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 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 19:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnk9b4c.191.mausg@Smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #163894 |
On 2016-05-24, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Mike Spencer wrote: >> >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >> >>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes: >>> >>>> Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers >>>> of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring >>>> minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they >>>> think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of >>>> bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems >>>> and/or enable total global dominance? >>> >>> I'm sure weapons are on the list, but nobody knows what more knowledge >>> will bring. >> >> Oh, yes. But spending big bucks on pure knowledge, the LHC >> notwithstanding, is kinda contrary to the current trend (can I say >> enantiodromic? :-) of funding the next quarter's (or next >> season's or next retail cycle's) anticipated Big Thing. >> >>> The way neutrinos fly through everything, a good generator/detector >>> would make a cool way to communicate. If you could aim the stuff, >>> it would be pretty private. >> >> Hah! Can we apply Moore's Law to a hardrock mine full of water, get it >> down to, say, backpack size? >> >> I never thought of communication. > > Long distance billards? ;-) Queen Victoria liked "Alice in Wonderland", so the story goes, she sent an order to the author to send her the first copy of his next book, which turned out to be a tratise on the probale movements of billard balls > > Until we learn about new things, we don't know what the possible > uses until the knowledge is wide-spread enough for "kiddies" to > play with it. > > I'm still waiting for the "kiddie" stage of quantum computers. > I don't think I'll live long enough to see it. Greg Bear > has an amusing short story about the subject called "The > Machine Starts". > > /BAH -- greymaus.eircom.ie . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 21:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31ad797a3410b54d98a1cb@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163872 |
In article <87fut8a7bl.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>, mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere says... > > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > > > They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and > > bottoms all the time. > > Never mind quarks. What's so exciting about neutrinos that every > country with two particle physicists to rub together has to have a > megabuck neutrino detector? Last off, China has a big one and is > working on plans for a huge one. > > Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers > of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring > minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they > think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of > bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems > and/or enable total global dominance? > > Puzzled. A bunch of universities are paying most of it, the same way that big telescopes are funded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r6n8kbdfh9cqsf4g2k1otq5tbc2pcfcf48@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163872 |
On 23 May 2016 16:43:42 -0300, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > >> They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and >> bottoms all the time. > >Never mind quarks. What's so exciting about neutrinos that every >country with two particle physicists to rub together has to have a >megabuck neutrino detector? Last off, China has a big one and is >working on plans for a huge one. > >Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers >of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring >minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they >think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of >bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems >and/or enable total global dominance? > >Puzzled. One of the newer documentaries I've watched recently claims that neutrinos could be part of dark matter. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 16:38 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87d1ob9rh8.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163902 |
JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: > On 23 May 2016 16:43:42 -0300, Mike Spencer > <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >> Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers >> of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring >> minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they >> think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of >> bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems >> and/or enable total global dominance? >> >> Puzzled. > > One of the newer documentaries I've watched recently claims that > neutrinos could be part of dark matter. When my mother was just a little girl, circa 1910, in a rather remote and very rural place, before electricity or other 20th c. tech, with only rare social events, milk was kept for a day in pitchers on a shelf, covered with a cloth to keep the flies out. One day the preacher came for a visit -- important social occasion -- and was offered coffee with milk on the side. Saith the preacher, "Miz Fisher, there's a mote in the milk." Sure enough, just a little black speck. So my grandmother ups with the corner of her fresh clean apron and daintily dabs at it and it doesn't stick. Try again, same result. So she abashedly reaches into the pitcher with two fingers and pinches ahold of it. And up comes the speck, the tip of a mouse's tail, sodden carcase now dripping beneath it. Maybe neutrinos are "motes in the universe" with all their mass somehow attached beneath the 3-D surface. If'n we can just get aholt of one the right way, who knows what may come up dripping beneath the claws of our neutrino grabbitzer? -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dqjqe1FfrjsU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163933 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:38:11 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote: > One day the preacher came for a visit -- important social occasion -- > and was offered coffee with milk on the side. Saith the preacher, "Miz > Fisher, there's a mote in the milk." Sure enough, just a little black > speck. So my grandmother ups with the corner of her fresh clean apron > and daintily dabs at it and it doesn't stick. Try again, same result. > So she abashedly reaches into the pitcher with two fingers and pinches > ahold of it. And up comes the speck, the tip of a mouse's tail, sodden > carcase now dripping beneath it. And of course the mouse was just part of a pan-dimensional being... -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 22:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-6534E2.22240224052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163935 |
In article <dqjqe1FfrjsU16@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:38:11 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote: > > > One day the preacher came for a visit -- important social occasion -- > > and was offered coffee with milk on the side. Saith the preacher, "Miz > > Fisher, there's a mote in the milk." Sure enough, just a little black > > speck. So my grandmother ups with the corner of her fresh clean apron > > and daintily dabs at it and it doesn't stick. Try again, same result. > > So she abashedly reaches into the pitcher with two fingers and pinches > > ahold of it. And up comes the speck, the tip of a mouse's tail, sodden > > carcase now dripping beneath it. > > And of course the mouse was just part of a pan-dimensional being... Well that was a no braner. -- 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 | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <o50ckb9hpfpe91chok2f330b234cnkd0he@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163948 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016 22:24:03 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
wrote:
>In article <dqjqe1FfrjsU16@mid.individual.net>,
> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 May 2016 16:38:11 -0300, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>> > One day the preacher came for a visit -- important social occasion --
>> > and was offered coffee with milk on the side. Saith the preacher, "Miz
>> > Fisher, there's a mote in the milk." Sure enough, just a little black
>> > speck. So my grandmother ups with the corner of her fresh clean apron
>> > and daintily dabs at it and it doesn't stick. Try again, same result.
>> > So she abashedly reaches into the pitcher with two fingers and pinches
>> > ahold of it. And up comes the speck, the tip of a mouse's tail, sodden
>> > carcase now dripping beneath it.
>>
>> And of course the mouse was just part of a pan-dimensional being...
>
>Well that was a no braner.
Your joke is a bit flat.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 17:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9hk9kblq9bclbjc70ns01fsqd52fd66hbr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163933 |
On 24 May 2016 16:38:11 -0300, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 23 May 2016 16:43:42 -0300, Mike Spencer >> <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: >> >>> Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers >>> of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring >>> minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they >>> think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of >>> bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems >>> and/or enable total global dominance? >>> >>> Puzzled. >> >> One of the newer documentaries I've watched recently claims that >> neutrinos could be part of dark matter. > >When my mother was just a little girl, circa 1910, in a rather remote >and very rural place, before electricity or other 20th c. tech, with >only rare social events, milk was kept for a day in pitchers on a >shelf, covered with a cloth to keep the flies out. > >One day the preacher came for a visit -- important social occasion -- >and was offered coffee with milk on the side. Saith the preacher, >"Miz Fisher, there's a mote in the milk." Sure enough, just a little >black speck. So my grandmother ups with the corner of her fresh clean >apron and daintily dabs at it and it doesn't stick. Try again, same >result. So she abashedly reaches into the pitcher with two fingers >and pinches ahold of it. And up comes the speck, the tip of a mouse's >tail, sodden carcase now dripping beneath it. > >Maybe neutrinos are "motes in the universe" with all their mass >somehow attached beneath the 3-D surface. If'n we can just get aholt >of one the right way, who knows what may come up dripping beneath the >claws of our neutrino grabbitzer? True, there could be something... but getting some scientists to think outside the box is a bit of a problem. I know for certain some people I worked with had the same problem, if they couldn't look it up in a book, or web search and get an answer, they were lost. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1322670329.485796660.232776.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163872 |
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > >> They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and >> bottoms all the time. > > Never mind quarks. What's so exciting about neutrinos that every > country with two particle physicists to rub together has to have a > megabuck neutrino detector? Last off, China has a big one and is > working on plans for a huge one. > > Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers > of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring > minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they > think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of > bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems > and/or enable total global dominance? > I still think that this whole thing is going to be really simple. The current state of particle physics reminds me of the state of Ptolomaic astronomy where they had to keep adding epicycles to get everything to come out right. Now they keep adding particles, when what they need is the equivalent of the earth going around the sun. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 18:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160524181828.fe93dbe03c5c5ea0320b4079@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163904 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016 11:55:40 -0400 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > > > > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > > > >> They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and > >> bottoms all the time. > > > > Never mind quarks. What's so exciting about neutrinos that every > > country with two particle physicists to rub together has to have a > > megabuck neutrino detector? Last off, China has a big one and is > > working on plans for a huge one. > > > > Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers > > of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring > > minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they > > think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of > > bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems > > and/or enable total global dominance? > > > > I still think that this whole thing is going to be really simple. The > current state of particle physics reminds me of the state of Ptolomaic > astronomy where they had to keep adding epicycles to get everything to > come out right. Now they keep adding particles, when what they need is > the equivalent of the earth going around the sun. I suspect you are right - but there's a reputation good for centuries waiting for the person who has the insight that reveals the simplicity. -- 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 | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 13:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dqjkmrFjbe6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163916 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2016 11:55:40 -0400 > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: >> > >> > Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >> > >> >> They have some weird orientations; it is about ups and downs, tops and >> >> bottoms all the time. >> > >> > Never mind quarks. What's so exciting about neutrinos that every >> > country with two particle physicists to rub together has to have a >> > megabuck neutrino detector? Last off, China has a big one and is >> > working on plans for a huge one. >> > >> > Okay, so there're three different flavours/genders/varieties/whatevers >> > of neutrinos and nobody knows why. Fine, good question, enquiring >> > minds and all that. But who's fronting all that money because they >> > think finding out (a) will be the Next Big Thing and make billions of >> > bucks profits or (b) will lead to irresistable new weapons systems >> > and/or enable total global dominance? >> > >> >> I still think that this whole thing is going to be really simple. The >> current state of particle physics reminds me of the state of Ptolomaic >> astronomy where they had to keep adding epicycles to get everything to >> come out right. Now they keep adding particles, when what they need is >> the equivalent of the earth going around the sun. > > I suspect you are right - but there's a reputation good for > centuries waiting for the person who has the insight that reveals the > simplicity. We know of two force fields, the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field. The EM field, especially, just laid there, undiscovered, for thousands of years. Mankind has discovered only two, why couldn't there be another field? To illustrate what I mean - rather badly I'm afraid - think of the notion of a "telepathic" field. That's a vague notion of a third field but one I think anyone can at least conceive of, (and criticize). So redirect the general notion of fields to the current issues. I think any solution - if there is one - will involve inspiration, not logical thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a6422c2-0014-43ef-8a27-b87850a2b043@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163927 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:26:37 PM UTC-6, Osmium wrote: > We know of two force fields, the electromagnetic field and the gravitational > field. Actually, *four*. There's also the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Forgetting those two is why Einstein never came up with a Unified Field Theory. Kaluza-Klein, where a fifth dimension of space-time curled up into a circle took care of electromagnetism, could never be renormalized. Instead, the route to a unified field theory was from electromagnetism through the weak nuclear force - hence electroweak theory - and then the strong nuclear force - hence quantum chromodynamics - and only finally gravitation, yielding supergravity and string theory. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 17:03 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <878tyz9qbo.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163927 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: > "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 May 2016 11:55:40 -0400 >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> I still think that this whole thing is going to be really simple. The >>> current state of particle physics reminds me of the state of Ptolomaic >>> astronomy where they had to keep adding epicycles to get everything to >>> come out right. Now they keep adding particles, when what they need is >>> the equivalent of the earth going around the sun. >> >> I suspect you are right - but there's a reputation good for >> centuries waiting for the person who has the insight that reveals the >> simplicity. > > We know of two force fields, the electromagnetic field and the gravitational > field. The EM field, especially, just laid there, undiscovered, for > thousands of years. Mankind has discovered only two, why couldn't there be > another field? > > To illustrate what I mean - rather badly I'm afraid - think of the notion of > a "telepathic" field. That's a vague notion of a third field but one I > think anyone can at least conceive of, (and criticize). So redirect the > general notion of fields to the current issues. I think any solution - if > there is one - will involve inspiration, not logical thought. Who do we need here? Leibniz (monads), Rupert Sheldrake (morphogenetic fields) or Alan Sokal (hermeneutics of quantum gravity)? IIRC, I read somewhere that Douglas Hofstadter started out in particle physics but gave it up "because it was too hard" to pursue a differrent career. Douglas Hofstadter is way smarter than I am so I make only the feeblest, amateur effort to follow particle physics. A "really simple" model would be welcome. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57473888.9744812@nntp2.rawbw.com> |
| In reply to | #163927 |
On Tue, 24 May 2016 13:26:37 -0500, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: >We know of two force fields, the electromagnetic field and the gravitational >field. The EM field, especially, just laid there, undiscovered, for >thousands of years. Magnetism and natural phenomena like static charges and lightning have been observed for thousands of years. I wouldn't say the EM field was undiscovered, although the link between magnetism and electricity wasn't suspected. >To illustrate what I mean - rather badly I'm afraid - think of the notion of >a "telepathic" field. That's a vague notion of a third field but one I >think anyone can at least conceive of, (and criticize). Think "consciousness field," and read Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood's translation of the Patanjali Sutras (How to Know God: The Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali) for a look into a cosmology that essentially postulates the fundamental "stuff" of reality is undifferentiated consciousness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d86a193e-7e6f-48aa-9ada-b82e93b3a176@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163904 |
On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 9:55:41 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote: > I still think that this whole thing is going to be really simple. The > current state of particle physics reminds me of the state of Ptolomaic > astronomy where they had to keep adding epicycles to get everything to > come out right. Now they keep adding particles, when what they need is the > equivalent of the earth going around the sun. Huh? I thought this happened when they came up with quarks. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 17:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160510174714.d8466792d02b7b16e7c8c253@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163506 |
On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:42:46 -0400 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 2:58:18 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote: > >> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 3:43:04 AM UTC-6, Neo Fortune wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 6:42:00 PM UTC+1, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> > >>>> There is no ultimate computer... > >>> > >>> What About Earth? > >>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ > >>> > >>> The Meaning Of Life = 42 > >> > >> But "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was just a novel (and a > >> radio play, and a miniseries, and a movie), it didn't really happen. > >> Thus, the fact that the Earth was a greater computer than Deep > >> Thought, which was itself a greater computer than various other > >> contenders for the title, such as the Milliard Gargantubrain, in the > >> fictional universe of that novel means nothing in so far as the real > >> existence of an ultimate computer is concerned. > >> > >> John Savard > > > > I Think The Universe Is A Vast Quantum Computer > > > > This Is The Order Of Quantum Computation: > > > > Universe >> Galaxy >> Solar System >> Planet >> Countries >> Country >> > > Area >> Place >> Human >> Cells >> Brain > > > > Can Anyone Define This Better? > > > > Some scientists have suggested (seriously!) that our entire universe is a > simulation program running in an ultimate computer. Others have suggested that its not clear what level of nested simulation we're at, which promptly leads to a computers all the way up" model of the universe which is no better than turtles all the way down. -- 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 | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 14:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gqednZK8Pb9C4a7KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #163525 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:42:46 -0400 > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Some scientists have suggested (seriously!) that our entire universe is a >> simulation program running in an ultimate computer. > > Others have suggested that its not clear what level of nested > simulation we're at, which promptly leads to a computers all the way up" > model of the universe which is no better than turtles all the way down. At least you can make soup from turtles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005327C0FB6230B@aca4069b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163501 |
Neo Fortune wrote: > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 2:58:18 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote: >> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 3:43:04 AM UTC-6, Neo Fortune wrote: >> > On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 6:42:00 PM UTC+1, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> > > There is no ultimate computer... >> > >> > What About Earth? >> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ >> > >> > The Meaning Of Life = 42 >> >> But "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was just a novel (and a radio play, >> and a miniseries, and a movie), it didn't really happen. Thus, the fact that >> the Earth was a greater computer than Deep Thought, which was itself a greater >> computer than various other contenders for the title, such as the Milliard >> Gargantubrain, in the fictional universe of that novel means nothing in so far >> as the real existence of an ultimate computer is concerned. >> >> John Savard > > I Think The Universe Is A Vast Quantum Computer > > This Is The Order Of Quantum Computation: > > Universe >> Galaxy >> Solar System >> Planet >> Countries >> Country >> Area >> Place >> Human >> Cells >> Brain > > Can Anyone Define This Better? You're out of order. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 01:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e987e374-d7e5-436b-9f10-c41645510f1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163511 |
On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:35:53 PM UTC+1, jmfbahciv wrote: > Neo Fortune wrote: > > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 2:58:18 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote: > >> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 3:43:04 AM UTC-6, Neo Fortune wrote: > >> > On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 6:42:00 PM UTC+1, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> > >> > > There is no ultimate computer... > >> > > >> > What About Earth? > >> > > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjEdxO91RWQ > >> > > >> > The Meaning Of Life = 42 > >> > >> But "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was just a novel (and a radio > play, > >> and a miniseries, and a movie), it didn't really happen. Thus, the fact > that > >> the Earth was a greater computer than Deep Thought, which was itself a > greater > >> computer than various other contenders for the title, such as the Milliard > >> Gargantubrain, in the fictional universe of that novel means nothing in so > far > >> as the real existence of an ultimate computer is concerned. > >> > >> John Savard > > > > I Think The Universe Is A Vast Quantum Computer > > > > This Is The Order Of Quantum Computation: > > > > Universe >> Galaxy >> Solar System >> Planet >> Countries >> Country >> Area > >> Place >> Human >> Cells >> Brain > > > > Can Anyone Define This Better? > > You're out of order. > > /BAH It's Like The Ancient Maxim - As Above So Below When modern science extended the reach of its observation to the galaxies above and the microbes below, it made a surprising discovery: an atom proved strikingly similar to a solar system. Both were comprised of particles kept in orbit by the gravity of an energetic core. Modern technology had reiterated the wisdom of the ancients, who coined the very same discovery in the adage: As Above so Below. "Tis true without lying, certain and most true. That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below.” – Isaac Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism http://www.arkintime.com/as-above-so-below/ http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/below_above.html http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/ontablet.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-11 11:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1eeee0ad-31d5-45a4-9b7f-f0e59566711b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163550 |
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 2:44:59 AM UTC-6, Neo Fortune wrote: > "Tis true without lying, certain and most true. That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below.” – Isaac Newton Quote misattribution error. Emerald Tablets of Hermes Trismestigus. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web