Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #157616 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-25 17:26 +0300 |
| Last post | 2016-01-30 20:36 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 381 — 58 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-25 17:26 +0300
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-25 15:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 10:53 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-01-26 14:14 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-26 17:21 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 10:58 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-25 16:17 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-25 11:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-01-25 16:47 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 17:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2016-01-25 19:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-25 16:15 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 13:17 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-26 08:20 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-26 11:32 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:23 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2016-01-27 19:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Yeechang Lee <ylee@columbia.edu> - 2016-01-27 22:40 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-25 15:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 19:34 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-25 19:38 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 23:55 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 19:31 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-27 21:10 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:49 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 19:00 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 00:48 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 21:02 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 19:03 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 20:58 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 10:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:21 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 03:45 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:25 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-01 17:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 21:29 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 03:04 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 18:40 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:39 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 22:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 23:59 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:24 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 10:51 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:12 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:26 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-05 02:51 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-05 10:47 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 10:21 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-02-06 08:06 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-06 10:02 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-06 19:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2016-02-16 04:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-02-17 07:45 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-06 19:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-05 20:35 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-05 23:12 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-06 01:34 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:39 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 14:02 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-08 10:01 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 19:36 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-08 11:45 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:14 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 18:19 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 08:08 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 19:57 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-05 19:05 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-05 21:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:49 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 21:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 02:59 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:38 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 18:58 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 03:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 06:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-26 17:57 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-26 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-26 14:53 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 09:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 11:05 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 11:41 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 12:38 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 15:26 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 19:25 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:38 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 07:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:39 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2016-01-26 21:16 +0200
Re: DEC and The Americans "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-28 10:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 05:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:43 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-02-03 00:36 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 18:42 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:01 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 04:42 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-06 11:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-06 18:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-06 15:49 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-07 05:33 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-07 11:12 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-07 11:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-07 20:06 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 06:06 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-07 09:52 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:56 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 12:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 16:34 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:08 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 06:10 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-04 13:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-04 14:23 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-05 14:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 13:05 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 10:34 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 13:08 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-05 15:34 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-06 14:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:05 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-07 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-07 17:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-07 12:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-08 21:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-07 19:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:53 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:11 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:49 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 16:43 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-06 13:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 20:08 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 14:22 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 20:52 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-06 16:38 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-06 20:09 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 06:18 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 08:10 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 19:57 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-07 19:24 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-07 09:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:16 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-08 17:19 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 12:22 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 11:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-09 13:55 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:49 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-08 16:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 17:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:01 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-06 16:13 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 03:49 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-07 12:12 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:26 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:09 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 03:56 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:59 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-08 14:38 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-02-08 15:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:17 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-08 17:19 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 02:03 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-09 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-02-09 10:36 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-08 19:08 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:10 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 02:52 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-11 14:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-11 11:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:58 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:57 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-11 21:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-11 17:07 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-11 15:32 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-11 17:56 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-11 22:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-12 00:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:47 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 05:04 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:22 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) - 2016-02-12 23:19 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:42 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:32 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:58 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-11 22:39 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 15:35 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-11 17:47 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-11 22:39 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-12 12:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 07:23 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-12 14:50 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2016-02-16 01:39 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:17 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:50 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-13 08:48 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 16:54 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 19:06 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-14 03:50 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-14 14:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:35 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:37 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:09 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-15 17:05 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 18:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 19:35 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:33 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-15 03:08 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-15 08:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 10:07 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 16:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 21:43 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 22:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:36 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 21:25 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 09:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:04 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 14:57 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2016-02-17 01:08 +0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 18:55 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-14 15:24 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 04:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 21:40 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 11:42 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:29 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 06:02 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-14 17:22 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 18:13 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:45 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-15 21:00 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-16 15:29 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 16:47 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 22:05 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-13 18:05 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 11:18 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-15 22:19 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:44 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 05:18 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-09 18:42 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-08 21:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Warren Adams <adamswa@hiwaay.net> - 2016-02-08 17:00 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-09 03:18 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-08 08:14 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 16:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-02-08 16:50 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-08 19:13 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-08 18:26 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 17:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-08 16:16 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 02:05 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 15:49 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 15:47 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 19:01 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-10 07:34 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-11 04:30 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:03 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 15:51 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-11 14:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-11 18:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:59 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-12 08:13 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-12 12:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:46 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-12 12:20 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:33 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-01-25 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 10:24 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 06:14 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 17:53 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 05:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:12 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-26 14:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-26 16:20 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:37 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-27 03:58 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 06:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:34 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:03 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:31 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-28 10:17 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-28 07:26 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-29 14:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 21:11 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:20 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 12:48 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:17 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:09 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:40 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 17:11 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans bleep@compy.0-0 (Colonel Bleep) - 2016-01-30 07:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:36 +0000
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 04:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <877fia8h19.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #159150 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <MPG.312447e51d0d1f0d989f5f@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Scan it, print it. Wouldn't be the same as a forging (forging changes
>>>the microstructure in beneficial ways) but could look pretty close.
>>
>> No, you would not get Bessemer steel. But it would probably beat
>> forged and welded.
>
> Unless you're aiming for Damasacus steel....
I've heard about pattern "printing" different steel alloys and/or
nickel as powder into a steel form, heating the whole mass and putting
it under a (big) hydraulic press. The resulting pressure-sintered
lump has enough strength to be subsequently reheated to welding temp
and forged. When drawn out, it becomes a pattern-welded billet
suitable for making "Damascus" [1] steel blade or other objects.
Haven't seen it done or talked to anyone who's done it, myself.
[1] Properly speaking, Damascus steel is a whole 'nother thing from
pattern-welded steel.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 17:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n85lti$amq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157616 |
In comp.misc RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: > Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If > you're not, I can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in > about 1982 Washington DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are > facing off. > Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian > embassy to the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features > a lot of prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's > desks. > At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the > terminals look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the > desks of the FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: > the VT100 reigned from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond > with the show. The IBM PC was released on August 12, 1981. So, for a show set in 'about 1982' (assuming 'about' might correspond to say +-2 years, for somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of that possible time window , there was *no* IBM PC with which to grace anyone's desk. Additionally, keep in mind the 'speed' with which government operates. A new desktop PC from IBM would not get 'adopted' by government agences until well after its introduction. In my case, I can pin down a date of about 1994 for that occurring. So the reality is, the IBM PC's gracing the desks on the FBI set are the "typical Hollywood, got their facts mixed up" part, rather than the VT-100's in the Russian embassy set. But the actual reality would be more likely that neither the FBI offices nor the Russian embassy offices in the 1980-1984 timeframs would have had any 'computers' on individual desks (IBM PC's or VT-100s or otherwise). If there was even a computer in the building, there would likely have been a limited number of shared terminals in a room somewhere, not 'one per desk'. > Then I thought, the Soviets had their own hardware around that time - > I'd think they'd have chosen something native to the USSR rather than > buying American hardware (which would run the [very real] risk of > backdoors). If they even had any tech more advanced than a phone and a Xerox copier machine, I'd agree that they'd likely have tried to use homegrown tech. They (the Russians) where the one's who'd bugged the American embassy in Moscow at that time with so many bugs it was basically unusable. Knowing that we'd likely try to do the same would have made the too parinoid to trust American computer equipment. And this assumes the embassy would have had *any* computer equipment on site. I'd hazzard a guess that in 1980-1984 timeframe that embassies had zero computer equipment on site. > I'm wondering if there isn't room for a new age of minicomputers. If > surveillance scares customers out of the cloud, there's room again for > something serious in the workplace. Other than software-as-a-service, > why run the risk of offloading all your data to some cloud provider > (read Schneier's book!) when you can keep it in house. The current 'cloud' is just yet another example of the pendulum swinging between "centralized computing resources" and "distributed computing resources[1]". It's happened before, it will happen again. The next 'thing' will look a bit different, and will obviously have a different _marketing_ name, but it is all the same-old same-old when looked at through the skeptical eye. [1] where in this instance 'distributed' means located near/on the desk of the user instead of being accessed remotely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 11:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87oac9eady.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #157630 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > The current 'cloud' is just yet another example of the pendulum > swinging between "centralized computing resources" and "distributed > computing resources[1]". It's happened before, it will happen again. > The next 'thing' will look a bit different, and will obviously have a > different _marketing_ name, but it is all the same-old same-old when > looked at through the skeptical eye. note necessarily strictly centralized ... but can be some degree of sharing (peaks & lows of useage can occur differently, online time-sharing from 60s was tracking peaks&lows across time-zones in the US, 10am peak on the east coast happened before west coast even started). The trade-off then is the overhead of shared processing versus not-needing to provision every non-shared resource for peak load. Mainframe shared resources at the time of IBM/PC was also slow to track better price/performance technology ... IBM/PCs were tracking new technologies much faster than large mainframes. Lots of clouds are now doing frequent turn-over of enormous numbers of "pc" grade technology ... as a trade-off between the two. Cloud volume has even gotten to the point where the "PC" technology makers are doing custom versions/chips specifically for that market. They have even optimized system costs to the point that power&environmental has become increasing dominate cost factor. Less & less system price/performance, but increasingly watts/performance ... it led to threats that big clouds would move to ARM (power use having been optimized for battery) ... until the I86 makers started paying more attention to watts/performance (systems can be throw-away when next generation saves them more in power than cost of system). -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0f439ce-5fa2-46f9-a850-ac4e9a4edebd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157616 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:26:08 AM UTC-5, RS Wood wrote: > That got me thinking about how likely it would be for a diplomatic > mission to invest in DEC terminals (and presumably a mini somewhere in > the basement to which you could connect) to do business. What would > you do with them? Word processing, maybe database work, but would they > have invested in custom software for something or other - processing > visas or equivalent? Then I thought, the Soviets had their own > hardware around that time - I'd think they'd have chosen something > native to the USSR rather than buying American hardware (which would > run the [very real] risk of backdoors). In 1982 would VT100s still > have been anchored in academia, science and research, or would they > have already made the jump to other sectors - such as diplomacy and > bureaucracy? IMHO, a Soviet Embassy in the U.S. in 1982 would not have computers in the office because: 1) The Soviets lagged behind in technology. 2) The Soviets had extensive experience using armies of clerks for massive information processing, so they would probably do likewise here. 3) The Soviets were afraid of computers because they were afraid a dissident could use them to spread anti-govt propaganda. As to the show, The Americans, while it is entertaining, I think it goes pretty far off into the world of fantasy, even though it is loosely based on real events. I could certainly see a Soviet couple pretending to be American citizens. However, I definitely do not agree with their premise that this couple would have children and the children would not know who they really were. Having children substantially raises the risk of discovery, and spies do not want to be discovered. Far better would be for the couple to live in an isolated apartment, as opposed to interacting with their neighbors. Further, the responsibilities of raising children, running their 'front' business, and doing their spywork would mean they'd never get any sleep. Anyway, I missed some episodes of last season. Could someone advise... 1) What happened with Philip and the teen girl he befriended to get info from there father? 2) Did 'Clark' tell Martha who he was? Does Philip actually have feelings for Martha, more than just a resource? Also, I think the way we viewers see the show has evolved since it first aired. Our relations with Russia has decayed quite a bit since the premier. I think at the series premier the viewers were very sympathetic to the Jennings, even though we saw them ruthlessly kill people. However, now, I think viewers aren't as sympathetic and see their dark side, perhaps hoping they'll be caught.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 06:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgnagbF6jspU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157641 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:a0f439ce-5fa2-46f9-a850-ac4e9a4edebd@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:26:08 AM UTC-5, RS Wood wrote: > >> That got me thinking about how likely it would be for a diplomatic >> mission to invest in DEC terminals (and presumably a mini somewhere in >> the basement to which you could connect) to do business. What would >> you do with them? Word processing, maybe database work, but would they >> have invested in custom software for something or other - processing >> visas or equivalent? Then I thought, the Soviets had their own >> hardware around that time - I'd think they'd have chosen something >> native to the USSR rather than buying American hardware (which would >> run the [very real] risk of backdoors). In 1982 would VT100s still >> have been anchored in academia, science and research, or would they >> have already made the jump to other sectors - such as diplomacy and >> bureaucracy? > > IMHO, a Soviet Embassy in the U.S. in 1982 would not have computers > in the office because: > 1) The Soviets lagged behind in technology. > 2) The Soviets had extensive experience using armies of clerks for > massive information processing, so they would probably do likewise > here. It must be known what they actually had. In fact Putin must know because he worked in one in that situation in Germany from 85-90. > 3) The Soviets were afraid of computers because they were afraid > a dissident could use them to spread anti-govt propaganda. Doesn't mean that they wouldn't use them in embassies tho. > As to the show, The Americans, while it is entertaining, I think it > goes pretty far off into the world of fantasy, even though it is > loosely based on real events. I could certainly see a Soviet couple > pretending to be American citizens. However, I definitely do not > agree with their premise that this couple would have children and > the children would not know who they really were. That doesn't explain the Rosenbergs or MacLean or Philby. > Having children substantially raises the risk of discovery, That is very arguable indeed. > and spies do not want to be discovered. All of the Rosenbergs, MacLean and Philby had kids anyway. > Far better would be for the couple to live in an isolated > apartment, as opposed to interacting with their neighbors. That would raise suspicions if someone was considering whether they were spies or not. > Further, the responsibilities of raising children, running > their 'front' business, and doing their spywork would > mean they'd never get any sleep. All of the Rosenbergs, MacLean and Philby had kids anyway. > Anyway, I missed some episodes of last season. Could someone advise... > > 1) What happened with Philip and the teen girl he befriended to get > info from there father? > > 2) Did 'Clark' tell Martha who he was? Does Philip actually have > feelings for Martha, more than just a resource? > > > Also, I think the way we viewers see the show has evolved since it > first aired. Our relations with Russia has decayed quite a bit since > the premier. I think at the series premier the viewers were very > sympathetic to the Jennings, even though we saw them ruthlessly kill > people. However, now, I think viewers aren't as sympathetic and see > their dark side, perhaps hoping they'll be caught.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 17:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1447103775.475454615.406502.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157641 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:26:08 AM UTC-5, RS Wood wrote: > >> That got me thinking about how likely it would be for a diplomatic >> mission to invest in DEC terminals (and presumably a mini somewhere in >> the basement to which you could connect) to do business. What would >> you do with them? Word processing, maybe database work, but would they >> have invested in custom software for something or other - processing >> visas or equivalent? Then I thought, the Soviets had their own >> hardware around that time - I'd think they'd have chosen something >> native to the USSR rather than buying American hardware (which would >> run the [very real] risk of backdoors). In 1982 would VT100s still >> have been anchored in academia, science and research, or would they >> have already made the jump to other sectors - such as diplomacy and >> bureaucracy? > > IMHO, a Soviet Embassy in the U.S. in 1982 would not have computers > in the office because: > 1) The Soviets lagged behind in technology. > 2) The Soviets had extensive experience using armies of clerks for > massive information processing, so they would probably do likewise > here. > 3) The Soviets were afraid of computers because they were afraid > a dissident could use them to spread anti-govt propaganda. I would have to believe this was researched as carefully as the rest of the background. > > As to the show, The Americans, while it is entertaining, I think it > goes pretty far off into the world of fantasy, even though it is > loosely based on real events. I could certainly see a Soviet couple > pretending to be American citizens. However, I definitely do not > agree with their premise that this couple would have children and > the children would not know who they really were. Having children > substantially raises the risk of discovery, and spies do not want > to be discovered. Far better would be for the couple to live in an > isolated apartment, as opposed to interacting with their neighbors. > Further, the responsibilities of raising children, running their > 'front' business, and doing their spywork would mean they'd never > get any sleep. We don't really know, do we? We know there were KGB couples as sleeper agents, but I haven't heard about any children. One of the premises of the show is that these children, being born in the US, would have real documentation instead of manufactured, so their "covers" would stand up to any possible scrutiny. In the show the KGB planned to infiltrate these children into sensitive positions when they grew up. > > Anyway, I missed some episodes of last season. Could someone advise... > > 1) What happened with Philip and the teen girl he befriended to get > info from there father? I forget a lot of details, but I think this one was left hanging. The KGB wanted Philip to sleep with her, but he was having problems because she was younger than his daughter. > > 2) Did 'Clark' tell Martha who he was? Does Philip actually have > feelings for Martha, more than just a resource? I think he did, or at least indicated that he was a spy without specifying Russia. So far she seemed (AIR) to go along. > > > Also, I think the way we viewers see the show has evolved since it > first aired. Our relations with Russia has decayed quite a bit since > the premier. I think at the series premier the viewers were very > sympathetic to the Jennings, even though we saw them ruthlessly kill > people. However, now, I think viewers aren't as sympathetic and see > their dark side, perhaps hoping they'll be caught. > Yes, I feel the same, but it's still hard not to root for Philip and Elizabeth. BTW, I understand David and Keri are going to have a child in real life. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "kipg" <io@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 10:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgnq30FajnjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157674 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1447103775.475454615.406502.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:26:08 AM UTC-5, RS Wood wrote: >> >>> That got me thinking about how likely it would be for a diplomatic >>> mission to invest in DEC terminals (and presumably a mini somewhere in >>> the basement to which you could connect) to do business. What would >>> you do with them? Word processing, maybe database work, but would they >>> have invested in custom software for something or other - processing >>> visas or equivalent? Then I thought, the Soviets had their own >>> hardware around that time - I'd think they'd have chosen something >>> native to the USSR rather than buying American hardware (which would >>> run the [very real] risk of backdoors). In 1982 would VT100s still >>> have been anchored in academia, science and research, or would they >>> have already made the jump to other sectors - such as diplomacy and >>> bureaucracy? >> >> IMHO, a Soviet Embassy in the U.S. in 1982 would not have computers >> in the office because: >> 1) The Soviets lagged behind in technology. >> 2) The Soviets had extensive experience using armies of clerks for >> massive information processing, so they would probably do likewise >> here. >> 3) The Soviets were afraid of computers because they were afraid >> a dissident could use them to spread anti-govt propaganda. > > I would have to believe this was researched as carefully as the rest of > the > background. But it may not have been possible to can any russian VT100 clones to copy. >> As to the show, The Americans, while it is entertaining, I think it >> goes pretty far off into the world of fantasy, even though it is >> loosely based on real events. I could certainly see a Soviet couple >> pretending to be American citizens. However, I definitely do not >> agree with their premise that this couple would have children and >> the children would not know who they really were. Having children >> substantially raises the risk of discovery, and spies do not want >> to be discovered. Far better would be for the couple to live in an >> isolated apartment, as opposed to interacting with their neighbors. >> Further, the responsibilities of raising children, running their >> 'front' business, and doing their spywork would mean they'd never >> get any sleep. > > We don't really know, do we? We know there were KGB couples > as sleeper agents, but I haven't heard about any children. Plenty of them have had children. They would be stupid not to because that would be one obvious way to work out who might be a sleeper agent. > One of the premises of the show is that these children, being born > in the US, would have real documentation instead of manufactured, > so their "covers" would stand up to any possible scrutiny. And the presence of those children would make it less likely they were KGB sleeper agents. > In the show the KGB planned to infiltrate these > children into sensitive positions when they grew up. Bit risking given how hard it is to get kids to do what you plan for them career wise. >> Anyway, I missed some episodes of last season. Could someone advise... >> >> 1) What happened with Philip and the teen girl he befriended to get >> info from there father? > > I forget a lot of details, but I think this one was left hanging. The KGB > wanted Philip to sleep with her, but he was having problems because she > was > younger than his daughter. > >> >> 2) Did 'Clark' tell Martha who he was? Does Philip actually have >> feelings for Martha, more than just a resource? > > I think he did, or at least indicated that he was a spy without specifying > Russia. So far she seemed (AIR) to go along. > >> >> >> Also, I think the way we viewers see the show has evolved since it >> first aired. Our relations with Russia has decayed quite a bit since >> the premier. I think at the series premier the viewers were very >> sympathetic to the Jennings, even though we saw them ruthlessly kill >> people. However, now, I think viewers aren't as sympathetic and see >> their dark side, perhaps hoping they'll be caught. >> > > Yes, I feel the same, but it's still hard not to root for Philip and > Elizabeth. BTW, I understand David and Keri are going to have a child in > real life. We have in fact seen some of those infiltrated into 'protest' groups in Britain get so into the infiltration that they have in fact had kids with those they have shacked up with in the protest groups with a massive stink indeed when the kids have essentially been abandoned when the infiltrator has been extracted after being exposed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 05:40 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgn8hsF637jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157616 |
"RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message news:dgmpjsF24gvU2@mid.individual.net... > Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're > not, I can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982 > Washington DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off. > > Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian embassy > to the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a lot of > prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks. > > At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the > terminals look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the > desks of the FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the > VT100 reigned from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the > show. > > That got me thinking about how likely it would be for a diplomatic mission > to invest in DEC terminals (and presumably a mini somewhere in the > basement to which you could connect) to do business. What would you do > with them? Word processing, maybe database work, but would they have > invested in custom software for something or other - processing visas or > equivalent? Then I thought, the Soviets had their own hardware around > that time - I'd think they'd have chosen something native to the USSR > rather than buying American hardware (which would run the [very real] risk > of backdoors). In 1982 would VT100s still have been anchored in academia, > science and research, Nope, it had moved out to all sorts of places other than that, lots of accountants had them, before the PC and Apple II showed up. > or would they have already made the jump to other sectors Yes. > - such as diplomacy and bureaucracy? Dunno about diplomacy but certainly lots of the bureaucracy were using them for word processing etc. > Final thought (mostly because I just finished Bruce Schneier's _Data and > Goliath_ - a highly recommended read that will show you in no uncertain > terms just how deeply the modern surveillance state goes[3]): I'm > wondering if there isn't room for a new age of minicomputers. If > surveillance scares customers out of the cloud, there's room again for > something serious in the workplace. Other than software-as-a-service, why > run the risk of offloading all your data to some cloud provider (read > Schneier's book!) when you can keep it in house. Sure, but not done with minis. > It might look different, say thin clients and VMWare serving centralized > desktops and a couple racks of storage servers etc., but is the move to > the cloud so inevitable? No its not, and you can run your own cloud too. > I kind of like the idea of everyone going back to a terminal on their desk > and some behemoth of a machine in the basement, quietly keeping everything > in-house. That's what your own cloud is. Not with a terminal tho. > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(2013_TV_series) > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100 > [3] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22253747-data-and-goliath >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 19:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.311083c01ef2dbc8989e9c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157616 |
In article <dgmpjsF24gvU2@mid.individual.net>, rsw@therandymon.com says... If > surveillance scares customers out of the cloud, there's room again for > something serious in the workplace. Other than software-as-a-service, > why run the risk of offloading all your data to some cloud provider > (read Schneier's book!) when you can keep it in house. It might look > different, say thin clients and VMWare serving centralized desktops and > a couple racks of storage servers etc., but is the move to the cloud so > inevitable? I kind of like the idea of everyone going back to a > terminal on their desk and some behemoth of a machine in the basement, > quietly keeping everything in-house. "Something serious in the workplace"? Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today. There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most businesses need. > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(2013_TV_series) > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100 > [3] http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22253747-data-and-goliath
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n87ve9$b84$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #157692 |
On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > "Something serious in the workplace"? > > Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks > with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an > '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today. > There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally > those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live > data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel > architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most > businesses need. The fact that modern desktops have the computing power of old PDPs doesn't have anything to do with deciding whether the old 'centralized' model of computing has benefits that would be interesting today. Ask any sysadmin who has had to deal with a fleet of PCs, each user storing his stuff locally, people emailing each other documents to collaborate, etc. If modern PCs have high specs, hooray. Now put a souped-up, modern, high spec version of what used to be called a PDP down in the basement, and put a thin client on every desk. Live happily ever after. Ostensibly, if desktops are 1x10^6 times more powerful, our servers are, too: a recipe for happiness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iefknc-ml6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #157760 |
In article <n87ve9$b84$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: >On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> "Something serious in the workplace"? >> >> Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks >> with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an >> '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today. >> There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally >> those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live >> data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel >> architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most >> businesses need. > >The fact that modern desktops have the computing power of old PDPs >doesn't have anything to do with deciding whether the old 'centralized' >model of computing has benefits that would be interesting today. Ask >any sysadmin who has had to deal with a fleet of PCs, each user storing >his stuff locally, people emailing each other documents to collaborate, >etc. > >If modern PCs have high specs, hooray. Now put a souped-up, modern, >high spec version of what used to be called a PDP down in the basement, >and put a thin client on every desk. Live happily ever after. >Ostensibly, if desktops are 1x10^6 times more powerful, our servers are, >too: a recipe for happiness. A lot of this cloud stuff will move back to "computers that you own but are located somewhere on the net" from "computers that someone else owns but are located somewhere on the net". A lot of the moves towards others computers has been founded on a huge squeeze in hosting. If you go out and buy colo (i.e. rack space) you will pay around $2k/rack/month for rack, power, connectivity; if you buy single racks without any particular buying power; and you need reasonable access ; i.e. within EU, near large city. Building the same redundancy in your own basement will cost lots more. Orders of magintude more. Just having the diesels, power, batteries, cooling in costs millions. And double if you are in a standard office building. If you are Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, IBM you build all of this yourself, or contract 1km2 or more. Then you pay $350/rack/month to yourself. They can then sell the service LOTS cheaper, and will include their services; and still make a bundle. And they have it available now, not 7 months into the future. Never mind that this is located in the Nevada desert, or in the Finnish woods. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <384982574.475518934.977099.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157767 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <n87ve9$b84$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: >> On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> "Something serious in the workplace"? >>> >>> Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks >>> with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an >>> '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today. >>> There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally >>> those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live >>> data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel >>> architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most >>> businesses need. >> >> The fact that modern desktops have the computing power of old PDPs >> doesn't have anything to do with deciding whether the old 'centralized' >> model of computing has benefits that would be interesting today. Ask >> any sysadmin who has had to deal with a fleet of PCs, each user storing >> his stuff locally, people emailing each other documents to collaborate, >> etc. >> >> If modern PCs have high specs, hooray. Now put a souped-up, modern, >> high spec version of what used to be called a PDP down in the basement, >> and put a thin client on every desk. Live happily ever after. >> Ostensibly, if desktops are 1x10^6 times more powerful, our servers are, >> too: a recipe for happiness. > > A lot of this cloud stuff will move back to "computers that you > own but are located somewhere on the net" from "computers that someone > else owns but are located somewhere on the net". > > A lot of the moves towards others computers has been founded on > a huge squeeze in hosting. If you go out and buy colo (i.e. rack space) > you will pay around $2k/rack/month for rack, power, connectivity; if > you buy single racks without any particular buying power; and you need > reasonable access ; i.e. within EU, near large city. Building the > same redundancy in your own basement will cost lots more. Orders of > magintude more. Just having the diesels, power, batteries, cooling in > costs millions. And double if you are in a standard office building. > > If you are Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, IBM you build all > of this yourself, or contract 1km2 or more. Then you pay $350/rack/month > to yourself. They can then sell the service LOTS cheaper, and will > include their services; and still make a bundle. And they have it available > now, not 7 months into the future. > > Never mind that this is located in the Nevada desert, or in the Finnish > woods. > Obviously it takes a pretty large compNy to be able to afford this. Small organizations will probably stick with hosting services. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 18:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3111cd476d54f22b989eaf@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157767 |
In article <iefknc-ml6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid says... > > In article <n87ve9$b84$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: > >On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Something serious in the workplace"? > >> > >> Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks > >> with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an > >> '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today. > >> There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally > >> those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live > >> data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel > >> architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most > >> businesses need. > > > >The fact that modern desktops have the computing power of old PDPs > >doesn't have anything to do with deciding whether the old 'centralized' > >model of computing has benefits that would be interesting today. Ask > >any sysadmin who has had to deal with a fleet of PCs, each user storing > >his stuff locally, people emailing each other documents to collaborate, > >etc. > > > >If modern PCs have high specs, hooray. Now put a souped-up, modern, > >high spec version of what used to be called a PDP down in the basement, > >and put a thin client on every desk. Live happily ever after. > >Ostensibly, if desktops are 1x10^6 times more powerful, our servers are, > >too: a recipe for happiness. > > A lot of this cloud stuff will move back to "computers that you > own but are located somewhere on the net" from "computers that someone > else owns but are located somewhere on the net". > > A lot of the moves towards others computers has been founded on > a huge squeeze in hosting. If you go out and buy colo (i.e. rack space) > you will pay around $2k/rack/month for rack, power, connectivity; if > you buy single racks without any particular buying power; and you need > reasonable access ; i.e. within EU, near large city. Building the > same redundancy in your own basement will cost lots more. Orders of > magintude more. Just having the diesels, power, batteries, cooling in > costs millions. And double if you are in a standard office building. > > If you are Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, IBM you build all > of this yourself, or contract 1km2 or more. Then you pay $350/rack/month > to yourself. They can then sell the service LOTS cheaper, and will > include their services; and still make a bundle. And they have it available > now, not 7 months into the future. > > Never mind that this is located in the Nevada desert, or in the Finnish > woods. We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160126225748@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157850 |
On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That > Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern > though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements > and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard. Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and organizations wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party. Once you do that you have no idea where your information will ultimately wind up or who will have access to it under what conditions. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 06:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160127061630.e9e76d4d92ee957e0c6ff6cf@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #157895 |
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:58:32 -0000 (UTC) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That > > Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern > > though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements > > and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard. > > Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and > organizations wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party. > Once you do that you have no idea where your information will ultimately > wind up or who will have access to it under what conditions. For once you and I are in complete agreement. -- 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 | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052A523637A3A8@aca4109b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #157895 |
Roger Blake wrote: > On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That >> Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern >> though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements >> and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard. > > Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and organizations > wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party. Once you do that > you have no idea where your information will ultimately wind up or who > will have access to it under what conditions. > This kind of stuff is cyclical. Corporations run their own internal systems; after a while, they deem it easier and cheaper to contract the work out. A similar thing is happening now. Contracting out byte management is the current norm. In about 6 years, the cycle will move to every system owner managing their own bytes. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8b1ev13ok@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #157895 |
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.folklore.computers.] On 2016-01-27, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >> We're going through that now, we have our own cloud but the Powers That >> Be are also looking into using Amazon's service. There's a concern >> though because we are in a regulated industry with privacy requirements >> and it's not clear how thorougly Amazon can be trusted in that regard. > > Frankly I don't understand the headlong rush of individuals and organizations > wanting to give up control of their data to some 3rd party. Once you do that > you have no idea where your information will ultimately wind up or who > will have access to it under what conditions. Or whether you'll be allowed to get it back. -- /~\ 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 | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 18:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3111cca5b563cd29989eae@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157760 |
In article <n87ve9$b84$1@solani.org>, rsw@therandymon.com says... > > On 2016-01-26, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Something serious in the workplace"? > > > > Define "serious". The laptop that I got off of ebay for 200 bucks > > with the original XP that it came with installed on it will hammer an > > '80s supercomputer into the dust. PCs are immensely "serious" today. > > There are tasks which individual machines are not good at (generally > > those involving large numbers of users having shared access to live > > data) and there are applications that benefit from massively parallel > > architectures, but those are rather specialized and far more than most > > businesses need. > > The fact that modern desktops have the computing power of old PDPs > doesn't have anything to do with deciding whether the old 'centralized' > model of computing has benefits that would be interesting today. Ask > any sysadmin who has had to deal with a fleet of PCs, each user storing > his stuff locally, people emailing each other documents to collaborate, > etc. > > If modern PCs have high specs, hooray. Now put a souped-up, modern, > high spec version of what used to be called a PDP down in the basement, > and put a thin client on every desk. Live happily ever after. > Ostensibly, if desktops are 1x10^6 times more powerful, our servers are, > too: a recipe for happiness. I already addressed the point you think you are introducing. If you want to beat a dead horse be my guest. However your souped up PDP, which is going to be pathetically puny compared to any PC, is still going to require a PC on the desktop of every user in order to have any functionality. Of course it may be called a "terminal" or a "thin client" or some such, but the cheap way to manufacturer such today is to buy a commodity PC and cripple it. Oh, by the way, since you're on about PDPs and suchlike, let me remind you that I drive a z machine for a living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 09:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0b3f379f-d832-45da-995b-a08c0711240d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157616 |
The former* MARCH (Mid-Atlantic Retro Computing Hobbyists -- 2005-2015) provided most of the computers EXCEPT those in the FBI set to "The Americans" when the show began four years ago. MARCH also provided a few small updates as the show progressed. The back story is, Americans prop staff approached MARCH (of which I was president) through mutual friends. The had already purchased the FBI set stuff, along with a couple of PETs. We told them those weren't the smartest choices :) so they asked how to best use what they already had. We advised them to put the PETs in the travel agency set and that the FBI set would be tolerable... we then provided another couple of PETs to finish their travel agency, all of the DEC terminals, and some randoms printers and stuff. They wanted hulking IBM mainframe tape drives, which we couldn't provide (and wouldn't even if we had them), so those are just made-up props. We were not involved in the construction. For season three we also helped them get a Commodore 64 and stuff. We also provided computers for Halt & Catch Fire; National Geographic TV's Jobs v. Gates episode; and an upcoming major Hollywood blockbuster (sorry, I'm under NDA). * In its place, I and others formed the Vintage Computer Federation, which is is a 501c3 non-profit. "VCF" (get it?) is national in scope and immediately formed a Mid-Atlantic chapter. The old MARCH already owned the Vintage Computer Festival East. Vintage Computer Festival founder Sellam Ismail donated rights to the Vintage Computer Festival West. (All other Festivals remain independent.) Meanwhile, Erik Klein donated his Vintage Computer Forum (web integration is almost finished). Thus, the new group -- an IRS-sanctioned non-profit, no longer just individuals -- now operates VCF East/West, the VC Forum, and chapters such as the legacy MARCH. Web site is under construction, but you can see what's there so far at www.vcfed.org.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 09:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d9e50885-82d9-4d2a-9552-50bd78a920d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157936 |
PS. Season four starts on March 16th. Obviously I started watching it for the computers, but quickly found that it's a REALLY GOOD SHOW. I would absolutely watch it even if there were no computers in it at all. Tip: the show is NOT suitable for children. Lots of graphic sex and extreme violence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web