Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163292 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 268 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-05-06 11:00 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-06 16:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-06 18:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-07 07:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 19:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:16 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-08 04:22 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 21:46 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-08 06:58 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 07:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 02:30 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-05-06 17:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-06 19:41 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 02:43 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-09 06:58 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-09 17:05 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:13 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-12 12:50 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-13 12:10 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-12 13:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-15 21:53 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-16 12:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:22 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:23 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-18 20:15 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-19 08:06 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-19 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-21 04:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:14 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 04:45 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-24 14:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 09:22 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-25 17:31 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 21:41 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:17 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-16 20:08 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-09 16:29 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 02:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 06:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 07:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 09:06 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:47 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 09:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 10:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 11:11 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 20:02 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 12:05 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 14:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-12 03:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 06:13 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-12 14:46 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 14:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 14:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 17:50 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 16:01 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 02:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-12 10:07 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 11:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 21:55 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-12 13:12 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-05-12 00:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 21:40 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-14 23:47 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:40 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 15:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 21:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 15:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 23:36 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-12 10:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 15:11 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-15 17:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 20:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-15 22:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 06:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-16 13:12 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-16 23:25 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:23 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 09:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:40 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 16:59 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 13:42 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 11:56 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 12:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-17 19:58 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-18 02:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 23:51 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-18 14:28 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2016-05-19 11:07 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-19 10:00 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-19 12:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 10:56 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 12:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-24 00:01 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-23 18:48 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:18 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-19 07:03 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-19 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-21 21:26 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-18 10:39 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:21 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:35 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 21:06 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 15:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 14:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:53 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 19:44 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 22:40 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 14:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 17:01 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-17 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-17 14:31 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 12:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-16 20:37 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-17 11:12 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 05:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:21 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 12:23 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-16 22:03 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 05:09 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 09:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-23 09:48 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 13:51 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:49 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-11 14:06 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-11 16:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-12 03:11 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2016-05-14 16:59 +0800
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-14 10:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-14 15:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-14 09:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-14 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 12:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:17 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-22 05:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:26 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:13 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-22 06:43 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:14 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 13:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-22 07:29 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 06:41 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:11 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-23 16:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-23 16:50 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 01:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 13:40 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-24 19:33 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 21:33 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:54 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 16:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-24 20:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 22:24 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-25 12:45 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 17:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 18:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-24 13:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 17:03 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:53 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:47 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:44 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:32 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-06 13:55 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-06 19:29 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 05:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 11:35 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 17:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 22:30 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 13:25 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 17:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 20:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-07 21:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 22:49 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-08 07:08 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-08 20:58 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:09 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-07 10:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-08 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-08 16:20 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-09 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-05-09 15:34 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-10 13:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 16:57 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 16:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:38 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-10 15:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 11:07 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:16 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-11 16:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:47 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-11 10:52 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 13:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:46 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Thomas Lake <tomlake07@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 10:47 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-10 18:36 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-17 06:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf87jb9sr51mgcr6ile0rpggicqak207r6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163588 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:31:55 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland wrote:
>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant
>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333".
>>
>> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era understand
>> perfectly well.
>>
>>
>In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on
>screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy
>disks".
There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4.
How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 17:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nh0cq5$6hl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163607 |
On 5/11/2016 4:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:31:55 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland wrote: > >>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". >>> >>> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era understand >>> perfectly well. >>> >>> >> In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on >> screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy >> disks". > > There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4. > > How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech? > But we didn't have to worry about the typewriter autocorrecting the result to "4.75" (or "1", depending on operator precedence). Unless you had a "¼" key, but I bet some newsreaders won't like that solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mce7jb9rv4e5iftblkcmud80e76c4oeqcb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163610 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:50:58 -0500, Dave Garland
<dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>On 5/11/2016 4:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:31:55 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland wrote:
>>
>>>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant
>>>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333".
>>>>
>>>> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era understand
>>>> perfectly well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on
>>> screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy
>>> disks".
>>
>> There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4.
>>
>> How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech?
>>
>But we didn't have to worry about the typewriter autocorrecting the
>result to "4.75" (or "1", depending on operator precedence). Unless
>you had a "¼" key, but I bet some newsreaders won't like that solution.
Hardly insurmountable.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 21:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ktq7jbh21l5a9hi3lbpohj2l5dcg44rc50@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163610 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:50:58 -0500, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >On 5/11/2016 4:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:31:55 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland wrote: >> >>>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >>>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". >>>> >>>> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era understand >>>> perfectly well. >>>> >>>> >>> In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on >>> screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy >>> disks". >> >> There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4. >> >> How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech? >> >But we didn't have to worry about the typewriter autocorrecting the >result to "4.75" (or "1", depending on operator precedence). Unless >you had a "¼" key, but I bet some newsreaders won't like that solution. My grandmother's old Royal Quiet Deluxe had 1/4 and 1/2 and cent keys. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 02:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nh0r0q0130v@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163610 |
On 2016-05-11, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 5/11/2016 4:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:31:55 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland wrote: >>> >>>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >>>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". >>>> >>>> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era >>>> understand perfectly well. >>> >>> In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on >>> screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy >>> disks". >> >> There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4. >> >> How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech? > > But we didn't have to worry about the typewriter autocorrecting the > result to "4.75" (or "1", depending on operator precedence). Unless > you had a "¼" key, but I bet some newsreaders won't like that solution. I was taught that the correct notation uses a space instead of a hyphen (i.e. "5 1/4"). That takes care of that particular ambiguity. -- /~\ 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 | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 10:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dpj2u6Ftl3pU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163622 |
On Thu, 12 May 2016 02:50:02 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-05-11, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >> On 5/11/2016 4:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:31:55 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland wrote: >>>> >>>>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >>>>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be >>>>> "1.3333333". >>>>> >>>>> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era >>>>> understand perfectly well. >>>> >>>> In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on >>>> screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 >>>> floppy disks". >>> >>> There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4. >>> >>> How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech? >> >> But we didn't have to worry about the typewriter autocorrecting the >> result to "4.75" (or "1", depending on operator precedence). Unless >> you had a "¼" key, but I bet some newsreaders won't like that solution. > > I was taught that the correct notation uses a space instead of a hyphen > (i.e. "5 1/4"). That takes care of that particular ambiguity. But it's still so vulgar. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 11:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160512113908.586786c4dae0b868e77840b4@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163629 |
On 12 May 2016 10:07:02 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2016 02:50:02 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > > I was taught that the correct notation uses a space instead of a hyphen > > (i.e. "5 1/4"). That takes care of that particular ambiguity. > > But it's still so vulgar. No it's mixed, 26/4 is vulgar, not to mention improper. -- 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 | 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nh2fo212vp1@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163631 |
On 2016-05-12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 12 May 2016 10:07:02 GMT > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 May 2016 02:50:02 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> I was taught that the correct notation uses a space instead of a hyphen >>> (i.e. "5 1/4"). That takes care of that particular ambiguity. >> >> But it's still so vulgar. > > No it's mixed, 26/4 is vulgar, not to mention improper. How about 22/7? Vulgar, improper, and inaccurate. -- /~\ 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 | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 21:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160512215532.f42ae294f35dc29bd8b2b56c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163641 |
On 12 May 2016 17:49:54 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-05-12, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > > On 12 May 2016 10:07:02 GMT > > Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 12 May 2016 02:50:02 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> > >>> I was taught that the correct notation uses a space instead of a > >>> hyphen (i.e. "5 1/4"). That takes care of that particular ambiguity. > >> > >> But it's still so vulgar. > > > > No it's mixed, 26/4 is vulgar, not to mention improper. > > How about 22/7? Vulgar, improper, and inaccurate. Well we wouldn't want to get irrational about things. -- 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 | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qmo9jblka3c88jhs6g6ltfsdhemm9lt6sa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163622 |
On 12 May 2016 02:50:02 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
>On 2016-05-11, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2016 4:21 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
[snip]
>>> There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4.
>>>
>>> How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech?
>>
>> But we didn't have to worry about the typewriter autocorrecting the
>> result to "4.75" (or "1", depending on operator precedence). Unless
>> you had a "¼" key, but I bet some newsreaders won't like that solution.
>
>I was taught that the correct notation uses a space instead of a hyphen
>(i.e. "5 1/4"). That takes care of that particular ambiguity.
I have seen both. The space puts in another ambiguity. Is
5 1/4" nails
five nails or discussing long nails?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dpht2aFo7itU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163607 |
Gene Wirchenko wrote: > Michael Black wrote: > >> In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on >> screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy >> disks". > > There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4. Isn't that 4.75?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 21:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605112139280.31672@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163607 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:31:55 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 May 2016, Dave Garland wrote: > >>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". >>> >>> ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era understand >>> perfectly well. >>> >>> >> In the age of electronics, it's harder to present those fractions on >> screen in your average text. Which is why I certainly write "5.25 floppy >> disks". > > There is a very simple way of doing it: 5-1/4. > > How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech? > I seem to recall that my grandfather's typewriter, which would have been the first one I used, had 1/4 and 1/2 on the keyboard. But you're right, however it breaks the flow of typing more than 5.25. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 23:47 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <umofjb9kumkgbpmeo1ktauemopugc3r1n1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163607 |
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:21:38 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote: > How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech? By supplementing the typewriter with a pencil or pen. For reproduction work, there were rub-on letters. On a manual typewriter, one could overstrike to create characters. For example, if you pushed the space bar down, it would prevent the carriage from moving while you typed an apostrophe and a period to make an exclamation point. (They didn't line up properly if you backspaced instead.) There were two clicks to a linefeed, so superscripts and subscripts could be typed by rotating the platen half a line. I imagine that vulgar fractions could be made the same way, but I never had a reason to type a vulgar fraction. I no longer have a manual typewriter to experiment with, but I see no reason one couldn't type a superscript numerator, backspace and underline it, backspace again, roll down one line, type the denominator, and roll up half a line to continue. -- joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ The above message is a Usenet post. I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000532E217EF64D2@aca424e3.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163689 |
Joy Beeson wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:21:38 -0700, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> > wrote: > >> How do you think we managed when typewriters were the usual tech? > > By supplementing the typewriter with a pencil or pen. > > For reproduction work, there were rub-on letters. > > On a manual typewriter, one could overstrike to create characters. For > example, if you pushed the space bar down, it would prevent the > carriage from moving while you typed an apostrophe and a period to > make an exclamation point. (They didn't line up properly if you > backspaced instead.) > > There were two clicks to a linefeed, so superscripts and subscripts > could be typed by rotating the platen half a line. I imagine that > vulgar fractions could be made the same way, but I never had a reason > to type a vulgar fraction. I no longer have a manual typewriter to > experiment with, but I see no reason one couldn't type a superscript > numerator, backspace and underline it, backspace again, roll down one > line, type the denominator, and roll up half a line to continue. Yup. And a really good typist who knew her/his machine could disengage the platen and move it up and down for the subscripting and then turn it back on to continue typing. I usally left spaces for that kind of character and filled in the characters when I was done typing the page. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8157be8-7b3f-461d-a714-1b77daf01e94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163579 |
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:12:10 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: > * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant > figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". That depends on the context. 4/3 is a rational number, and is indeed 1.3333..., that is, one, followed by an _infinite_ series of threes after the decimal point. So if 1 1/3 were, say, the sum of a geometric series, as opposed to the result of a physical measurement, that would not be an issue. > ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era > understand perfectly well. Lol! John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62c38555-f060-4875-b945-13df26593513@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163591 |
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 12:37:52 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:12:10 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: > > ** That's "after slide rules". People from the Post slide rule era > > understand perfectly well. > Lol! And, of course, the Post Verilog slide rule was really made for them by Hemmi (in Japan)... John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 15:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163591 |
On 5/11/2016 1:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote: > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:12:10 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: > >> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". > > That depends on the context. 4/3 is a rational number, and is indeed 1.3333..., > that is, one, followed by an _infinite_ series of threes after the decimal > point. > Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too, just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 21:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nh09ec$num$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163602 |
In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant >digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too, >just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and >a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1. An interesting development is has been recently presented by John Gustafson, which presents a new way to look at numbers and calculation, breaking with IEEE floating point, but doing so in a way that has some intriguing possibilities and improvements - especially regarding the propagation of error intervals: https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/47frn5/unums_20/ // Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8d6926d-664e-450d-83a3-6b5b40f93094@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163608 |
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 3:53:37 PM UTC-6, Christian Brunschen wrote: > An interesting development is has been recently presented by > John Gustafson, which presents a new way to look at numbers and > calculation, breaking with IEEE floating point, but doing so in a way > that has some intriguing possibilities and improvements - especially > regarding the propagation of error intervals: There's been some discussion of his UNUMs over on comp.arch . Some people are enthusiastic, others highly skeptical. Myself, although sharing many of the concerns of the skeptics, I still am somewhat enthusiastic that there is some useful potential in the idea. Basically, the problem with UNUMs is that they're likely to be less efficient in calculations. And the main problem they might address can't be completely solved by them - the fact that many programmers with floating-point arithmetic these days aren't conversant with the subtleties of numerical analysis. But I'm mildly enthusiastic despite this because I feel that we *won't* solve the problem of getting all the programmers who need to be trained properly trained... and so the dangers of a false sense of security are outweighed by the benefits of a tool which will at least catch many of the mistakes - because the need is desperate. Thus, I'd be in favor of taking as much of the UNUM idea as possible, leaving out the hardest part - making numbers variable in size - so that programs could run efficiently in a special mode using an alternate floating-point format that checks for error. To allow the same program to run both ways, I have suggested that one could make a format that is the same as the current standard for numbers for the inner part of the exponent range, but has extra features when the exponent field begins with the bits which would indicate very large or very small numbers. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 23:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nh0tn9$37h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #163608 |
On 2016-05-11 5:50 PM, Christian Brunschen wrote: > In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant >> digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too, >> just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and >> a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1. > > An interesting development is has been recently presented by > John Gustafson, which presents a new way to look at numbers and > calculation, breaking with IEEE floating point, but doing so in a way > that has some intriguing possibilities and improvements - especially > regarding the propagation of error intervals: > > https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/47frn5/unums_20/ > > // Christian > I was part of the C 754 floating group. Gustafson's book is interesting but the approach doesn't seem to be an advantage over IEEE754 in real applications. It doesn't deal with the errors any better than 754 it marginally identifies errors earlier. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web