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 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
| From | cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-12 10:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nh1m3d$ma9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163623 |
In article <nh0tn9$37h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >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. The book describes an earlier version of Unums. Hve a look at the more recent "Unums 2.0"; the presentation & paper linked from the Reddit thread: http://www.johngustafson.net/presentations/Multicore2016-JLG.pdf http://www.johngustafson.net/presentations/Multicore2016-JLG.pptx It shows some quite interesting ways in which there do seem to be some specific advantages in some real-world applications. Also, one of the claims is that not only does it identify errors earlier, it also prevents the exponential increase in error that can happen when using interval arithmetic - and it gives examples. Best wishes, // Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5aa0c61-c356-4f53-b1a5-ad62afe695d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163630 |
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 4:35:47 AM UTC-6, Christian Brunschen wrote: > Hve a look at the more recent "Unums 2.0"; Having done so, I'm much more skeptical of this version than I was of the original. While the original had the serious issue of being variable length, this one seems comparable to the FOCUS logarithmic representation of numbers once proposed - something that can only get acceptable speed if done by table lookup, and hence limited to lower precisions. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-13 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c5c1282-f1b6-4444-ab33-c8aa835c6f82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163670 |
On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 12:16:09 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > the FOCUS logarithmic representation of numbers once > proposed "The FOCUS Number System", Lee and Edgar, IEEE Transactions on Computers, November 1977. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 17:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31a2b73a6fe84c7598a197@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163602 |
In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 5/11/2016 1:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:12:10 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: > > > >> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant > >> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". > > > > That depends on the context. 4/3 is a rational number, and is indeed 1.3333..., > > that is, one, followed by an _infinite_ series of threes after the decimal > > point. > > > Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant > digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too, > just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and > a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1. So if somebody says asks for one and a third gross it's OK to send him 173 instead of 192?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 17:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhatar$kd2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163705 |
On 5/15/2016 4:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > says... >> >> On 5/11/2016 1:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:12:10 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: >>> >>>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant >>>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". >>> >>> That depends on the context. 4/3 is a rational number, and is indeed 1.3333..., >>> that is, one, followed by an _infinite_ series of threes after the decimal >>> point. >>> >> Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant >> digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too, >> just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and >> a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1. > > So if somebody says asks for one and a third gross it's OK to send him > 173 instead of 192? > If somebody asks for one and a third gross, I'd ask them for the precise number they wanted. Unless it was something that was normally packed 3 cartons to the gross. If somebody says your destination is 1 and a third km away, are you going to complain if it turns out to be 1.42 km?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 20:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31a2df06ef72b66a98a19a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163706 |
In article <nhatar$kd2$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 5/15/2016 4:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > > says... > >> > >> On 5/11/2016 1:37 PM, Quadibloc wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 10:12:10 AM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote: > >>> > >>>> * Does anyone from the post-slide-rule** era understand "significant > >>>> figures"? I see people translating "one and a third" to be "1.3333333". > >>> > >>> That depends on the context. 4/3 is a rational number, and is indeed 1.3333..., > >>> that is, one, followed by an _infinite_ series of threes after the decimal > >>> point. > >>> > >> Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant > >> digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too, > >> just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and > >> a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1. > > > > So if somebody says asks for one and a third gross it's OK to send him > > 173 instead of 192? > > > If somebody asks for one and a third gross, I'd ask them for the > precise number they wanted. Unless it was something that was normally > packed 3 cartons to the gross. They just told you. One and third gross. > If somebody says your destination is 1 and a third km away, are you > going to complain if it turns out to be 1.42 km? Probably not because it's not worth the effort of going back and complaining at the guy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <j2mijbl80p4j4vkv11dlb6d0tfhauc3dds@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163709 |
On Sun, 15 May 2016 20:32:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <nhatar$kd2$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com
>says...
>>
>> On 5/15/2016 4:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com
>> > says...
[snip]
>> >> Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant
>> >> digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too,
>> >> just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and
>> >> a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1.
>> >
>> > So if somebody says asks for one and a third gross it's OK to send him
>> > 173 instead of 192?
>> >
>> If somebody asks for one and a third gross, I'd ask them for the
>> precise number they wanted. Unless it was something that was normally
>> packed 3 cartons to the gross.
>
>They just told you. One and third gross.
That is not a unit of measure that I see used in fractions so
like Dave Garland, I would confirm. Sixteen dozen is far more likely
to be used.
>> If somebody says your destination is 1 and a third km away, are you
>> going to complain if it turns out to be 1.42 km?
>
>Probably not because it's not worth the effort of going back and
>complaining at the guy.
And if you did, you would look like a fool.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 06:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31a3718c5619a05798a19d@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163710 |
In article <j2mijbl80p4j4vkv11dlb6d0tfhauc3dds@4ax.com>, genew@telus.net says... > > On Sun, 15 May 2016 20:32:00 -0400, "J. Clarke" > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > >In article <nhatar$kd2$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > >says... > >> > >> On 5/15/2016 4:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> > In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > >> > says... > > [snip] > > >> >> Hmm... in which case there are an infinite number of significant > >> >> digits, and a calculator or computer will fail the computation too, > >> >> just with a few more significant digits. But if somebody says "one and > >> >> a third" you can be pretty sure that the number is +/-0.1. > >> > > >> > So if somebody says asks for one and a third gross it's OK to send him > >> > 173 instead of 192? > >> > > >> If somebody asks for one and a third gross, I'd ask them for the > >> precise number they wanted. Unless it was something that was normally > >> packed 3 cartons to the gross. > > > >They just told you. One and third gross. > > That is not a unit of measure that I see used in fractions so > like Dave Garland, I would confirm. Sixteen dozen is far more likely > to be used. Now you're stating your opinions as fact. > >> If somebody says your destination is 1 and a third km away, are you > >> going to complain if it turns out to be 1.42 km? > > > >Probably not because it's not worth the effort of going back and > >complaining at the guy. > > And if you did, you would look like a fool. Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You seem determined to discard it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 13:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhd2br$vpd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163711 |
On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <j2mijbl80p4j4vkv11dlb6d0tfhauc3dds@4ax.com>, genew@telus.net > says... >> >> On Sun, 15 May 2016 20:32:00 -0400, "J. Clarke" >> <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In article <nhatar$kd2$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com >>> says... >>>> >>>> On 5/15/2016 4:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote: >>>>> In article <nh03lo$2t4$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com >>>>> says... >> >> [snip] >> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> So if somebody says asks for one and a third gross it's OK to send him >>>>> 173 instead of 192? >>>>> >>>> If somebody asks for one and a third gross, I'd ask them for the >>>> precise number they wanted. Unless it was something that was normally >>>> packed 3 cartons to the gross. >>> >>> They just told you. One and third gross. >> >> That is not a unit of measure that I see used in fractions so >> like Dave Garland, I would confirm. Sixteen dozen is far more likely >> to be used. > > Now you're stating your opinions as fact. > >>>> If somebody says your destination is 1 and a third km away, are you >>>> going to complain if it turns out to be 1.42 km? >>> >>> Probably not because it's not worth the effort of going back and >>> complaining at the guy. >> >> And if you did, you would look like a fool. > > Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You > seem determined to discard it. > To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements will be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. Likewise in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate volumetric measurements will be made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 23:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhdktv01g3q@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163716 |
On 2016-05-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > >> Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You >> seem determined to discard it. > > To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the > small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, > though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say > "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements will > be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. Likewise > in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate > volumetric measurements will be made. On the other hand, if I asked for half a dozen eggs, I'd be unhappy if I was only given five. -- /~\ 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 | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 19:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-37F713.19533616052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163718 |
In article <nhdktv01g3q@news6.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-05-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > > > On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > > > >> Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You > >> seem determined to discard it. > > > > To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the > > small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, > > though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say > > "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements will > > be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. Likewise > > in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate > > volumetric measurements will be made. > > On the other hand, if I asked for half a dozen eggs, I'd be unhappy > if I was only given five. And in the potato salad case, it will be sold by the pound and calculated as such. -- To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world? Christopher Hitchens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hn6mjb1uq0d28tll3ipivk22fj7h5id6d2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163721 |
On Mon, 16 May 2016 19:53:36 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote: >In article <nhdktv01g3q@news6.newsguy.com>, > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-05-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >> >> > On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >> > >> >> Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You >> >> seem determined to discard it. >> > >> > To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the >> > small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, >> > though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say >> > "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements will >> > be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. Likewise >> > in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate >> > volumetric measurements will be made. >> >> On the other hand, if I asked for half a dozen eggs, I'd be unhappy >> if I was only given five. > >And in the potato salad case, it will be sold by the pound and >calculated as such. Depends on where you buy it. I've bought potato salad by the pint in some stores, and by the pound in other stores. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 09:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dq0necFp09pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163739 |
"JimP" wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2016 19:53:36 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> > wrote: > >>In article <nhdktv01g3q@news6.newsguy.com>, >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-05-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >>> > >>> >> Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific meaning. You >>> >> seem determined to discard it. >>> > >>> > To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the >>> > small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, >>> > though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say >>> > "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements will >>> > be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. Likewise >>> > in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate >>> > volumetric measurements will be made. >>> >>> On the other hand, if I asked for half a dozen eggs, I'd be unhappy >>> if I was only given five. >> >>And in the potato salad case, it will be sold by the pound and >>calculated as such. > > Depends on where you buy it. I've bought potato salad by the pint in > some stores, and by the pound in other stores. It's a mistake to try to discuss food in a rational way because the government intercedes in ways that defy common sense. Just one example, look for a product called "Fat free half & half." -- USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nhfdqk$g5k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163740 |
On 5/17/2016 9:16 AM, Osmium wrote: > "JimP" wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 May 2016 19:53:36 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> >> wrote: >> >>> In article <nhdktv01g3q@news6.newsguy.com>, >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-05-16, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> > On 5/16/2016 5:57 AM, J. Clarke wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Depends on the circumstances. "A third" has a specific >>>> meaning. You >>>> >> seem determined to discard it. >>>> > >>>> > To a mathematician, it has a specific meaning. In common usage, the >>>> > small-denominator fractions are understood to be approximations, >>>> > though such may depend on context. If I back the truck up and say >>>> > "give me half a load", nobody expects sophisticated measurements >>>> will >>>> > be used, the important measurement will happen at the scale. >>>> Likewise >>>> > in the deli if I ask for "half a pint" of potato salad no elaborate >>>> > volumetric measurements will be made. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, if I asked for half a dozen eggs, I'd be unhappy >>>> if I was only given five. >>> >>> And in the potato salad case, it will be sold by the pound and >>> calculated as such. >> >> Depends on where you buy it. I've bought potato salad by the pint in >> some stores, and by the pound in other stores. > > It's a mistake to try to discuss food in a rational way because the > government intercedes in ways that defy common sense. > > Just one example, look for a product called "Fat free half & half." > Just looked it up. It indeed contains no fat. I guess it's the "half & half" that you're objecting to, it's more like "third & third", since corn syrup is the #2 ingredient and cream is #3. I'm pretty sure the government didn't force them to call it "half & half", though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j6I_y.1$Un.0@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #163740 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: >"JimP" wrote: >> Depends on where you buy it. I've bought potato salad by the pint in >> some stores, and by the pound in other stores. > >It's a mistake to try to discuss food in a rational way because the >government intercedes in ways that defy common sense. > >Just one example, look for a product called "Fat free half & half." How, exactly, does this illustrate government intervention?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 13:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dq170aFsa5rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163745 |
"Scott Lurndal" writes: > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: >>"JimP" wrote: > >>> Depends on where you buy it. I've bought potato salad by the pint in >>> some stores, and by the pound in other stores. >> >>It's a mistake to try to discuss food in a rational way because the >>government intercedes in ways that defy common sense. >> >>Just one example, look for a product called "Fat free half & half." > > How, exactly, does this illustrate government intervention? This substance is sold in grocery stores for human consumption, therefore it is subject to food labeling requirements. People seeing "half & half" on a label in the dairy section expect half cream and half milk. If one sells half water and half something else and the consumer expects half & half, the vendor committed fraud and that vendor would be sued by vendors that sold the legitimate product. The fact that no such suits happen proves to me that the government *explicitly* allows such fraudulent labeling. Furthermore, if you take half the fat out of milk it is no longer milk, fat is an intrinsic part of the substance. -- USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad3ca284-f36e-4bd0-a0ce-b15e430649d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163750 |
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 12:42:21 PM UTC-6, Osmium wrote: > Furthermore, if you take half the fat out of milk it is no longer milk, fat > is an intrinsic part of the substance. Well, if you take the cream out of milk, you get "skim milk" or "2% milk" depending on how much you have removed, so removing some of the fat from the milk by the expedient of removing the more fat-rich cream and still calling it milk afterwards seems to have been legitimized by tradition. In fact, I think that whole milk used to be 3.56% cream, and they recently changed the standards to reduce the cream content in what can be sold as whole milk, for the sake of making us slimmer. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e5f5924-dcc3-4e19-93af-9e19b049402a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163751 |
On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > In fact, I think that whole milk used to be 3.56% cream, and they recently > changed the standards to reduce the cream content in what can be sold as whole > milk, for the sake of making us slimmer. Currently, it's 3.25% milk fat for whole milk - cream is not completely milk fat - but I can't find information on what it had previously been. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnjmttv.2j6.mausg@Smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #163752 |
On 2016-05-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > >> In fact, I think that whole milk used to be 3.56% cream, and they recently >> changed the standards to reduce the cream content in what can be sold as whole >> milk, for the sake of making us slimmer. > > Currently, it's 3.25% milk fat for whole milk - cream is not completely milk fat > - but I can't find information on what it had previously been. > > John Savard At some point, cows milk was defined, I dunno by who, as 3.25Fat, at which the farmer was paid the normal price. Most animal, including human milk is higher. It would seem that cows were bred to produce milk with that much fat. -- greymaus iD|marrA Raa|fLa Ireland
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 02:50 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mvnnykx1.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163752 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 12:56:16 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > >> In fact, I think that whole milk used to be 3.56% cream, and they >> recently changed the standards to reduce the cream content in what >> can be sold as whole milk, for the sake of making us slimmer. > > Currently, it's 3.25% milk fat for whole milk - cream is not > completely milk fat - but I can't find information on what it had > previously been. When I had a student job at the Dairy Science Dept. at UMass in '63, whole milk had to be 4% butter fat. The usual practice was to separate milk to that level. (I think the jargon term is "fat corrected milk" or FCM.) So you never got high butter fat milk unless you bought directly from a Jersey or Guernsey farmer. I haven't been able to find out what the Canadian minimum butter fat content is for product sold as "homogenized milk". Dairies offer "homogenized milk" without any label info on fat content and, in a slightly differently coloured package, 3-1/4% milk. I suspect that they're the same stuff. Judging by the display space allocated to the various variants, people buy a great deal of skim milk, 1% milk and 2% milk and quite a lot of whipping cream (has carageenin added!) and coffee cream. (There's a logical flaw there somewhere.) Only old fogies such as we are buy plain ol' homogenized milk. (It gets so little space in an array of three or four cooler cabinets that I have to hunt for it.) -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web