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 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 15:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n73rsa$j8g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156526 |
On 12-Jan-16 12:42, Michael Black wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> In 1994 when I was running a business and we got a merchant account >> we had the same system. The online machines were around but I >> think they were only available to merchants with big enough >> turnover. It wasn't much later that I noticed the imprint machines >> going away. > > I was in a store last year or maybe the year before, and something > was wrong with the system, so they'd pulled out an old imprint > machine to handle the credit cards. The store has changed hands, but > it's been there since the early eighties, at least. So I suppose > they just kept it "in case". But I was surprised that they could > find it, let alone that they still had it around. I'm more surprised they still had the carbon slips to use with it and the employees knew _how_. I doubt you'll see this much anymore; as of 1 Oct 2015, all of card issuers' agreements changed so that the party with the lowest level of technology is automatically liable for any fraud, and imprints are the lowest level that exists. Also, many banks don't emboss new cards because imprint machines are so rare now, at least within the US. > One used bookstore closed here, and among the books and other junk > they left outside for the garbage (I found a small monitor) was was > the gizmo for reading the cards. That's the shift, it can now be > thrown out. I wasn't even sure if they owned it, or they should have > returned it to the card company. Most merchants purchase or lease terminals from their card processor; the technology changes so fast, though, that the latter rarely want units back when the lease is up, which effectively turns the lease into an installment purchase. > I'm not even sure what the reader entails, there was a mini-DIN plug > on it (as seen on Macintoshes at one point), so I wasn't sure if it > fitted into a general system or needed some other card company device. Long ago, cash registers grew RS232 serial ports with DIN and/or RJ connectors for card terminals and cash drawers. Modern card terminals use USB (or have been integrated into the registers), but cash drawers still mostly use DIN or RJ ports because there's never been a need for industry-wide replacement as there was with card terminals. 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 | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 09:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dflej3Fkp2bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156547 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n73rsa$j8g$1@dont-email.me... > On 12-Jan-16 12:42, Michael Black wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>> In 1994 when I was running a business and we got a merchant account >>> we had the same system. The online machines were around but I >>> think they were only available to merchants with big enough >>> turnover. It wasn't much later that I noticed the imprint machines >>> going away. >> >> I was in a store last year or maybe the year before, and something >> was wrong with the system, so they'd pulled out an old imprint >> machine to handle the credit cards. The store has changed hands, but >> it's been there since the early eighties, at least. So I suppose >> they just kept it "in case". But I was surprised that they could >> find it, let alone that they still had it around. > > I'm more surprised they still had the carbon slips to use with it and > the employees knew _how_. > > I doubt you'll see this much anymore; as of 1 Oct 2015, all of card > issuers' agreements changed so that the party with the lowest level of > technology is automatically liable for any fraud, That utterly mangles the real story. and imprints are the > lowest level that exists. Also, many banks don't emboss new cards > because imprint machines are so rare now, at least within the US. > >> One used bookstore closed here, and among the books and other junk >> they left outside for the garbage (I found a small monitor) was was >> the gizmo for reading the cards. That's the shift, it can now be >> thrown out. I wasn't even sure if they owned it, or they should have >> returned it to the card company. > > Most merchants purchase or lease terminals from their card processor; > the technology changes so fast, though, that the latter rarely want > units back when the lease is up, which effectively turns the lease into > an installment purchase. > >> I'm not even sure what the reader entails, there was a mini-DIN plug >> on it (as seen on Macintoshes at one point), so I wasn't sure if it >> fitted into a general system or needed some other card company device. > > Long ago, cash registers grew RS232 serial ports with DIN and/or RJ > connectors for card terminals and cash drawers. Modern card terminals > use USB (or have been integrated into the registers), but cash drawers > still mostly use DIN or RJ ports because there's never been a need for > industry-wide replacement as there was with card terminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 10:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lbsemc-s06.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156450 |
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601111817120.15391@darkstar.example.org>, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Morten Reistad wrote: > > >> The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond >> trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then >> it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal >> based. >> >How did that work? > >I thought the average store, they'd just get the imprint of the card, the >buyer would sign the receipt and then somehow the store would claim it's >money later, and of course face the risk of a bad card. > >I worked for a small mail order business in 1980, and they'd call the card >company to make sure the card was good. If I recall properly, they >gave the card info by voice, not touch tone. But there, with phone and >even mail order, they didn't even get to see the card, so it made sense to make >sure it was legit. To compete with checking the credit card companies guaranteed their cards for something like $50 provided a simple check with the published black list (300 entries, just filled both pages of an A4 page). For anything above that the store would need to either take the risk or call in for a validation. This validation became a huge choke point, so they automated it with a touch tone menu, entering the card no, the expiration and the first N letters of the given and surnames, just using the letter to digit codes on the phone. Then the store number and amount. It responded with a validation code you had to enter on the slip. > >But was it more like more expensive purchases at stores would routinely be >checked by phone? Yep. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 07:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f067576-75b3-49cf-bfbd-4925222383b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156479 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:33:47 AM UTC-5, Morten Reistad wrote: > This validation became a huge choke point, so they automated it with a touch > tone menu, entering the card no, the expiration and the first N letters of > the given and surnames, just using the letter to digit codes on the phone. > Then the store number and amount. It responded with a validation code you > had to enter on the slip. While many areas of the country got Touch Tone telephone service in the 1970s, some places had to wait until the 1980s. T/T was a pain to install on a step-by-step switch, the kind in widespread use serving smaller communities. For businesses that needed T/T to check with a bank computer or other service, they had to get a separate keypad next to their phone. Automatic-Electric, which served many SxS towns, made telephone sets with both a dial and T/T keypad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601121354050.16751@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156498 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:33:47 AM UTC-5, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> This validation became a huge choke point, so they automated it with a touch >> tone menu, entering the card no, the expiration and the first N letters of >> the given and surnames, just using the letter to digit codes on the phone. >> Then the store number and amount. It responded with a validation code you >> had to enter on the slip. > > While many areas of the country got Touch Tone telephone service in > the 1970s, some places had to wait until the 1980s. T/T was a pain > to install on a step-by-step switch, the kind in widespread use > serving smaller communities. > > For businesses that needed T/T to check with a bank computer > or other service, they had to get a separate keypad next to > their phone. Automatic-Electric, which served many SxS towns, > made telephone sets with both a dial and T/T keypad. > What time period? IN the early seventies (if not the late sixties), touch tone pads were used to control amateur radio repeaters, and make phone calls if the repeater had that function. You could get surplus touchtone pads at that point, so one would think they'd not be an obscure item for businesses (as an add on). But soon there were solid state replacements of the touchtone pads (they were always solid state, but the original ones in the phones used a transistor and bulky coils and capacitors). So they'd take a crystal and divide it down to the needed frequencies, no more bulky coils, it made touchtone pads cheap and small. The first offerings were hybrid ICs, more like modules, but I think by 1974 (at least) you could get a 14pin or so IC that needed a few passive components and the crystal, and the keypad. There were projects in the hobby magazines, even if I can't remember why the average person would need one at that point. Later you could buy them assembled at Radio Shack (at the very least). Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <82850d39-1dc0-480d-905e-1a05dbd998ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156531 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > > For businesses that needed T/T to check with a bank computer > > or other service, they had to get a separate keypad next to > > their phone. Automatic-Electric, which served many SxS towns, > > made telephone sets with both a dial and T/T keypad. > > > What time period? 1960s thru 1980s, depending on the area. > IN the early seventies (if not the late sixties), touch tone pads were > used to control amateur radio repeaters, and make phone calls if the > repeater had that function. You could get surplus touchtone pads at that > point, so one would think they'd not be an obscure item for businesses (as > an add on). I am very surprised that Touch Tone keypads were available as surplus in the early 1970s, since it was relatively early in the T/T era, and the Bell System was rapidly converting subscriber phones to Touch Tone. (Perhaps the original 10-key pads were available, as they were replaced by the 12-key pad.) > But soon there were solid state replacements of the touchtone pads (they > were always solid state, but the original ones in the phones used a > transistor and bulky coils and capacitors). So they'd take a crystal and > divide it down to the needed frequencies, no more bulky coils, it made > touchtone pads cheap and small. The first offerings were hybrid ICs, more > like modules, but I think by 1974 (at least) you could get a 14pin or so > IC that needed a few passive components and the crystal, and the keypad. > There were projects in the hobby magazines, even if I can't remember why > the average person would need one at that point. Later you could buy them > assembled at Radio Shack (at the very least). Generally, for a subscriber to use Touch Tone signalling, it had to be set up at the central office in order to accept the tones. However, by circa 1980, _some_ areas simply had all subscribers set up for Touch Tone, and if someone could somehow get a T/T telephone set, they could have the service without paying the extra charge. So, if someone could get an external keypad, they had the service for free. Also, as mentioned, some people needed the keypad to contact a computer. When I was served by a No. 5 crossbar switch, everyone was set up for T/T. But _later_, when I was served by ESS, we had to order it. My guess is that since crossbar required hard wiring, it was simply to make everyone the same class of service, while ESS could be easily programmed. When they changed the policy and gave T/T to everyone, they raised dial users to the same price as T/T users. I am surprised that Canandians still have to pay extra for T/T. In electro-mechanical days, T/T added costs. But in ESS, it does not, and today, customers supply their own phones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1601121547100.17138@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #156537 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:54:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > >>> For businesses that needed T/T to check with a bank computer >>> or other service, they had to get a separate keypad next to >>> their phone. Automatic-Electric, which served many SxS towns, >>> made telephone sets with both a dial and T/T keypad. >>> >> What time period? > > 1960s thru 1980s, depending on the area. > > >> IN the early seventies (if not the late sixties), touch tone pads were >> used to control amateur radio repeaters, and make phone calls if the >> repeater had that function. You could get surplus touchtone pads at that >> point, so one would think they'd not be an obscure item for businesses (as >> an add on). > > I am very surprised that Touch Tone keypads were available as surplus > in the early 1970s, since it was relatively early in the T/T era, > and the Bell System was rapidly converting subscriber phones to Touch > Tone. (Perhaps the original 10-key pads were available, as they were > replaced by the 12-key pad.) > They may have been "surplus" in the same way you could buy genuine telephones. Most places you had to rent phones, but the major mail order electronic places all sold phones that were apparently the real thing (they looked just like the average dial telephone at the time). Though that doesn't explain why you could buy touchtone pads separately. But they were available, for some reason. > > >> But soon there were solid state replacements of the touchtone pads (they >> were always solid state, but the original ones in the phones used a >> transistor and bulky coils and capacitors). So they'd take a crystal and >> divide it down to the needed frequencies, no more bulky coils, it made >> touchtone pads cheap and small. The first offerings were hybrid ICs, more >> like modules, but I think by 1974 (at least) you could get a 14pin or so >> IC that needed a few passive components and the crystal, and the keypad. >> There were projects in the hobby magazines, even if I can't remember why >> the average person would need one at that point. Later you could buy them >> assembled at Radio Shack (at the very least). > > Generally, for a subscriber to use Touch Tone signalling, it had to > be set up at the central office in order to accept the tones. > However, by circa 1980, _some_ areas simply had all subscribers set > up for Touch Tone, and if someone could somehow get a T/T telephone > set, they could have the service without paying the extra charge. So, > if someone could get an external keypad, they had the service for free. > > Also, as mentioned, some people needed the keypad to contact a computer. > And that was part of the promotion of the portable touchtone pads, "access computer data" or whatever. But it just seems a tad early, more in the category of "this is a neat thing and someday I can use it for something" than something many could benefit from at the time. > > I am surprised that Canandians still have to pay extra for T/T. > In electro-mechanical days, T/T added costs. But in ESS, it does not, > and today, customers supply their own phones. > > Some time back, so maybe it was the early nineties, Bell went to the CRTC that controls things like telephone charges, and asked that they be allowed to add the cost of touchtone service into the regular monthly fee. Though I think the wording was more like "let's allow everyone to have touchtone access, but we'll do it only if we get the fee in a different fashion". The CRTC decided that it couldn't be added to the regular fee, so Bell wasn't willing to give up that surcharge, so you still have to pay extra for touchtone. It wasn't fair to the people who wanted to pay the minimu. And yes, the touchtone surcharge started off to pay for the equipment, but that's all been paid for long ago and dial phones are probably a liability, but since they can squeeze more money with the surcharge, they aren't going to give it up. I suspect most people pay the surcharge. On the other hand, we couldn't use touchtone here until October of 2012, we never bothered paying for it, but it was cumbersome dealing with some places that wanted touchtones for controlling their phone system. I know you can flip the switch or whatever, but that wasn't helpful in that particular case. But the one Bell phone in the house is still a dial phone. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 13:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7eb41dd6-273f-4ea7-96a2-6f316b39271a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156543 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:52:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: > > I am very surprised that Touch Tone keypads were available as surplus > > in the early 1970s, since it was relatively early in the T/T era, > > and the Bell System was rapidly converting subscriber phones to Touch > > Tone. (Perhaps the original 10-key pads were available, as they were > > replaced by the 12-key pad.) > > > They may have been "surplus" in the same way you could buy genuine > telephones. Most places you had to rent phones, but the major mail order > electronic places all sold phones that were apparently the real thing > (they looked just like the average dial telephone at the time). Though > that doesn't explain why you could buy touchtone pads separately. But > they were available, for some reason. Maybe they were made by companies other than the Bell System, such as ITT or Stromberg. > > Also, as mentioned, some people needed the keypad to contact a computer. > > > And that was part of the promotion of the portable touchtone pads, "access > computer data" or whatever. But it just seems a tad early, more in the > category of "this is a neat thing and someday I can use it for something" > than something many could benefit from at the time. I remember around 1968 a bank had T/T pads and tellers could use them to get an account balance. IBM introduced the 7770 voice response unit fairly early that gave audio responses in response to T/T keyed requests. But I don't know how common they were. In terms of functionality, they'd be a great tool, but they--and the associated computer with disk to support on-line inquiries--may have been too expensive as compared to clerks and tub files. > Some time back, so maybe it was the early nineties, Bell went to the CRTC > that controls things like telephone charges, and asked that they be > allowed to add the cost of touchtone service into the regular monthly fee. > Though I think the wording was more like "let's allow everyone to have > touchtone access, but we'll do it only if we get the fee in a different > fashion". The CRTC decided that it couldn't be added to the regular fee, > so Bell wasn't willing to give up that surcharge, so you still have to pay > extra for touchtone. It wasn't fair to the people who wanted to pay the > minimu. And yes, the touchtone surcharge started off to pay for the > equipment, but that's all been paid for long ago and dial phones are > probably a liability, but since they can squeeze more money with the > surcharge, they aren't going to give it up. > > I suspect most people pay the surcharge. > > On the other hand, we couldn't use touchtone here until October of 2012, > we never bothered paying for it, but it was cumbersome dealing with some > places that wanted touchtones for controlling their phone system. I know > you can flip the switch or whatever, but that wasn't helpful in that > particular case. But the one Bell phone in the house is still a dial > phone. OMG, I can't believe you didn't get T/T until 2012. We had it available as an optional service since the mid 1970s, and it became virtually universally available by 1990 or earlier as the entire network went ESS. I think it was around 1990 that they simply raised the price and gave it to everyone. As mentioned, on the newer switches, such as No. 5 crossbar and ESS, Touch Tone was designed in it from the start* so providing it was not that difficult. Older switchgear needed more expensive mods, and step-by-step was challenging and costly. Lots of SxS exchanges never got upgarded and customers got T/T only when the entire switch was replaced with ESS. *The original T/T phones used plucked reeds to make the tone. Today, it is difficult to use a phone without T/T since most businesses answer by computer and require the customer to key in something. Businesses really push hard for the customer to use automation and not ask for human.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 00:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <c1egmc-kr9.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156548 |
In article <7eb41dd6-273f-4ea7-96a2-6f316b39271a@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:52:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote: >> > I am very surprised that Touch Tone keypads were available as surplus >> > in the early 1970s, since it was relatively early in the T/T era, >> > and the Bell System was rapidly converting subscriber phones to Touch >> > Tone. (Perhaps the original 10-key pads were available, as they were >> > replaced by the 12-key pad.) >> > >> They may have been "surplus" in the same way you could buy genuine >> telephones. Most places you had to rent phones, but the major mail order >> electronic places all sold phones that were apparently the real thing >> (they looked just like the average dial telephone at the time). Though >> that doesn't explain why you could buy touchtone pads separately. But >> they were available, for some reason. > >Maybe they were made by companies other than the Bell System, such >as ITT or Stromberg. In the early 1980s there was a craze of selling audio DTMF touchpads that were very cheap. Two ICs and some crystal, plus some passive com[ponents and a coin battery. And a keypad. They could transmit the A-D codes too. >> > Also, as mentioned, some people needed the keypad to contact a computer. >> > >> And that was part of the promotion of the portable touchtone pads, "access >> computer data" or whatever. But it just seems a tad early, more in the >> category of "this is a neat thing and someday I can use it for something" >> than something many could benefit from at the time. > >I remember around 1968 a bank had T/T pads and tellers could use >them to get an account balance. They probably called a T/T access port using rotary, and then used the T/T keypad. >IBM introduced the 7770 voice response unit fairly early that >gave audio responses in response to T/T keyed requests. But >I don't know how common they were. In terms of functionality, >they'd be a great tool, but they--and the associated computer >with disk to support on-line inquiries--may have been too >expensive as compared to clerks and tub files. These became quite common here in the mid 1980s. >> Some time back, so maybe it was the early nineties, Bell went to the CRTC >> that controls things like telephone charges, and asked that they be >> allowed to add the cost of touchtone service into the regular monthly fee. >> Though I think the wording was more like "let's allow everyone to have >> touchtone access, but we'll do it only if we get the fee in a different >> fashion". The CRTC decided that it couldn't be added to the regular fee, >> so Bell wasn't willing to give up that surcharge, so you still have to pay >> extra for touchtone. It wasn't fair to the people who wanted to pay the >> minimu. And yes, the touchtone surcharge started off to pay for the >> equipment, but that's all been paid for long ago and dial phones are >> probably a liability, but since they can squeeze more money with the >> surcharge, they aren't going to give it up. >> >> I suspect most people pay the surcharge. >> >> On the other hand, we couldn't use touchtone here until October of 2012, >> we never bothered paying for it, but it was cumbersome dealing with some >> places that wanted touchtones for controlling their phone system. I know >> you can flip the switch or whatever, but that wasn't helpful in that >> particular case. But the one Bell phone in the house is still a dial >> phone. > >OMG, I can't believe you didn't get T/T until 2012. We had it available >as an optional service since the mid 1970s, and it became virtually >universally available by 1990 or earlier as the entire network >went ESS. I think it was around 1990 that they simply raised the price >and gave it to everyone. > >As mentioned, on the newer switches, such as No. 5 crossbar and ESS, >Touch Tone was designed in it from the start* so providing it was not >that difficult. Older switchgear needed more expensive mods, and >step-by-step was challenging and costly. Lots of SxS exchanges never >got upgarded and customers got T/T only when the entire switch was >replaced with ESS. > >*The original T/T phones used plucked reeds to make the tone. > >Today, it is difficult to use a phone without T/T since most businesses >answer by computer and require the customer to key in something. >Businesses really push hard for the customer to use automation and >not ask for human. I was present at the shutdown of the last step-by-step switch in the country, june 1996. After that everyone had touchtone. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 19:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a82622dc-d19e-478e-8ac8-43ef339f27ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156559 |
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:23:24 PM UTC-5, Morten Reistad wrote: > In the early 1980s there was a craze of selling audio DTMF touchpads that > were very cheap. Two ICs and some crystal, plus some passive com[ponents and > a coin battery. And a keypad. They could transmit the A-D codes too. Sure, in the 1980s, but Michael said they were common in the 1970s. Technology made huge jumps 1970-1980. The price/performance of electronics--home goods, computers and peripherals, and communications-- increased very substantially, as did deployment of electronics. I dare say the percentage of on-line computer systems grew like crazy in those ten years. > >I remember around 1968 a bank had T/T pads and tellers could use > >them to get an account balance. > > They probably called a T/T access port using rotary, and then used the > T/T keypad. Yes. A/E, which had a lot of step offices, had a dual phone. > >IBM introduced the 7770 voice response unit fairly early that > >gave audio responses in response to T/T keyed requests. But > >I don't know how common they were. In terms of functionality, > >they'd be a great tool, but they--and the associated computer > >with disk to support on-line inquiries--may have been too > >expensive as compared to clerks and tub files. > > These became quite common here in the mid 1980s. Oh yes, common in the 1980s. But the unit came out in the early 1960s, and I think usage was rare back then. > I was present at the shutdown of the last step-by-step switch in the > country, june 1996. After that everyone had touchtone. In the U.S.? I thought the U.S. was all ESS (older analog or digital) by the mid or late 1980s, but given the widespread deployment of SxS perhaps it took later. I could understand the phoneco not wanting to scrap fairly new No. 5 crossbar which was also widely deployed. (Of course, they had far too much panel and No. 1 crossbar still in service beyond its useful life.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-13 08:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tuahmc-k5b.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156574 |
In article <a82622dc-d19e-478e-8ac8-43ef339f27ad@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:23:24 PM UTC-5, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> In the early 1980s there was a craze of selling audio DTMF touchpads that >> were very cheap. Two ICs and some crystal, plus some passive com[ponents and >> a coin battery. And a keypad. They could transmit the A-D codes too. > >Sure, in the 1980s, but Michael said they were common in the 1970s. > >Technology made huge jumps 1970-1980. The price/performance of >electronics--home goods, computers and peripherals, and communications-- >increased very substantially, as did deployment of electronics. I >dare say the percentage of on-line computer systems grew like crazy >in those ten years. I was commenting on earlier postings where the credit card validation went DTMF; sometime early to mid 1980s. This was Norway. >> >I remember around 1968 a bank had T/T pads and tellers could use >> >them to get an account balance. >> >> They probably called a T/T access port using rotary, and then used the >> T/T keypad. > >Yes. > >A/E, which had a lot of step offices, had a dual phone. > > >> >IBM introduced the 7770 voice response unit fairly early that >> >gave audio responses in response to T/T keyed requests. But >> >I don't know how common they were. In terms of functionality, >> >they'd be a great tool, but they--and the associated computer >> >with disk to support on-line inquiries--may have been too >> >expensive as compared to clerks and tub files. >> >> These became quite common here in the mid 1980s. > >Oh yes, common in the 1980s. But the unit came out in the early >1960s, and I think usage was rare back then. > > > >> I was present at the shutdown of the last step-by-step switch in the >> country, june 1996. After that everyone had touchtone. > >In the U.S.? I thought the U.S. was all ESS (older analog or digital) >by the mid or late 1980s, but given the widespread deployment of >SxS perhaps it took later. I could understand the phoneco not wanting >to scrap fairly new No. 5 crossbar which was also widely deployed. No, not US. Norway. That particular one was made by Siemens, and was installed ca 1950. Grefsen CO, Oslo. It made a LOT of noise when it ran; we had the last faciltiy tour when it was operating, and at 0300 they had the final shutdown and the Ericsson ACE that replaced it was cut in 48 by 48 lines, and after around 10 minutes the room went nearly silent; just some fans from the power supplies of the new switch. They also described how they hacked it to handle the nationwife 8-digits numberplan that arrived in 1992. (We went from an open plan to a closed one). >(Of course, they had far too much panel and No. 1 crossbar still in >service beyond its useful life.) The digitalisation of our network shot forward in 1984 after a debate in Parliament about technical infrastructure and the liberalisation of telecoms. They voted to lift the telco monopoly in most areas and to let the incumbent issue bonds to finance modernisation. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ee63877-0467-401b-856e-92c84b36dbeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156446 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 5:59:46 PM UTC-5, Morten Reistad wrote: > 1975 was just at the start of the rollout of interactive systems, > running on pre-v.23 multidrop lines. Banks and travel agencies were > the first. They started in 1974, and had most affiliates online by > ca 1977. My savings bank began to use on-line passbook processing around 1966, replacing these neat 'flying carriage' posting machines with Selectric terminals. (Even as a kid I liked the old stuff; the Selectrics didn't have the charm of the older machines.) I wish I knew what their host machine was, but I suspect it was a 709x since the rollout was too early in the S/360 era. (I also wish I knew the brand and model of the older posting machines). > The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond > trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then > it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal > based. The old Bell System developed a specialty telephone set system for credit card verification. It would either use the regular network as dial-up, or could use a special network. I don't think this product line was very popular. As usual for old Bell products, they researched the heck out of each and every component in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <48084197.474308332.391011.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156446 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <7172a4ac-e6c2-41d4-87cc-f18e3d535c32@googlegroups.com>, > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:49:25 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> If the movie was _made_ in 1975 it probably reflects conditions from a few >>>> years before. I think most computers were still in glass houses in 75. In >>>> my recollection personal computers only became common a couple of years >>>> later, and only a few geeks would have a terminal on a desk. >>> >>> Minis were fairly common--I drove a Lockheed mini one summer when I was >>> in college producing computer output microfilm. Micros existed but were >>> mostly a hobbyist thing. >> >> I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was >> still done in batch mode. If an office worker used a computer, >> they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to >> code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly >> coming, but would not explode until a few years later. That is, >> an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than 1975. > > 1975 was just at the start of the rollout of interactive systems, > running on pre-v.23 multidrop lines. Banks and travel agencies were > the first. They started in 1974, and had most affiliates online by > ca 1977. > >> A few specific applications might have had terminal access, perhaps >> using a Selectric printing terminal or equivalent. In 1975, an >> office might have one or two terminals used on a sharable basis, >> not one on every desk. >> >> There were, of course, some big on-line reservation and credit- >> card systems, but I think the battery of terminals for them were >> still located in a central back room. Point of sale clerks who >> wanted to make a reservation or check credit had to telephone >> in their request to one of those processing centers. Maybe airline >> and car rental ticket counters had terminals at the agent's position. > > The call to credit card companies for validation of anything beyond > trifle amounts lasted well into the 1980s. First it was manual, then > it was DTMF-based on phones, and then finally ca 1990 it was terminal > based. > I started a SUNY Research Foundation in 1972, IIRC. They were just beginning a conversion from a homegrown TP monitor and 2260s at a few remote locations to CICS 3270s at more. That was a fun project. I think the guys who had developed the TP monitor left and went on to found BRS (Bibliographic Retrieval Systems). -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 18:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30fe05b475c69ba5989de7@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156377 |
In article <7172a4ac-e6c2-41d4-87cc-f18e3d535c32@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:49:25 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > If the movie was _made_ in 1975 it probably reflects conditions from a few > > > years before. I think most computers were still in glass houses in 75. In > > > my recollection personal computers only became common a couple of years > > > later, and only a few geeks would have a terminal on a desk. > > > > Minis were fairly common--I drove a Lockheed mini one summer when I was > > in college producing computer output microfilm. Micros existed but were > > mostly a hobbyist thing. > > I would say in 1975, most computing work--mini and mainframe--was > still done in batch mode. If an office worker used a computer, > they probably had printouts of greenbar paper, and blank forms to > code data to be keypunched. On-line terminals were certainly > coming, but would not explode until a few years later. That is, > an office equipment scene in 1980 would be very different than 1975. Depends on what you were doing--I learned APL somewhere in the 1972-1975 time frame using a 2741 and a friend of mine wrote an interactive game in APL that ran on that terminal. Now I'm curious--one of my friends has been an actuary since the earily '70s--if I can remember I'll see if he remembers what it was like for them in that timeframe. > A few specific applications might have had terminal access, perhaps > using a Selectric printing terminal or equivalent. In 1975, an > office might have one or two terminals used on a sharable basis, > not one on every desk. > > There were, of course, some big on-line reservation and credit- > card systems, but I think the battery of terminals for them were > still located in a central back room. Point of sale clerks who > wanted to make a reservation or check credit had to telephone > in their request to one of those processing centers. Maybe airline > and car rental ticket counters had terminals at the agent's position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 17:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <18e6599f-9288-4e2a-bccb-f2015b1f0edb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156451 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:26:59 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > Depends on what you were doing--I learned APL somewhere in the 1972-1975 > time frame using a 2741 and a friend of mine wrote an interactive game > in APL that ran on that terminal. > > Now I'm curious--one of my friends has been an actuary since the earily > '70s--if I can remember I'll see if he remembers what it was like for > them in that timeframe. Yes, APL and other S/360 based timesharing services were certainly available in 1972, along with many others. But my point is that, in the grand scheme of things, timesharing was not a big part of computing or office practice back then. Rather, it was a specialty service, such as for statistics, finance, or eng/sci. I understand that acturial work has a lot of number crunching and that field has been a heavy computer user since the beginning. I could definitely see actuaries using timesharing back then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 07:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a687ab2d-a779-4298-a9e8-ff5ff897d6c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156365 |
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:27:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > > --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. > > This amazes me in stuff from the time. It's a bit jarring today. Everyone > in _The Man in the High Castle_ seems to smoke all the time, too, and this > is in an alternate-reality late 40s-early 50s. While we expect to see smoking in old movies (e.g. Humphrey Bogart), we forget that smoking was still very common in the 1970s. There weren't any restrictions except in a few places. An office scene of a conference (several in this movie), had a conference table with large glass ashtrays on it, and people smoking during the conference. People smoked in their cars, in college classrooms, in restaurants, and of course socially. Teenagers weren't supposed to smoke, but lots did, and parents often tolerated it for their older (16-17 y/o) teens. When I got to college, I was surprised at how many freshmen were already smokers. But even as a teenager, in the workplace I would be offered a cigarette when other people were smoking. Smoking was usually not permitted on transit vehicles (but some allowed it in the back rows), but commuter trains had cars set aside for smokers. Yes, seeing it in a more modern movie (1975), is a bit jarring. Or, today, seeing kids smoke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 16:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KqQky.86632$Hz3.73023@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #156379 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:27:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> > --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. >> >> This amazes me in stuff from the time. It's a bit jarring today. Everyone >> in _The Man in the High Castle_ seems to smoke all the time, too, and this >> is in an alternate-reality late 40s-early 50s. > >While we expect to see smoking in old movies (e.g. Humphrey Bogart), >we forget that smoking was still very common in the 1970s. It wasn't until circa 1986 that Burroughs eliminated smoking from the indoor offices; before that an employee could smoke in his/her office, but not in the common areas (before 84, anywhere but the labs was ok). I remember (as a non-smoker) moving into an office that was formerly occupied by a smoker. Took two days of scrubbing to remove the residue from the office furniture, and the smell never left the carpeting and wall treatments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 11:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <563057797.474223607.428472.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156385 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 6:27:46 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>>> --Lots of adults smoked at all times. Some kids smoked. >>> >>> This amazes me in stuff from the time. It's a bit jarring today. Everyone >>> in _The Man in the High Castle_ seems to smoke all the time, too, and this >>> is in an alternate-reality late 40s-early 50s. >> >> While we expect to see smoking in old movies (e.g. Humphrey Bogart), >> we forget that smoking was still very common in the 1970s. > > It wasn't until circa 1986 that Burroughs eliminated smoking from > the indoor offices; before that an employee could smoke in his/her > office, but not in the common areas (before 84, anywhere but the labs > was ok). > > I remember (as a non-smoker) moving into an office that was formerly > occupied by a smoker. Took two days of scrubbing to remove the residue > from the office furniture, and the smell never left the carpeting and > wall treatments. > Of course back when so many people smoked, everyone was used to it and didn't notice as much. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160111200128.bcff7f18d72b86812b229376@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156389 |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:48:07 -0500 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Of course back when so many people smoked, everyone was used to it and > didn't notice as much. Oh some noticed and complained, but they were ignored by the smoking majority. As recently as the late 1990s there were smoking seats at the back of many planes in Europe. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-11 22:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n71aaf02j14@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156437 |
On 2016-01-11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 11:48:07 -0500
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course back when so many people smoked, everyone was used to it and
>> didn't notice as much.
>
> Oh some noticed and complained, but they were ignored by the
> smoking majority. As recently as the late 1990s there were smoking seats at
> the back of many planes in Europe.
My 1961-vintage Cessna still has ashtrays and a cigarette lighter socket.
A friend posted a placard in his plane:
If you must smoke, please step outside.
--
/~\ 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 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web