Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #166092 > unrolled thread

The decline of the dinosaurs?

Started by"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
First post2016-06-29 09:23 +0100
Last post2016-06-29 17:25 -0500
Articles 20 on this page of 38 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers


Contents

  The decline of the dinosaurs? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-29 09:23 +0100
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 04:58 -0400
      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:46 +0000
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-29 12:12 +0100
      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-29 12:18 +0100
      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-29 15:39 +0200
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-29 10:09 -0500
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 15:54 +0000
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-06-29 11:11 -0500
              Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:22 +0000
                Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:51 +0000
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 19:28 +0100
                    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-29 19:37 +0000
                      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-06-29 23:15 -0300
                        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 06:46 -0400
                          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-30 11:38 +0000
                            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-30 18:54 +0000
                        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-01 14:43 +0100
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-29 12:07 -0700
                Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-06-30 12:52 +0100
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-30 14:15 +0200
                    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-30 18:54 +0000
                      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-30 23:04 +0200
                        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-01 12:49 +0000
                          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Moten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-01 14:54 +0200
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-06-30 13:06 -0400
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-29 11:24 -0500
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-06-29 11:08 -0500
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-29 18:51 +0100
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 19:28 +0100
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-29 12:07 -0700
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 17:52 -0400
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:33 +0000
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:50 +0100
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-01 08:26 -0500
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-06-29 07:50 -0400
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-29 11:59 -0700
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2016-06-29 17:25 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →


#166092 — The decline of the dinosaurs?

From"gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid>
Date2016-06-29 09:23 +0100
SubjectThe decline of the dinosaurs?
Message-ID<nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>
1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
programmable computers around.

Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
have gone the way of the dinosaurs?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#166096

From"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-29 04:58 -0400
Message-ID<MPG.31dd5797e467f0698a2e6@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#166092
In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid 
says...
> 
> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
> programmable computers around.
> 
> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?

The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just 
convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it 
doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real 
estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.

On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are numbered.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166101

FromWhiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com>
Date2016-06-29 10:46 +0000
Message-ID<slrnnn79p2.263.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>
In reply to#166096
On 2016-06-29, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
> says...
>> 
>> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35 years
>> ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero programmable
>> computers around.
>> 
>> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise of the PC,
>> just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus have gone the way of the
>> dinosaurs?
>
> The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just
> convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it
> doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real
> estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.
>
> On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are
> numbered.

Extending the biological analogy, rabbits aren't as powerful as
brontosaurs but there seem to be many more of one than the other.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166108

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-06-29 12:12 +0100
Message-ID<20160629121248.2747de86387406d4cadab7c4@eircom.net>
In reply to#166101
On 29 Jun 2016 10:46:58 GMT
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

> Extending the biological analogy, rabbits aren't as powerful as
> brontosaurs but there seem to be many more of one than the other.

	Weight for weight they're probably more powerful TAAAW.

-- 
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]


#166103

FromAndrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com>
Date2016-06-29 12:18 +0100
Message-ID<QuadnTEw05DBM-7KnZ2dnUU78fOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#166096
On 29/06/2016 09:58, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
> says...
>>
>> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
>> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
>> programmable computers around.
>>
>> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
>> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
>> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?
>
> The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just
> convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it
> doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real
> estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.
>
> On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are numbered.
>
You can buy keyboards and screens for the ARM microprocessor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166118

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-06-29 15:39 +0200
Message-ID<1lvc4d-d79.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#166096
In article <MPG.31dd5797e467f0698a2e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid 
>says...
>> 
>> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
>> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
>> programmable computers around.
>> 
>> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
>> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
>> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?
>
>The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just 
>convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it 
>doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real 
>estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.
>
>On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are numbered.

It has gone into "the network is the computer" almost seamlessly.

The computer-on-a-chip like the odroid, raspberrypi etc tell us
what the future PC will look like. 

A terminal. But a useful and friendly one. 

The Real Computers end up in protected, cooled buildings that try
hard to be invisible to the casual onlooker.

-- mrr


[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166124

From"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net>
Date2016-06-29 10:09 -0500
Message-ID<dti6koFj7ivU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#166118
"Morten Reistad" wrote:

> In article <MPG.31dd5797e467f0698a2e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>says...
>>>
>>> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
>>> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
>>> programmable computers around.
>>>
>>> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
>>> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
>>> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?
>>
>>The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just
>>convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it
>>doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real
>>estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.
>>
>>On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are numbered.
>
> It has gone into "the network is the computer" almost seamlessly.
>
> The computer-on-a-chip like the odroid, raspberrypi etc tell us
> what the future PC will look like.
>
> A terminal. But a useful and friendly one.
>
> The Real Computers end up in protected, cooled buildings that try
> hard to be invisible to the casual onlooker.

Yesterday, by chance I noticed a building in an industrial park that I had 
never noticed before.  The sign said "Industrial Records", or something like 
that.  It was about 200' on a side, two stories high and looked like a 
warehouse, except it had very few doors.  Except for legal reasons, that 
entire building could be replaced with a few external hard drives from Best 
Buy setting on someone's desk.   The access to existing records is almost 
zero and new data could be provided by a boy riding a bicycle around town.

That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should have 
a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the news.  My 
guess is less than five years.

Does anyone else remember a big repository for US Army records in St Louis 
burning down?  There is some chance that my records were consumed in that 
fire. I was in the Fifth Army when I was discharged, that's probably 
germane. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166132

FromHuge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
Date2016-06-29 15:54 +0000
Message-ID<dti9acFjkvjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#166124
On 2016-06-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:

[39 lines snipped]

> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should have 
> a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the news.  My 
> guess is less than five years.

Huh? It's already happened.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/code_spaces_destroyed/


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 34th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166138

FromJon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>
Date2016-06-29 11:11 -0500
Message-ID<2ZWdndgnNva8bu7KnZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#166132
Huge wrote:

> On 2016-06-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> [39 lines snipped]
> 
>> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should
>> have
>> a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the news.  My
>> guess is less than five years.
> 
> Huh? It's already happened.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/code_spaces_destroyed/
> 
> 
WOW!  Good reason to keep your own copy of everything you work on.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166139

FromHuge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
Date2016-06-29 16:22 +0000
Message-ID<dtiatgFjkvjU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#166138
On 2016-06-29, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> Huge wrote:
>
>> On 2016-06-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> [39 lines snipped]
>> 
>>> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should
>>> have
>>> a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the news.  My
>>> guess is less than five years.
>> 
>> Huh? It's already happened.
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/code_spaces_destroyed/
>> 
>> 
> WOW!  Good reason to keep your own copy of everything you work on.

Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
what you can afford to lose or have stolen."


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 34th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166144

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-06-29 16:51 +0000
Message-ID<nl0u9p02qh8@news6.newsguy.com>
In reply to#166139
On 2016-06-29, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-06-29, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>
>> Huge wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-06-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [39 lines snipped]
>>> 
>>>> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should
>>>> have a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the news.
>>>> My guess is less than five years.

Depends on how good the coverups are.

>>> Huh? It's already happened.
>>> 
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/code_spaces_destroyed/
>> 
>> WOW!  Good reason to keep your own copy of everything you work on.

<shudder>  A friend of ours lost most of his photos due to a cloud failure.

> Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
> what you can afford to lose or have stolen."

What amazes me is how few people see this as obvious.

Like I've been saying for a number of years: "Convenience trumps everything."

-- 
/~\  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]


#166154

From"Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
Date2016-06-29 19:28 +0100
Message-ID<op.yjtz81l1msr2db@dell3100.workgroup>
In reply to#166144
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:51:05 +0100, Charlie Gibbs  
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-06-29, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-06-29, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Huge wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [39 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we  
>>>>> should
>>>>> have a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the  
>>>>> news.
>>>>> My guess is less than five years.
>
> Depends on how good the coverups are.
>
>>>> Huh? It's already happened.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/code_spaces_destroyed/
>>>
>>> WOW!  Good reason to keep your own copy of everything you work on.
>
> <shudder>  A friend of ours lost most of his photos due to a cloud  
> failure.
>
>> Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>> what you can afford to lose or have stolen."
>
> What amazes me is how few people see this as obvious.
>
> Like I've been saying for a number of years: "Convenience trumps  
> everything."
>

"Give me convenience or give me death!"

Trump will trump all.



-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166167

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-06-29 19:37 +0000
Message-ID<nl181f21n7c@news4.newsguy.com>
In reply to#166154
On 2016-06-29, Kerr Mudd-John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:51:05 +0100, Charlie Gibbs  
> <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Like I've been saying for a number of years: "Convenience trumps  
>> everything."
>
> "Give me convenience or give me death!"

Or, as I heard it: "Death before inconvenience!"

> Trump will trump all.

Sadly, you might be right.  But under the doctrine of finding
pleasure where I can, I do enjoy watching the Republicans squirm.

-- 
/~\  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]


#166178

FromMike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
Date2016-06-29 23:15 -0300
Message-ID<87r3bfpgl5.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
In reply to#166167
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> Or, as I heard it: "Death before inconvenience!"

Under that rubric, those messages that say, "We apologize for the
inconvenience" really mean "With us, you're worse off that if you were
dead."

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166186

FromPeter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date2016-06-30 06:46 -0400
Message-ID<1071200323.488975912.383677.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#166178
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Or, as I heard it: "Death before inconvenience!"
> 
> Under that rubric, those messages that say, "We apologize for the
> inconvenience" really mean "With us, you're worse off that if you were
> dead."
> 

Right up there with "your phone call is important to us." If it was that
important you'd hire enough people to actually handle the calls.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166188

FromHuge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>
Date2016-06-30 11:38 +0000
Message-ID<dtkemaF2btjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#166186
On 2016-06-30, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>> 
>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> Or, as I heard it: "Death before inconvenience!"
>> 
>> Under that rubric, those messages that say, "We apologize for the
>> inconvenience" really mean "With us, you're worse off that if you were
>> dead."
>> 
>
> Right up there with "your phone call is important to us." If it was that
> important you'd hire enough people to actually handle the calls.

*applause*


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 35th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3182
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166207

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2016-06-30 18:54 +0000
Message-ID<nl3ptr0u8c@news4.newsguy.com>
In reply to#166188
On 2016-06-30, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-06-30, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>> 
>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Or, as I heard it: "Death before inconvenience!"
>>> 
>>> Under that rubric, those messages that say, "We apologize for the
>>> inconvenience" really mean "With us, you're worse off that if you were
>>> dead."
>>
>> Right up there with "your phone call is important to us." If it was that
>> important you'd hire enough people to actually handle the calls.
>
> *applause*

+1

    It's only a lifetime.
    It's only a lifetime.
    It's only a lifetime.
      -- Pink Floyd: A New Machine, Part 2

-- 
/~\  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]


#166245

From"Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
Date2016-07-01 14:43 +0100
Message-ID<op.yjxcd3nimsr2db@dell3100.workgroup>
In reply to#166178
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 03:15:34 +0100, Mike Spencer  
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

>
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> Or, as I heard it: "Death before inconvenience!"
>
> Under that rubric, those messages that say, "We apologize for the
> inconvenience" really mean "With us, you're worse off that if you were
> dead."
>
God's final message to the world; H2G2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#So_Long.2C_and_Thanks_for_All_the_Fish

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166161

Fromhancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Date2016-06-29 12:07 -0700
Message-ID<25961aef-a895-4c5b-a0c7-f077461a7072@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#166144
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 12:48:36 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:


> Like I've been saying for a number of years: "Convenience trumps everything."

Yep.

Look at telephones.  We used to seek maximum clarity and reliability
as we used our landline phones.  But then convenience won out, and we
switched to cell phones, despite their notorious unreliability and
poor sound quality.  (This is documented in the Bell Labs history).

(Stand next to someone using their cell phone, and listen to how
many times they have to repeat themselves, or ask the other party
to repeat themselves.)

Convenience applies to PC's, too.  Historically, the business
community would never have tolerated the "fuzzy" reliability of
websites, poor security, frequent crashes, viruses/malware, etc
of PC life.  But the convenience of a personal desktop machine
with automated easy-to-use software trumps all.

Indeed, back when we used typewriters, a substantial part of a
typist's training was neatness and arrangement of information on
the paper.  Today, it amazes me how often I get a document
slapped out of a PC (such as a screen print) spread out over
multiple sheets when one sheet will do, or, printed in microfine
type in a corner of a full sheet of paper, etc.  Or better still,
when someone else's records come out adjacent to mine on the
document.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#166189

FromStephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com>
Date2016-06-30 12:52 +0100
Message-ID<sr1anb52gajn518d2gkiplt6l75d88rsqa@4ax.com>
In reply to#166139
On 29 Jun 2016 16:22:08 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>what you can afford to lose or have stolen."

I've never used the cloud. I don't see the point in storing ancient
messages. 

Steve

-- 
Neural Network Software for Windows                 http://www.npsnn.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers


csiph-web