Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #156357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 388 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-11 17:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:44 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 14:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 15:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:41 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-15 20:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-15 15:47 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-15 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 06:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:32 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-16 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-17 03:21 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:46 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-01-18 22:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-11 01:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-11 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-29 09:25 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Simmy Jacks" <sk98@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 04:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-30 09:24 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-29 22:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 09:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-30 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 11:18 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:10 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 18:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-30 11:03 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-30 05:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:05 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-30 15:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-01 13:27 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 19:47 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-29 22:09 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:28 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-30 18:44 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 18:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 04:34 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 04:54 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 19:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:38 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 01:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:29 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 07:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 19:56 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-01 21:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 10:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 00:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 13:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 19:30 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 09:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 12:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 18:35 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-03 05:22 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 20:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 11:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 05:36 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 09:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-02-02 12:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-02 16:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-02 08:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-02 20:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 01:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 15:25 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-03 08:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 20:51 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-31 14:09 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:46 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-31 20:16 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 07:19 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 14:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-31 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 15:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 12:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 17:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-01 10:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 10:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-01 12:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-01 16:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 09:42 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-02 17:05 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-31 21:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-02-02 00:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-02 09:58 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-31 15:30 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-31 16:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:26 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-01 00:06 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 13:02 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:55 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-02-01 12:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:40 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:25 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 10:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:13 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 16:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-31 17:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-31 16:33 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0500
Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 18:35 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:51 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 09:10 -0600
Re: Dollar Coins in Coin Op Gear in the US Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 19:11 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-31 19:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 20:09 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-01 08:59 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 18:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 21:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 06:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:01 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 14:51 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 13:18 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 22:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 17:02 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:08 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:18 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-02 07:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 19:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-02-02 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-31 23:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-01 09:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 13:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-02 03:31 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 12:40 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:45 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-03 18:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 07:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 06:01 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-31 15:58 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-31 17:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-01 08:12 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 12:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 14:05 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 15:27 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-02 00:08 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-01 18:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 19:07 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 13:13 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:03 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-31 02:58 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:32 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 17:08 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-30 07:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-30 11:07 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-30 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> - 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 12:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 09:35 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:53 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 17:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 09:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-11 18:43 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-12 01:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:33 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:18 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:12 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 04:52 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 20:05 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-12 18:36 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-13 21:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-01-13 02:34 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:16 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-14 00:23 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:41 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-16 23:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-12 02:56 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:30 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:20 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 08:40 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:37 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:10 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:38 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:59 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-01-11 11:54 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:57 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:29 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 20:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-11 02:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:44 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:39 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-12 13:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:12 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 17:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:38 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 08:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:50 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:07 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 23:48 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 11:57 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-13 04:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 15:47 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 19:57 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-13 15:15 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 06:20 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-13 14:13 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-14 03:10 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-14 11:40 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 18:55 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:11 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-15 12:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-18 08:50 -0700
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-18 16:11 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-18 21:23 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:04 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-18 10:29 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-14 14:16 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-15 01:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:35 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 06:55 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 14:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:36 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:09 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:30 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 07:41 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:24 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 09:51 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 16:04 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 09:49 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:50 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:11 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:16 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:21 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:25 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:24 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 06:31 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:42 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 11:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 05:42 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:57 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 07:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 16:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 10:15 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 13:54 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:41 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-11 20:03 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 13:15 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:55 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-11 17:12 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-11 19:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:03 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 20:00 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:30 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-11 19:45 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 15:27 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 13:10 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 18:15 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-11 18:02 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 22:53 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 00:06 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:39 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 16:01 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 06:56 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 07:19 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:26 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-12 13:16 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 05:23 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 19:52 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-18 23:22 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:14 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-19 15:52 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:59 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-13 23:15 -0400
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-14 05:44 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-12 10:56 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 13:49 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-12 16:18 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-12 14:37 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:35 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-12 08:17 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-12 13:24 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-12 17:21 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 18:52 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 19:44 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 11:31 -0600
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-12 14:00 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 15:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 06:00 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:22 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-01-11 15:54 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-11 14:14 -0500
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-11 11:52 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 07:03 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-12 10:34 +1100
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 17:59 -0800
Re: 1976 vs. 2016? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-12 02:52 +0000
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8jbp40r74@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #158205 |
On 2016-01-30, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > "Mathias Koerber" <mathias@koerber.org> wrote in message > news:56AB34BF.9030305@koerber.org... > >> On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >>> >>> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >>> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the >> >> There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). >> >> Example: > > Another related thing goes like this: > > You buy something costing $5.19. You give the clerk a five dollar bill > *and* 19 cents more. The clerk says: "The five dollars will cover the > cost... why did you give me the 19 cents???" > > Well 'duh!!! You gave the 19 cents so the clerk could just give you a one > dollar bill in change, instead of a bunch of coins!!! I know very few > people who want to carry around a pocket full of coins!!! I have fun with that too. I get this funny look from the cashier, which turns to utter amazement when the change works out to exactly a dollar. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 17:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8jg54$cp9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158310 |
On 30-Jan-16 16:00, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-01-30, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >> You buy something costing $5.19. You give the clerk a five dollar >> bill *and* 19 cents more. The clerk says: "The five dollars will >> cover the cost... why did you give me the 19 cents???" >> >> Well 'duh!!! You gave the 19 cents so the clerk could just give >> you a one dollar bill in change, instead of a bunch of coins!!! I >> know very few people who want to carry around a pocket full of >> coins!!! > > I have fun with that too. I get this funny look from the cashier, > which turns to utter amazement when the change works out to exactly a > dollar. I've never had any that were confused when the change was exactly a dollar (or five or ten dollars), but they _do_ get confused when it's smaller, e.g. giving them $5.13 when the total is $4.63. A few have given me back the "excess" coins, but most just blindly punch what I give them into the register, and sometimes the light bulb flickers briefly when they see my change. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 12:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <06tsabtnml8gbea30ngpstt81ggepic47o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #158310 |
On 30 Jan 2016 22:00:04 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
[snip]
>I have fun with that too. I get this funny look from the cashier, which
>turns to utter amazement when the change works out to exactly a dollar.
It was more fun when pennies were still in use (in Canada).
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-30 14:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b44658d6-12fa-4c1e-b293-8fccbb4c2c40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #158205 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:17:17 PM UTC-7, Charles Richmond wrote: > Another related thing goes like this: > > You buy something costing $5.19. You give the clerk a five dollar bill > *and* 19 cents more. The clerk says: "The five dollars will cover the > cost... why did you give me the 19 cents???" > > Well 'duh!!! You gave the 19 cents so the clerk could just give you a one > dollar bill in change, instead of a bunch of coins!!! I know very few > people who want to carry around a pocket full of coins!!! I think you meant "You buy something costing $4.19" at the start there. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-02 00:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8pivg$ug0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #158205 |
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message news:n8h2pi$o6k$1@dont-email.me... > "Mathias Koerber" <mathias@koerber.org> wrote in message > news:56AB34BF.9030305@koerber.org... >> On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >>> >>> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >>> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the >> >> There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). >> >> Example: >> > > Another related thing goes like this: > > You buy something costing $5.19. You give the clerk a five dollar bill > *and* 19 cents more. The clerk says: "The five dollars will cover the > cost... why did you give me the 19 cents???" > > Well 'duh!!! You gave the 19 cents so the clerk could just give you a one > dollar bill in change, instead of a bunch of coins!!! I know very few > people who want to carry around a pocket full of coins!!! > Well, okay... I made a mistake: I meant to say the "something" costs $4.19. The rest of the story is right. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 17:45 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <dh0qmiFidl2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156395 |
On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she
>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first
>> principles, how much money to give you as change.
>
> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was
> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the
There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught).
Example:
The item costs 43.28
Customer gives 50.00
so you give him
2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30
20 cents and say (43.) 50
50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar
or whatever in your currency)
1 dollar and say 45.00
5 dollars and say 50.00
easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved
and fully transparent..
Adjust for available coins of course..
I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age
mindboggling really..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 16:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <2kqnabh82k2b4bqf2fuu8ndfk1ptp8gtcg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #158119 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:45:54 +0800, Mathias Koerber <mathias@koerber.org> wrote: >On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >> >> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the > >There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). > >Example: > >The item costs 43.28 > >Customer gives 50.00 > >so you give him > 2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30 > 20 cents and say (43.) 50 > 50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar > or whatever in your currency) > 1 dollar and say 45.00 > 5 dollars and say 50.00 > >easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved >and fully transparent.. > >Adjust for available coins of course.. > > >I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age >mindboggling really.. Indeed. I asked my mother for help in counting change before first grade. I suspected one or two store cashiers were cheating me when I bought my 10 cents of candy. Turns out one was. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 23:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601292324140.18366@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #158184 |
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, JimP wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 17:45:54 +0800, Mathias Koerber > <mathias@koerber.org> wrote: >> On 12/1/16 1:48, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>>> If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some money and she >>>> probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, from first >>>> principles, how much money to give you as change. >>> >>> There was a well-established technique of counting back change that was >>> taught to just about everyone. It's simple, effective, and one of the >> >> There was? Still is. (I hope it still gets taught). >> >> Example: >> >> The item costs 43.28 >> >> Customer gives 50.00 >> >> so you give him >> 2 cents and say (and 2 makes) 43.30 >> 20 cents and say (43.) 50 >> 50 cents and say 44.00 (two quarters, or a 1/2 dollar >> or whatever in your currency) >> 1 dollar and say 45.00 >> 5 dollars and say 50.00 >> >> easy peasy, not much thinking/calculating involved >> and fully transparent.. >> >> Adjust for available coins of course.. >> >> >> I had a colleague learn this only at almost 40 years of age >> mindboggling really.. > > Indeed. I asked my mother for help in counting change before first > grade. I suspected one or two store cashiers were cheating me when I > bought my 10 cents of candy. Turns out one was. > The only problems I had (or at least noticed) was being unable to reach the popsicles and ice cream bars at the bottom of the freezer at the corner store. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 05:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfiah2FqnuaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156359 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dfh2i4Fghe6U1@mid.individual.net... > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural >> differences... >> >> --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) >> whenever they went out, and of course at work. >> >> --The adults were married, though not necessarily in good marriages. >> >> --Automobiles were big and luxurious inside. >> >> --Many TV sets were only b&w. >> >> --Goofy fast food place. >> >> --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. >> >> --In different scenes, a character would be observed as not present >> and whereabouts unknown. Today, they'd be reached on their cell phone. >> >> --The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common >> back then. >> >> There weren't any computers involved in this movie, so I can't >> comment on that. (one desk in the background had a terminal on it.) >> >> Would anyone care to comments about other cultural differences? > > In my high-school yearbook, you couldn't guess at a person's gender after > hearing the person's hair color. All the students had their natural color, > about 90% brown. Today, women seem to be of a different species, they > mostly have blonde or reddish hair but the males are still stuck with > brown hair. > > Men's socks had an actual size, much like shoes still do. Sleeve lengths > on men's shirts used to come in one-inch gradations, not two inch. Wrist > watches used to make a "ticking" sound; I was always concerned because I > couldn't hear an expensive watch with one of my ears. Now I can't hear > anything with either ear, even a cheap watch. Replacement pencil leads > were not specified in the MKS system. Ink came in little bottles of ink. > I'm not sure but I think there were less than 20 colors in a set of > crayons. Coffee was often made at home using a device called a > "percolator". If you wanted to buy something you gave the clerk some > money and she probably gave you some change. The clerk had to puzzle out, > from first principles, how much money to give you as change. People > didn't say "North of" or "South of" or "double down"; speech was more > direct and the meaning was often obvious - even to the elderly. The sound > level in movie theaters was at a pleasant level, not set so high that one > got a headache after a few minutes. > Food had less Calories, I could eat anything I wanted and not gain weight. That wasn't due to the food, it was due to your metabolism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0pr69bd0cb0vps750jk7k7ij8lmjvumdno@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #156357 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:18:08 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural >differences... > >--Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) >whenever they went out, and of course at work. > >--The adults were married, though not necessarily in good marriages. > >--Automobiles were big and luxurious inside. > >--Many TV sets were only b&w. > >--Goofy fast food place. > >--Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. > >--In different scenes, a character would be observed as not present >and whereabouts unknown. Today, they'd be reached on their cell phone. > >--The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common >back then. > >There weren't any computers involved in this movie, so I can't >comment on that. (one desk in the background had a terminal on it.) > >Would anyone care to comments about other cultural differences? > > >As to computers in 1976, they were certainly commonplace, but not >as widespread as today. A small business would do its work by hand >or send it out to a service bureau. I think by 1976 mini-computers >were reasonably common in medium sized businesses. > >I just find it ironic that in 2016, modern computers will tell my >car insurance company--falsely--that my mother is a new driver in my >household, yet fail to pass along hospital medical records to a >physician. Hospital computers record every time a patient yawns, >but the data can't be organized or accessed, and critical information >gets overlooked. > > You just do not want to know what problems the NSA have. They have a haystack index of haystacks. Carl Goldsworthy -- In a "zero sum game" there are no winners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160111090609.f00475b5edf31d8af4254321@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156357 |
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:18:08 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > I just find it ironic that in 2016, modern computers will tell my > car insurance company--falsely--that my mother is a new driver in my > household, GIGO is as true today as it ever was, that and the little problem that availability of skilled programmers and analysts lagged the demand badly for a long time (s/skilled/competent/ and I think it still does, but the incompetent ones fill the gap so management don't notice). > yet fail to pass along hospital medical records to a > physician. Hospital computers record every time a patient yawns, > but the data can't be organized or accessed, and critical information > gets overlooked. Hospital records and in general medical records are a problem area and have been for a long time - the problems aren't technical though, they're organisational. Ideally medical records should be complete with every test, prescription, injury, operation, illness and comment by GP, nurse, surgeon or consultant included. They should be quickly and always available to any medical practitioner (anywhere in the world - including in flight, on a cruise ship or a mountain rescue helicopter) who needs them, and not available to anyone else (including those same practioners when they don't need them). They should have provision for a patient visible extract (so that the professionals can add notes the patient shouldn't see - eg. nurse's comments on what a PITA they are and how to deal with it). It should also be immediately obvious that the records and patient go together (or not) - even with identical twins or two people with the same name and address (father/son is a not uncommon case). Then there's the little problem of the existing records with nearly illegible hand written notes scattered with hand drawn boxes and ovals containing things that should be noticed and odd scraps on the sides. Some at various GPs, others in hospitals. Making sure that no two patients records are conflated when this lot goes into one place is pretty much impossible. The perfect system is clearly impossible to build entirely in software, some of it has to be in procedures and external checks. Now factor in the number of people who insist on having a say any time anyone tries to design a system resulting in 'design by committee' and you have a recipe for never achieving anything useful. Disclaimer, I've never been involved in designing a medical records system, but I've spent time talking with people who were because it bugged me that this apparently simple problem wasn't getting tackled well. -- 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 | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 06:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1789960391.474204223.877266.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156361 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:18:08 -0800 (PST) > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> I just find it ironic that in 2016, modern computers will tell my >> car insurance company--falsely--that my mother is a new driver in my >> household, > > GIGO is as true today as it ever was, that and the little problem > that availability of skilled programmers and analysts lagged the demand > badly for a long time (s/skilled/competent/ and I think it still does, but > the incompetent ones fill the gap so management don't notice). > >> yet fail to pass along hospital medical records to a >> physician. Hospital computers record every time a patient yawns, >> but the data can't be organized or accessed, and critical information >> gets overlooked. > > Hospital records and in general medical records are a problem area > and have been for a long time - the problems aren't technical though, > they're organisational. Ideally medical records should be complete with > every test, prescription, injury, operation, illness and comment by GP, > nurse, surgeon or consultant included. They should be quickly and always > available to any medical practitioner (anywhere in the world - including in > flight, on a cruise ship or a mountain rescue helicopter) who needs them, > and not available to anyone else (including those same practioners when they > don't need them). They should have provision for a patient visible extract > (so that the professionals can add notes the patient shouldn't see - eg. > nurse's comments on what a PITA they are and how to deal with it). It > should also be immediately obvious that the records and patient go together > (or not) - even with identical twins or two people with the same name and > address (father/son is a not uncommon case). > > Then there's the little problem of the existing records with nearly > illegible hand written notes scattered with hand drawn boxes and ovals > containing things that should be noticed and odd scraps on the sides. Some > at various GPs, others in hospitals. Making sure that no two patients > records are conflated when this lot goes into one place is pretty much > impossible. They solved this one - they're putting all the old paper records in dead storage. I suppose they could get st them in a real emergency, but they never do. They might as well shred them. It's the problem of the web x 100.. > The perfect system is clearly impossible to build entirely in > software, some of it has to be in procedures and external checks. Now > factor in the number of people who insist on having a say any time anyone > tries to design a system resulting in 'design by committee' and you have a > recipe for never achieving anything useful. > > Disclaimer, I've never been involved in designing a medical records > system, but I've spent time talking with people who were because it bugged > me that this apparently simple problem wasn't getting tackled well. > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160111140134.5aef24d6bf411b21f8f1a163@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156366 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:27:45 -0500 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > Then there's the little problem of the existing records with > > nearly illegible hand written notes scattered with hand drawn boxes and > > ovals containing things that should be noticed and odd scraps on the > > sides. Some at various GPs, others in hospitals. Making sure that no > > two patients records are conflated when this lot goes into one place is > > pretty much impossible. > > They solved this one - they're putting all the old paper records in dead > storage. There's really important information on those bits of paper, ah well I suppose it will hasten them becoming irrelevant as fatal mistakes they might have prevented reduce the affected population. -- 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 | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <878u3w58j1.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #156372 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > There's really important information on those bits of paper, ah > well I suppose it will hasten them becoming irrelevant as fatal mistakes > they might have prevented reduce the affected population. we were invited into meeting (on digitized/online documents) in the (barely opened) new national archives bldg in college park. They had people in the bldg ... but there were all these shelves that were totally empty. one of the people explained that the maryland delegation got a "directed appropriation" legislation thru congress that was a gift to maryland contractors ... directed appropriations is where congress tell agencies how to spend budget ... frequently without any additional funding. In this case, it took took several yrs nearly all available agency funds for the bldg ... funds that were suppose to preserve paper documents that were currently molding away in damp basements. large number of documents were lost to create that massively expensive bldg and subsidize maryland contractors. one example contributing to congress considered the most corrupt instition on earth. congress also uses it to pump funds into military-industrial(-congressionaL) complex ... w/o it actually appearing in the DOD budget ... it is directed appropriation USAID where the funds can only be used to buy US military weapons. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#military.industrial.complex (long winded) past post mentioning college park (as well as many other things) & directed appropriations http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#66 They always think we don't understand one of the other gimmicks played is side-stepping laws requiring National Archives releasing presidential documents after fixed period (especially things that have the highest classification ... totally downright embarrassing, unrelated to national security). The Reagan papers were suppose to be made freely available the first part of the century ... but the then president had executive order preventing their release ... since they also covered activities of his (VP, later president) father (including US supplying Iraq with WMDs in the 80s) a couple past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#53 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#62 What Makes collecting sales taxes Bizarre? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013j.html#30 What Makes a Tax System Bizarre? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014f.html#9 Before the Internet: The golden age of online services misc. other posts mentioning "directed approprations" http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#3 The Pankian Metaphor http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#61 Health Care http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#14 what does xp do when system is copying http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#34 360 programs on a z/10 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010i.html#57 Favourite computer history books? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011h.html#43 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM! http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#50 Is there a connection between your strategic and tactical assertions? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#51 Is this Boyd's fundamental postulate, 'to improve our capacity for independent action'? thoughts please http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#63 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#65 Thousands Of IBM Employees Got A Nasty Surprise Yesterday: Here's The Email They Saw http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#61 NYT: N.S.A. Chief Says Phone Logs Halted Terror Threats http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#54 Royal Pardon For Turing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#101 Defense Department Needs to Act Like IBM to Save Itself http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014m.html#178 LEO http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015.html#54 How do we take political considerations into account in the OODA-Loop? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015b.html#68 Why do we have wars? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#5 past of nukes, was Future of support for telephone rotary dial ? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#108 Occupy Democrats http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#17 Why do we keep losing? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#29 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 ^A^K boy scouts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#34 43rd President http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015e.html#67 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015f.html#1 Jeb: George W. Bush is a top foreign policy adviser http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015f.html#76 Pentagon remains stubbornly unable to account for its billions http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#78 New hard drive http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015h.html#33 The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were lost before they began, not on the battlefields -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <68c2c32d-a9a2-47c0-bdb8-19911bec4e1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156361 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 4:30:02 AM UTC-5, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > Hospital records and in general medical records are a problem area > and have been for a long time - the problems aren't technical though, > they're organisational. Ideally medical records should be complete with > every test, prescription, injury, operation, illness and comment by GP, > nurse, surgeon or consultant included. They should be quickly and always > available to any medical practitioner (anywhere in the world - including in > flight, on a cruise ship or a mountain rescue helicopter) who needs them, > and not available to anyone else (including those same practioners when they > don't need them). They should have provision for a patient visible extract > (so that the professionals can add notes the patient shouldn't see - eg. > nurse's comments on what a PITA they are and how to deal with it). It > should also be immediately obvious that the records and patient go together > (or not) - even with identical twins or two people with the same name and > address (father/son is a not uncommon case). The problem with hospital records capturing every little detail is that become too voluminous and there's a high risk for a doctor to miss a critical detail. Yes, the detail is important and should always be available, but there needs to be some way to accurately highlight critical or exception items so they stand out. The displays now seem to be overloaded with detail, and take a lot of scrolling and paging to get to desired data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 10:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn97101.16v.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156357 |
On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural > differences... > > --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) > whenever they went out, and of course at work. The tie thing was very important, and still is to a lesser extent, I haave pictures from the late 1940's of a working place, where even the manual workers wore ties. I have never worn a tie, since I started working with machinery, and realized what a danger a tie is. > > --The adults were married, though not necessarily in good marriages. > > --Automobiles were big and luxurious inside. Ther big yankee car was a real status symbol, some even got one shipped from the states to showoff. I remember people trying to drive them around the `ring of Kerry', every sharp turn meant reversing, forward, reverse, eetc. > > --Many TV sets were only b&w. We had to wait to 1961, before a local station was allowed. The Church did not want it. > > --Goofy fast food place. > > --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. John Wayne, Humprey Bogart, could hardly get through a scene without lighting up. Both, AFAIK, died of cancer. > > --In different scenes, a character would be observed as not present > and whereabouts unknown. Today, they'd be reached on their cell phone. > > --The telephones in a motel didn't have dials, which was still common > back then. > > There weren't any computers involved in this movie, so I can't > comment on that. (one desk in the background had a terminal on it.) > > Would anyone care to comments about other cultural differences? > > > As to computers in 1976, they were certainly commonplace, but not > as widespread as today. A small business would do its work by hand > or send it out to a service bureau. I think by 1976 mini-computers > were reasonably common in medium sized businesses. > > I just find it ironic that in 2016, modern computers will tell my > car insurance company--falsely--that my mother is a new driver in my > household, yet fail to pass along hospital medical records to a > physician. Hospital computers record every time a patient yawns, > but the data can't be organized or accessed, and critical information > gets overlooked. > > Of course, data breaches were unknown then also. > -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 09:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n70ihe$jv6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156362 |
On 1/11/2016 4:29 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural >> differences... >> >> --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) >> whenever they went out, and of course at work. > > The tie thing was very important, and still is to a lesser extent, > I haave pictures from the late 1940's of a working place, where even > the manual workers wore ties. I have never worn a tie, since I > started working with machinery, and realized what a danger a tie is. > Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn97o88.7v7.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #156381 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:45:10 -0600, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2016 4:29 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote: >> On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural >>> differences... >>> >>> --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively) >>> whenever they went out, and of course at work. >> >> The tie thing was very important, and still is to a lesser extent, >> I haave pictures from the late 1940's of a working place, where even >> the manual workers wore ties. I have never worn a tie, since I >> started working with machinery, and realized what a danger a tie is. >> > > Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I > did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day, > they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more. > I was ordered to wear a tie, so I left it loose with the top button of my shirt undone - they didn't specify *how* I should wear it :-) (I did think of using it as a belt, but I felt that might be going a bit far...) Our bus drivers were issued with clip-on ties after a number of assualts where the assailant grabbed the tie to pull the driver's face closer to punch it. -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn97ukk.16g.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156390 |
On 2016-01-11, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:45:10 -0600, Dave Garland
><dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/2016 4:29 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-11, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>>> The other day, TCM aired a movie from 1975. I noticed some cultural
>>>> differences...
>>>>
>>>> --Adult men and women usually wore a tie/jacket or dress (respectively)
>>>> whenever they went out, and of course at work.
>>>
>>> The tie thing was very important, and still is to a lesser extent,
>>> I haave pictures from the late 1940's of a working place, where even
>>> the manual workers wore ties. I have never worn a tie, since I
>>> started working with machinery, and realized what a danger a tie is.
>>>
>>
>> Ah yes. In 1972 my then-employer specified that I wear a tie. So I
>> did. After about 3 months of my wearing the same cheap tie every day,
>> they decided that maybe it wasn't absolutely necessary any more.
>>
>
> I was ordered to wear a tie, so I left it loose with the top button of
> my shirt undone - they didn't specify *how* I should wear it :-)
> (I did think of using it as a belt, but I felt that might be going a
> bit far...)
>
> Our bus drivers were issued with clip-on ties after a number of
> assualts where the assailant grabbed the tie to pull the driver's face
> closer to punch it.
>
A big, recentish change, in old films the hero, usually A Yank,
has a small local boy as a main friend ("Indiana Jones and the Temple
of Doom", "The Green Berets", etc. Watching a Gregory Peck Western, the
hero has a young girl left with him, so he takes off her clothes, and
washes her in the river , Ouch.
In the 60s-80s, the Church here was trying to keep in with younger
people. One parish priest described his curate as being very friendly
with young people.....
--
greymaus
.
.
...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160111195712.abc1f0d3b2c94be7f6e57b64@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156413 |
On 11 Jan 2016 18:55:17 GMT mausg@mail.com wrote: > Watching a Gregory Peck Western, the > hero has a young girl left with him, so he takes off her clothes, and > washes her in the river , Ouch. Then nobody would see anything wrong in it, he wanted her clean and that was it. Problem now is it's the wrong thing to do even if it's for the right reason - if a young girl falls down and hurts herself in front of me I would not dare to pick her up. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web