now? > > It's weird. When you go to the website of a company today, they > don't tell you their product list. Rather, they speak of "solutions" > in fancy language. This includes old companies like IBM or Lucent, > and some of the old companies I found in C&A that are still in business. > > IBM has stuff online about their Z13, but it's very technical. I > wonder how many people actually understand what they're saying > and the impact for what they want to do. I think they're relying on a captive market. The Z will live as long as there is Cobol that needs it. > Admittedly, a lot of the computer sales literature of 50-60 years > ago was just as opaque. Obviously, the typical businessmen who > would make the decision to buy a computer was clueless as to > mircoseconds or density. It was very rare that there'd be an > ad claiming the XYZ computer could get out the payroll at 30% > less cost than with manual methods---the real question a decision > maker would want to know. > > As the industry moved from tab machines to basic computers > and from basic computers to fancy ones, I know decision makers > from the old days grew increasingly frustrated with slow > development of systems (I heard many complain). They did not > give a crap that System/360 has "Solid logic technology", or > that their company's S/360 had 128k vs. only 16k in their old > 1401. They did want to know why it took so damn long to add > a new application to their accounting systems. > > IBM and the others were pretty good at confusing the issue. > (I will give a lot of credit to my comp sci prof back at > college. He did not allow buzz words, and he expected > precise figures and specifics on statements of improvement > in proposals. In other words, he would not accept, "the > new system will improve payroll processing", rather, he > expected something like "the new system will get out the > payroll in 20% less time because manual adjustment calculations > will now be automatically done.")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4f7334cedbde077-de60d@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #155889 |
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, > Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: > >> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >> > >> > Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what > >> > another 35 years will bring. > >> > >> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard scaling has already > >> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life left in it. > > > >Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be > >reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the atom-by-atom > >approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a > >discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I am too > >ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor > >clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. > > The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As the > fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than linearly > up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about financing > their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take a lot > of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt > a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. > > But we may see one-off, "hand made" chips emerge at mainframe prices > on fabs that don't support industrial scales. > > All predicted by The Economist a decade ago. I would think that fabs would follow the general trend of faster/ smaller/cheaper. ISTM that current fabs are so expensive because they represent the absolute leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing. So while the feature-size limit will remain a barrier to process technology (absent a breakthrough) we ought to see the eventual advent of the workshop chip fab. (This is an approximation; other scenarios are possible.) > >> However, other areas of technological progress are about to start their sigmoid > >> curves. > >> > >> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they > >> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as > >> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead > >> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through > >> rebuilding telomeres... > > > >I came to the realization some time ago that the natural apotheosis of > >medicine was the eventual cure of disease and ageing. Looking back it > >seems a rather obvious projection of capability, and I wonder whether > >some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon technological > >developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the potential > >we now see looming. > > Well, with people in better health in higher age we will have to do > something about pensions. The medical industry need not worry, though. > Medication generally go up with age, even if they handle the ailments > a lot better than the precursors did a generation ago. The medical instruct still needs to move from a primary revenue model based on treating illness to prevention and cure as the main goal. > >> One way or another, the future will be exciting. > > > >That's one way of putting it. > > I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for all" emerge > in the far future. Could happen. But there is a metric buttload of religion and politics in the way, and that is unlikely to clear from the road in the forseeable future. And there are dystopian scenarios wherein a political bloc such as a loony religious faction within the intelligence community achieve a coup and dictate mortality as part of their political/religious platform. There are people today who hold similarly regressive values, doing evil for evil's sake as a means of marking their page in history. -- We all cannot be intelligent, but at least we can all be polite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1685291072.473878166.461077.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156171 |
Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, >> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >>>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what >>>>> another 35 years will bring. >>>> >>>> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard scaling has already >>>> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life left in it. >>> >>> Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be >>> reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the atom-by-atom >>> approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a >>> discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I am too >>> ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor >>> clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. >> >> The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As the >> fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than linearly >> up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about financing >> their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take a lot >> of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt >> a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. >> >> But we may see one-off, "hand made" chips emerge at mainframe prices >> on fabs that don't support industrial scales. >> >> All predicted by The Economist a decade ago. > > I would think that fabs would follow the general trend of faster/ > smaller/cheaper. ISTM that current fabs are so expensive because they > represent the absolute leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing. > So while the feature-size limit will remain a barrier to process > technology (absent a breakthrough) we ought to see the eventual advent > of the workshop chip fab. (This is an approximation; other scenarios > are possible.) > >>>> However, other areas of technological progress are about to start their sigmoid >>>> curves. >>>> >>>> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they >>>> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as >>>> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead >>>> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through >>>> rebuilding telomeres... >>> >>> I came to the realization some time ago that the natural apotheosis of >>> medicine was the eventual cure of disease and ageing. Looking back it >>> seems a rather obvious projection of capability, and I wonder whether >>> some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon technological >>> developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the potential >>> we now see looming. >> >> Well, with people in better health in higher age we will have to do >> something about pensions. The medical industry need not worry, though. >> Medication generally go up with age, even if they handle the ailments >> a lot better than the precursors did a generation ago. > > The medical instruct still needs to move from a primary revenue model > based on treating illness to prevention and cure as the main goal. > >>>> One way or another, the future will be exciting. >>> >>> That's one way of putting it. >> >> I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for all" emerge >> in the far future. > > Could happen. But there is a metric buttload of religion and politics > in the way, and that is unlikely to clear from the road in the > forseeable future. And there are dystopian scenarios wherein a > political bloc such as a loony religious faction within the > intelligence community achieve a coup and dictate mortality as part of > their political/religious platform. There are people today who hold > similarly regressive values, doing evil for evil's sake as a means of > marking their page in history. > Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or religious groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic and Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just like to fight. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6m7m00hi9@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156206 |
On 2016-01-07, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: >> >>> I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for all" >>> emerge in the far future. >> >> Could happen. But there is a metric buttload of religion and politics >> in the way, and that is unlikely to clear from the road in the >> forseeable future. And there are dystopian scenarios wherein a >> political bloc such as a loony religious faction within the >> intelligence community achieve a coup and dictate mortality as part of >> their political/religious platform. There are people today who hold >> similarly regressive values, doing evil for evil's sake as a means of >> marking their page in history. > > Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or religious > groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic and > Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just like to > fight. And others make a boatload of money off it, hence that old saying: "Let's you and him fight." -- /~\ 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 | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6mf13$s0n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156206 |
On 1/7/2016 11:04 AM, Peter Flass wrote: > Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, >>> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what >>>>>> another 35 years will bring. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard scaling has already >>>>> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life left in it. >>>> >>>> Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be >>>> reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the atom-by-atom >>>> approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a >>>> discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I am too >>>> ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor >>>> clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. >>> >>> The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As the >>> fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than linearly >>> up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about financing >>> their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take a lot >>> of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt >>> a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. >>> >>> But we may see one-off, "hand made" chips emerge at mainframe prices >>> on fabs that don't support industrial scales. >>> >>> All predicted by The Economist a decade ago. >> >> I would think that fabs would follow the general trend of faster/ >> smaller/cheaper. ISTM that current fabs are so expensive because they >> represent the absolute leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing. >> So while the feature-size limit will remain a barrier to process >> technology (absent a breakthrough) we ought to see the eventual advent >> of the workshop chip fab. (This is an approximation; other scenarios >> are possible.) >> >>>>> However, other areas of technological progress are about to start their sigmoid >>>>> curves. >>>>> >>>>> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they >>>>> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as >>>>> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead >>>>> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through >>>>> rebuilding telomeres... >>>> >>>> I came to the realization some time ago that the natural apotheosis of >>>> medicine was the eventual cure of disease and ageing. Looking back it >>>> seems a rather obvious projection of capability, and I wonder whether >>>> some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon technological >>>> developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the potential >>>> we now see looming. >>> >>> Well, with people in better health in higher age we will have to do >>> something about pensions. The medical industry need not worry, though. >>> Medication generally go up with age, even if they handle the ailments >>> a lot better than the precursors did a generation ago. >> >> The medical instruct still needs to move from a primary revenue model >> based on treating illness to prevention and cure as the main goal. >> >>>>> One way or another, the future will be exciting. >>>> >>>> That's one way of putting it. >>> >>> I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for all" emerge >>> in the far future. >> >> Could happen. But there is a metric buttload of religion and politics >> in the way, and that is unlikely to clear from the road in the >> forseeable future. And there are dystopian scenarios wherein a >> political bloc such as a loony religious faction within the >> intelligence community achieve a coup and dictate mortality as part of >> their political/religious platform. There are people today who hold >> similarly regressive values, doing evil for evil's sake as a means of >> marking their page in history. >> > > Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or religious > groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic and > Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just like to > fight. > I think it's more that politicians see fighting as a path to enhance their power. There's the famous Goering quote, which paraphrases as "of course people don't want to fight, they've got nothing to gain, but it's up to the leaders... if their leaders tell them they're in danger and under attack, people will go along with it," Which we can see at work around the world today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df8sl6Feaa3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156222 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:n6mf13$s0n$1@dont-email.me... > On 1/7/2016 11:04 AM, Peter Flass wrote: >> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>> In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, >>>> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what >>>>>>> another 35 years will bring. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard scaling has >>>>>> already >>>>>> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life left in >>>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be >>>>> reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the atom-by-atom >>>>> approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a >>>>> discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I am too >>>>> ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor >>>>> clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. >>>> >>>> The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As the >>>> fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than linearly >>>> up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about >>>> financing >>>> their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take a lot >>>> of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt >>>> a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. >>>> >>>> But we may see one-off, "hand made" chips emerge at mainframe prices >>>> on fabs that don't support industrial scales. >>>> >>>> All predicted by The Economist a decade ago. >>> >>> I would think that fabs would follow the general trend of faster/ >>> smaller/cheaper. ISTM that current fabs are so expensive because they >>> represent the absolute leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing. >>> So while the feature-size limit will remain a barrier to process >>> technology (absent a breakthrough) we ought to see the eventual advent >>> of the workshop chip fab. (This is an approximation; other scenarios >>> are possible.) >>> >>>>>> However, other areas of technological progress are about to start >>>>>> their sigmoid >>>>>> curves. >>>>>> >>>>>> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better >>>>>> than they >>>>>> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as >>>>>> much as >>>>>> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff >>>>>> might lead >>>>>> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth >>>>>> through >>>>>> rebuilding telomeres... >>>>> >>>>> I came to the realization some time ago that the natural apotheosis of >>>>> medicine was the eventual cure of disease and ageing. Looking back it >>>>> seems a rather obvious projection of capability, and I wonder whether >>>>> some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon technological >>>>> developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the potential >>>>> we now see looming. >>>> >>>> Well, with people in better health in higher age we will have to do >>>> something about pensions. The medical industry need not worry, though. >>>> Medication generally go up with age, even if they handle the ailments >>>> a lot better than the precursors did a generation ago. >>> >>> The medical instruct still needs to move from a primary revenue model >>> based on treating illness to prevention and cure as the main goal. >>> >>>>>> One way or another, the future will be exciting. >>>>> >>>>> That's one way of putting it. >>>> >>>> I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for all" >>>> emerge >>>> in the far future. >>> >>> Could happen. But there is a metric buttload of religion and politics >>> in the way, and that is unlikely to clear from the road in the >>> forseeable future. And there are dystopian scenarios wherein a >>> political bloc such as a loony religious faction within the >>> intelligence community achieve a coup and dictate mortality as part of >>> their political/religious platform. There are people today who hold >>> similarly regressive values, doing evil for evil's sake as a means of >>> marking their page in history. >>> >> >> Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or religious >> groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic and >> Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just like to >> fight. > I think it's more that politicians see fighting as a path to enhance their > power. I don’t believe that is true anymore with say western europe. > There's the famous Goering quote, which paraphrases as "of course people > don't want to fight, they've got nothing to gain, but it's up to the > leaders... if their leaders tell them they're in danger and under attack, > people will go along with it," And then the world moved on and western europe chose to go the other route and have the EU and that was so successful we have even the worst of the countries on eastern europe who used to go to war with each other at the drop of a hat decide that it makes more sense to join the EU and stop doing that. > Which we can see at work around the world today. Not to anything like the level that it used to with the modern first world or the second world either. We haven't seen any wars in SE asia or south america for quite a while now. Just a few recalcitrant's like Kim Jung Il and fools like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6nk22$79g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156236 |
On 1/7/2016 10:35 PM, 879 wrote: > > > "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message > news:n6mf13$s0n$1@dont-email.me... >> On 1/7/2016 11:04 AM, Peter Flass wrote: >>> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>> In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, >>>>> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's >>>>>>> Shot wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what >>>>>>>> another 35 years will bring. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard >>>>>>> scaling has already >>>>>>> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life >>>>>>> left in it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be >>>>>> reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the >>>>>> atom-by-atom >>>>>> approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a >>>>>> discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I >>>>>> am too >>>>>> ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor >>>>>> clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. >>>>> >>>>> The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As >>>>> the >>>>> fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than >>>>> linearly >>>>> up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about >>>>> financing >>>>> their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take >>>>> a lot >>>>> of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt >>>>> a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. >>>>> >>>>> But we may see one-off, "hand made" chips emerge at mainframe prices >>>>> on fabs that don't support industrial scales. >>>>> >>>>> All predicted by The Economist a decade ago. >>>> >>>> I would think that fabs would follow the general trend of faster/ >>>> smaller/cheaper. ISTM that current fabs are so expensive because >>>> they >>>> represent the absolute leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing. >>>> So while the feature-size limit will remain a barrier to process >>>> technology (absent a breakthrough) we ought to see the eventual >>>> advent >>>> of the workshop chip fab. (This is an approximation; other scenarios >>>> are possible.) >>>> >>>>>>> However, other areas of technological progress are about to >>>>>>> start their sigmoid >>>>>>> curves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" >>>>>>> better than they >>>>>>> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just >>>>>>> not as much as >>>>>>> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR >>>>>>> stuff might lead >>>>>>> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal >>>>>>> youth through >>>>>>> rebuilding telomeres... >>>>>> >>>>>> I came to the realization some time ago that the natural >>>>>> apotheosis of >>>>>> medicine was the eventual cure of disease and ageing. Looking >>>>>> back it >>>>>> seems a rather obvious projection of capability, and I wonder >>>>>> whether >>>>>> some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon >>>>>> technological >>>>>> developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the >>>>>> potential >>>>>> we now see looming. >>>>> >>>>> Well, with people in better health in higher age we will have to do >>>>> something about pensions. The medical industry need not worry, >>>>> though. >>>>> Medication generally go up with age, even if they handle the >>>>> ailments >>>>> a lot better than the precursors did a generation ago. >>>> >>>> The medical instruct still needs to move from a primary revenue model >>>> based on treating illness to prevention and cure as the main goal. >>>> >>>>>>> One way or another, the future will be exciting. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's one way of putting it. >>>>> >>>>> I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for >>>>> all" emerge >>>>> in the far future. >>>> >>>> Could happen. But there is a metric buttload of religion and >>>> politics >>>> in the way, and that is unlikely to clear from the road in the >>>> forseeable future. And there are dystopian scenarios wherein a >>>> political bloc such as a loony religious faction within the >>>> intelligence community achieve a coup and dictate mortality as >>>> part of >>>> their political/religious platform. There are people today who hold >>>> similarly regressive values, doing evil for evil's sake as a means of >>>> marking their page in history. >>>> >>> >>> Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or >>> religious >>> groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic >>> and >>> Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just >>> like to >>> fight. > >> I think it's more that politicians see fighting as a path to enhance >> their power. > > I don’t believe that is true anymore with say western europe. Ok, we're excluding Milosevik, eh? > >> There's the famous Goering quote, which paraphrases as "of course >> people don't want to fight, they've got nothing to gain, but it's up >> to the leaders... if their leaders tell them they're in danger and >> under attack, people will go along with it," > > And then the world moved on and western europe > chose to go the other route and have the EU and > that was so successful we have even the worst of > the countries on eastern europe who used to go > to war with each other at the drop of a hat > decide that it makes more sense to join the EU > and stop doing that. > >> Which we can see at work around the world today. > > Not to anything like the level that it used to with > the modern first world or the second world either. > We haven't seen any wars in SE asia or south > america for quite a while now. Just a few > recalcitrant's like Kim Jung Il and fools like that. Maybe not in Oz (though I suspect it's happening there too). Now we're seeing it with "Al-Quaida"/ISIS/"Muslims". (One of the two main political parties here has gone anti-Muslim, though they're struggling to conceal that.) Searches at airports. No-fly lists, with no-explanation or cure if you're not a Kennedy. Cops spying on mosques. Appeals to spy on your neighbor. To the point that schoolkids are being arrested for their science projects. That tactic has been working for eons. It hasn't stopped now. But it's become so much cheaper and easier for governments to spy on people. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df9b2bFhidoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156239 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:n6nk22$79g$1@dont-email.me... > On 1/7/2016 10:35 PM, 879 wrote: >> >> >> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >> news:n6mf13$s0n$1@dont-email.me... >>> On 1/7/2016 11:04 AM, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: >>>>>> In article <7db2ed440bca8c0-13432@gmail.com>, >>>>>> Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 03:57:43PM -0800, Quadibloc wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's >>>>>>>> Shot wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what >>>>>>>>> another 35 years will bring. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard >>>>>>>> scaling has already >>>>>>>> gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life >>>>>>>> left in it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, we haven't hit the atomic wall yet. While we seem to be >>>>>>> reaching the limits of bulk manufacturing processes, the >>>>>>> atom-by-atom >>>>>>> approach remains to be explored. This represents something of a >>>>>>> discontinuity to the stately progression of Moore's law, but I >>>>>>> am too >>>>>>> ignorant of science to project its limitation in terms of processor >>>>>>> clock speed, information density, heat dissipation, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> The first real, hard wall we are going to see is one of money. As >>>>>> the >>>>>> fabs get tuned for smaller, faster layouts they go more than >>>>>> linearly >>>>>> up in investment cost. Even IBM and Intel have huge issues about >>>>>> financing >>>>>> their current ones, and even small/faster ones are going to take >>>>>> a lot >>>>>> of depreciation time; i.e. the expansion will slowly peter to a halt >>>>>> a good bit before the fundamental physical constants are reached. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we may see one-off, "hand made" chips emerge at mainframe prices >>>>>> on fabs that don't support industrial scales. >>>>>> >>>>>> All predicted by The Economist a decade ago. >>>>> >>>>> I would think that fabs would follow the general trend of faster/ >>>>> smaller/cheaper. ISTM that current fabs are so expensive because >>>>> they >>>>> represent the absolute leading edge of semiconductor manufacturing. >>>>> So while the feature-size limit will remain a barrier to process >>>>> technology (absent a breakthrough) we ought to see the eventual >>>>> advent >>>>> of the workshop chip fab. (This is an approximation; other scenarios >>>>> are possible.) >>>>> >>>>>>>> However, other areas of technological progress are about to >>>>>>>> start their sigmoid >>>>>>>> curves. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" >>>>>>>> better than they >>>>>>>> are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just >>>>>>>> not as much as >>>>>>>> further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR >>>>>>>> stuff might lead >>>>>>>> to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal >>>>>>>> youth through >>>>>>>> rebuilding telomeres... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I came to the realization some time ago that the natural >>>>>>> apotheosis of >>>>>>> medicine was the eventual cure of disease and ageing. Looking >>>>>>> back it >>>>>>> seems a rather obvious projection of capability, and I wonder >>>>>>> whether >>>>>>> some of the ancients (in Rome, for instance) looked upon >>>>>>> technological >>>>>>> developments of their age and imagined in some dim way the >>>>>>> potential >>>>>>> we now see looming. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, with people in better health in higher age we will have to do >>>>>> something about pensions. The medical industry need not worry, >>>>>> though. >>>>>> Medication generally go up with age, even if they handle the >>>>>> ailments >>>>>> a lot better than the precursors did a generation ago. >>>>> >>>>> The medical instruct still needs to move from a primary revenue model >>>>> based on treating illness to prevention and cure as the main goal. >>>>> >>>>>>>> One way or another, the future will be exciting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's one way of putting it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see faintly a society of "peace, freedom and prosperity for >>>>>> all" emerge >>>>>> in the far future. >>>>> >>>>> Could happen. But there is a metric buttload of religion and >>>>> politics >>>>> in the way, and that is unlikely to clear from the road in the >>>>> forseeable future. And there are dystopian scenarios wherein a >>>>> political bloc such as a loony religious faction within the >>>>> intelligence community achieve a coup and dictate mortality as >>>>> part of >>>>> their political/religious platform. There are people today who hold >>>>> similarly regressive values, doing evil for evil's sake as a means of >>>>> marking their page in history. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or >>>> religious >>>> groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic >>>> and >>>> Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just >>>> like to >>>> fight. >> >>> I think it's more that politicians see fighting as a path to enhance >>> their power. >> >> I don’t believe that is true anymore with say western europe. > > Ok, we're excluding Milosevik, eh? Yes, that's eastern europe. And so is the Ukraine and Putin. >>> There's the famous Goering quote, which paraphrases as "of course >>> people don't want to fight, they've got nothing to gain, but it's up >>> to the leaders... if their leaders tell them they're in danger and >>> under attack, people will go along with it," >> >> And then the world moved on and western europe >> chose to go the other route and have the EU and >> that was so successful we have even the worst of >> the countries on eastern europe who used to go >> to war with each other at the drop of a hat >> decide that it makes more sense to join the EU >> and stop doing that. >> >>> Which we can see at work around the world today. >> >> Not to anything like the level that it used to with >> the modern first world or the second world either. >> We haven't seen any wars in SE asia or south >> america for quite a while now. Just a few >> recalcitrant's like Kim Jung Il and fools like that. > Maybe not in Oz No maybe about it. We haven't gone to war with anyone of our own volition. > (though I suspect it's happening there too). More fool you. > Now we're seeing it with "Al-Quaida"/ISIS/"Muslims". Yes, but those fools haven't even managed to work out the value of the separation of church and state yet, something the first world worked out centuries ago now. > (One of the two main political parties here has gone anti-Muslim, Hardly surprising given 9/11 and other atrocities like Paris recently. > though they're struggling to conceal that.) Searches at airports. No-fly > lists, with no-explanation or cure if you're not a Kennedy. Cops spying on > mosques. Appeals to spy on your neighbor. Corse nothing like that ever happened previously, eh ? > To the point that schoolkids are being arrested for their science > projects. Nothing like what Goering was talking about. > That tactic has been working for eons. It hasn't stopped now. But it's > become so much cheaper and easier for governments to spy on people. Nothing like what Goering was talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df714374-0cbb-4b2d-9fa4-e44319b13e45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156206 |
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 12:04:02 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or religious > groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic and > Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just like to > fight. Especially over religion. Or, the most passionate about politics. The extreme right and extreme left often split up into factions that hate each other more than their real opponents. When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, their first order of business was to kill off the other leftist groups (e.g. Mensheviks).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8tmbc.2ok.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156223 |
On 2016-01-07, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 12:04:02 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Probably never happen. Time and again in history political or religious >> groups that seemed unified split up and started fighting - Catholic and >> Protestant, Sunni and Shia, US North and South, etc. People just like to >> fight. > > Especially over religion. Or, the most passionate about politics. > > The extreme right and extreme left often split up into factions that > hate each other more than their real opponents. When the Bolsheviks > took over Russia, their first order of business was to kill off the > other leftist groups (e.g. Mensheviks). In "The Life of Brian", the Judean Liberation Front really hated the liberation front of Judea. T'is happening here at the moment, the myriad leftist groups hate each other, just less thaan they hate SinnFein. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6ha7p$n6v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155752 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:6080e724-4d4a-4f96-a0b6-06d6c86668d8@googlegroups.com... > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > One way or another, the future will be exciting. > And the future will find a way to make all of us look *stupid* and plodding... attempting to do big things with underpowered machines. The future has always done this to people. The fact is: People in the present *must* continue to work the best way they can, so that the *future* people will get the better hardware and software. IMO. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f15a1b1b-fda2-4fc3-9917-8487c95c03d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156004 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:51:38 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote: > > One way or another, the future will be exciting. > And the future will find a way to make all of us look *stupid* and > plodding... attempting to do big things with underpowered machines. The > future has always done this to people. > > The fact is: People in the present *must* continue to work the best way > they can, so that the *future* people will get the better hardware and > software. IMO. I guess as a senior, I see the future as greedy people finding loopholes in existing processes to make money, via computers or not, legally or not. Seniors are particularly at risk since often they aren't as in tune with modern trends as youngsters, usually retired and not in touch with workplace news. They cling to old assumptions; for instance, that banking transactions are secure, that banks are trustworthy, and that government is looking out for them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6hfeh112nk@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156007 |
On 2016-01-05, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:51:38 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>>> One way or another, the future will be exciting.
>
>> And the future will find a way to make all of us look *stupid* and
>> plodding... attempting to do big things with underpowered machines. The
>> future has always done this to people.
>>
>> The fact is: People in the present *must* continue to work the best way
>> they can, so that the *future* people will get the better hardware and
>> software. IMO.
>
> I guess as a senior, I see the future as greedy people finding
> loopholes in existing processes to make money, via computers or
> not, legally or not.
>
> Seniors are particularly at risk since often they aren't as in tune
> with modern trends as youngsters, usually retired and not in touch
> with workplace news. They cling to old assumptions; for instance,
> that banking transactions are secure, that banks are trustworthy,
> and that government is looking out for them.
That's what makes us look like surly curmudgeons.
Clear analysis of any situation is often mistaken for pessimism.
-- Barbara Hambly: The Walls of Air
--
/~\ 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 | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6p6d2$kmn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156020 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:n6hfeh112nk@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 2016-01-05, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> Seniors are particularly at risk since often they aren't as in tune
>> with modern trends as youngsters, usually retired and not in touch
>> with workplace news. They cling to old assumptions; for instance,
>> that banking transactions are secure, that banks are trustworthy,
>> and that government is looking out for them.
>
> That's what makes us look like surly curmudgeons.
>
> Clear analysis of any situation is often mistaken for pessimism.
> -- Barbara Hambly: The Walls of Air
>
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who
have not got it."
-- George Bernard Shaw
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6hfeh012nk@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156004 |
On 2016-01-05, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > news:6080e724-4d4a-4f96-a0b6-06d6c86668d8@googlegroups.com... > >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> One way or another, the future will be exciting. > > And the future will find a way to make all of us look *stupid* and > plodding... attempting to do big things with underpowered machines. The > future has always done this to people. > > The fact is: People in the present *must* continue to work the best way > they can, so that the *future* people will get the better hardware and > software. IMO. Still, just because a machine is underpowered by today's standards, that doesn't make it unusable. Look at what those space probes out there are doing - and think of the kinds of computers the builders had available when making them. Your average user has more computer power on his desk (heck, even in his phone these days) than the combined power of all the computers used to put a man on the moon. But nobody's going to the moon anymore. What happened? -- /~\ 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]
Page 13 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web