Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
| From | "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dks99hFmamfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161051 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:ncakot$gu1$1@dont-email.me... > On 3/15/2016 9:29 PM, Jim Bank wrote: >> >> >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >> news:f53ed715-240c-4b52-b434-25ca3a79f82b@googlegroups.com... >>> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:45:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >>> >>>> This amazes me! If you read Sherlock Holmes, it appears he got >>>> mail in >>>> London at least twice a day, maybe more. Don't try to tell me that >>>> things >>>> have gotten better - we pay a lot more (even in constant dollars, I >>>> think) >>>> fir far worse service. >>> >>> The quality of mail service has been declining for decades. >>> The price has gone up while service went down. >> >> The price has gone up because the volume of mail moved >> has gone down dramatically and that means that each item >> of mail has to cost more to produce the same revenue to pay >> for the cost of providing a mail service. > > The price has also gone up because in 2006 a law was passed (by those in > Congress intent on driving the government out of the postal business) > requiring the USPO to pre-fund retiree health benefits, unlike any other > branch of government or corporation. The problem with that line is that the cost of posting a letter has gone up in all modern first and second world countries for the reason I gave, without anything like that Congressional requirement in the US.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnei9n9.19f.mausg@Smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #161038 |
On 2016-03-16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:45:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: > > >> > I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer >> > offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a >> > hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website >> > only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified >> > Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think >> > there's any comparable email. >> >> Is that even legal? They have to have a physical address somewhere, >> although finding it is often a problem. > > Good question. But, as far as I've seen, a lot of corporate websites > do not have any physical address. If they do, it's often buried. > > I think companies today _don't_ want to people to know their physical > address--they're afraid for their security. Most of the weekend lenders in the UK area, have at best a brass plate, and maybe , someone to answer the phone. All else is webbased, except for the people collecting debts, which I am told are very real. Source: TV program. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vu3orc-pac.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #161068 |
In article <slrnnei9n9.19f.mausg@Smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >On 2016-03-16, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 5:45:48 PM UTC-4, Peter Flass wrote: >> >> >>> > I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer >>> > offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a >>> > hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website >>> > only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified >>> > Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think >>> > there's any comparable email. >>> >>> Is that even legal? They have to have a physical address somewhere, >>> although finding it is often a problem. >> >> Good question. But, as far as I've seen, a lot of corporate websites >> do not have any physical address. If they do, it's often buried. >> >> I think companies today _don't_ want to people to know their physical >> address--they're afraid for their security. > > >Most of the weekend lenders in the UK area, have at best a brass plate, >and maybe , someone to answer the phone. All else is webbased, except for >the people collecting debts, which I am told are very real. There has been a severe tightening of company identification rules as a part of the anti-whitewash campaign running for more than a decade now. The requirement to have an address to deliver subpoenas to is EU-wide. I checked. You can also make cash payments here as a last resort. It will have to be staffed at least at some known time every week, as announced on the company registry or some medium referenced from there, e.g. a web page. You can delegate this to a lawyer, auditor or accountant, but only to such licensed professionals. All contracts must also have either the corporate registry number or a name and address that uniquely identifies the company, and where you can pay in cash or deliver subpoenas. The pay in cash requirement has been relaxed in some countries, but definatly not in the UK. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ncbrgr$g47$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #161076 |
On 16-Mar-16 08:33, Morten Reistad wrote: > <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> I think companies today _don't_ want to people to know their >>> physical address--they're afraid for their security. >> >> Most of the weekend lenders in the UK area, have at best a brass >> plate, and maybe , someone to answer the phone. All else is >> webbased, except for the people collecting debts, which I am told >> are very real. > > There has been a severe tightening of company identification rules > as a part of the anti-whitewash campaign running for more than a > decade now. > > The requirement to have an address to deliver subpoenas to is > EU-wide. I checked. You can also make cash payments here as a last > resort. > > It will have to be staffed at least at some known time every week, > as announced on the company registry or some medium referenced from > there, e.g. a web page. You can delegate this to a lawyer, auditor or > accountant, but only to such licensed professionals. In the US, a corporation must designate a "registered agent" in every state in which they do business, and that is who receives service of process. There is no requirement to publish this to anyone but the state itself, but the state's records are open to the public. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31511b137bb03bcd98a026@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160956 |
In article <bd7d6fac-f0ba-468c-ab5c-4778b9a22797@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 1:58:40 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > > > What sticks in my head is a movie (Saving Private Ryan?) showing taxis > > delivering telegrams from the Army to notify next of kin of a soldier's > > death. According to the movie, it was so common during wartime that > > neighbors seeing a taxi stop at a house would just assume the relevant > > husband/son had died and come over to console the widow/mother. I got > > the sense that typical suburban families (a) rarely received telegrams > > and (b) rarely used taxis. > > In WW II, they still made good use of bicycle messengers, and WU > had branch offices everywhere. Taxis would've been rather expensive > on a routine basis, so I think they would've used a motor messenger > if the person lived too far from the telegraph office. Back then, > the suburbs weren't developed yet, and far more people lived in > the city or small town. I don't know how rural folks were served. > > As mentioned, individuals didn't use telegrams too much, although > more affluent people might have used them to announce a trip--at > least from what I've seen in the movies. > > > > > I don't think I've ever seen a telegram; when I was a kid, we were > > expected to send letters to relatives for most things or, if it was > > urgent, a very short phone call. I taught my parents about email in my > > early teens, and it saved them so much on talking with my sisters (both > > at college) that they happily paid my ISP bill from then on. > > By the time you were young the telegram was obsolete. Also, the > minimum time for a phone call was dropped to one minute (instead > of three), so for a quick message an interstate phone call wasn't > very expensive. Heck, a telegram was obsolete when I was a kid. > > In the distant past, telegrams were only used urgent matters, > you only got 15 words; people wrote letters for everything else. > Going way back, people wrote often. Indeed, I was told that > in the city residents had delivery twice a day. In WW II, > a letter was only 3c, and I think that was pretty cheap > even when adjusted to real dollars. > > When I was in college extended phone calls were still expensive, > but frankly, we were too lazy to write, and drove our parents > crazy running up big phone bills. It got really bad if a college > kid met a boyfriend/girlfriend from a distant city. > > (I think in more recent years long distance carriers offered > reasonably priced personal inward WATS lines. Of course today > it's a non-issue. Even kids who are overseas, which seems to > be fairly common now, can call home cheaply.) > > I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer > offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a > hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website > only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified > Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think > there's any comparable email. If it's a publicly-traded business find the 10-K report (you can usually find by googling "<company name> 10-K"), which is a public record and required to be filed with the SEC. That will have a mailing address, phone number, and the names of the officers. > Also, even with modern post office problems, postal mail is > pretty reliable, and IMHO, more so than email. For some unkown > reason, sometimes perfectly legitimate messages from friends > get dumped in the spam filters. > > Geez, in the business world 40 years ago, letter writing was a > big part of the routine, even for trivial stuff and local > communications. In school English class we studied how to > write both personal and business letters. AT&T used to > advertise for people to use the telephone instead of writing. > Offices were filled with secretaries who typed and mailed letters, > and companies had busy mail rooms to deliver the mail internally. > Now, of course, mail volume has greatly dwindled. Our office in- > basket once was filled with mail each day, now it's a trickle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <hcvkrc-6f8.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160980 |
In article <MPG.31511b137bb03bcd98a026@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <bd7d6fac-f0ba-468c-ab5c-4778b9a22797@googlegroups.com>, >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 1:58:40 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> >> >> > What sticks in my head is a movie (Saving Private Ryan?) showing taxis >> > delivering telegrams from the Army to notify next of kin of a soldier's >> > death. According to the movie, it was so common during wartime that >> > neighbors seeing a taxi stop at a house would just assume the relevant >> > husband/son had died and come over to console the widow/mother. I got >> > the sense that typical suburban families (a) rarely received telegrams >> > and (b) rarely used taxis. >> >> In WW II, they still made good use of bicycle messengers, and WU >> had branch offices everywhere. Taxis would've been rather expensive >> on a routine basis, so I think they would've used a motor messenger >> if the person lived too far from the telegraph office. Back then, >> the suburbs weren't developed yet, and far more people lived in >> the city or small town. I don't know how rural folks were served. >> >> As mentioned, individuals didn't use telegrams too much, although >> more affluent people might have used them to announce a trip--at >> least from what I've seen in the movies. >> >> >> >> > I don't think I've ever seen a telegram; when I was a kid, we were >> > expected to send letters to relatives for most things or, if it was >> > urgent, a very short phone call. I taught my parents about email in my >> > early teens, and it saved them so much on talking with my sisters (both >> > at college) that they happily paid my ISP bill from then on. >> >> By the time you were young the telegram was obsolete. Also, the >> minimum time for a phone call was dropped to one minute (instead >> of three), so for a quick message an interstate phone call wasn't >> very expensive. Heck, a telegram was obsolete when I was a kid. >> >> In the distant past, telegrams were only used urgent matters, >> you only got 15 words; people wrote letters for everything else. >> Going way back, people wrote often. Indeed, I was told that >> in the city residents had delivery twice a day. In WW II, >> a letter was only 3c, and I think that was pretty cheap >> even when adjusted to real dollars. >> >> When I was in college extended phone calls were still expensive, >> but frankly, we were too lazy to write, and drove our parents >> crazy running up big phone bills. It got really bad if a college >> kid met a boyfriend/girlfriend from a distant city. >> >> (I think in more recent years long distance carriers offered >> reasonably priced personal inward WATS lines. Of course today >> it's a non-issue. Even kids who are overseas, which seems to >> be fairly common now, can call home cheaply.) >> >> I must admit it irks me that many businesses today no longer >> offer a real address, so that if someone wants to send them a >> hard copy letter, they have no way to do so; it's email or website >> only. If there is a problem, a hard copy letter sent by Certified >> Mail does offer legal proof of communication; and I don't think >> there's any comparable email. > >If it's a publicly-traded business find the 10-K report (you can usually >find by googling "<company name> 10-K"), which is a public record and >required to be filed with the SEC. That will have a mailing address, >phone number, and the names of the officers. In the EU and accompanying areas you must have identifying information clearly in any contract or material leadin up to one; like sales offers, marketing etc. You either need the corporate registration number or a unique name. In practice, you need to be able to go to the web site of the corporate registry and enter either the number or the name and find one, and only one, company. Otherwise the contract is null and void, as lots of court cases now confirm. This also goes for you as a contract partner. You either need your personal id number or a unique name+address. >> Also, even with modern post office problems, postal mail is >> pretty reliable, and IMHO, more so than email. For some unkown >> reason, sometimes perfectly legitimate messages from friends >> get dumped in the spam filters. >> >> Geez, in the business world 40 years ago, letter writing was a >> big part of the routine, even for trivial stuff and local >> communications. In school English class we studied how to >> write both personal and business letters. AT&T used to >> advertise for people to use the telephone instead of writing. >> Offices were filled with secretaries who typed and mailed letters, >> and companies had busy mail rooms to deliver the mail internally. >> Now, of course, mail volume has greatly dwindled. Our office in- >> basket once was filled with mail each day, now it's a trickle. Post office still delivers mail, but some of it can be weeks late, especially in suburbia. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f2c05b9-9d14-4f79-9318-44e06926b22d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160927 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:04:47 AM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: > I don't think our family ever received a telegram. I think of boys on > bicycles delivering them as the standard MO, i.e., there is no preceding > telephone call. If my understanding was ever true, when did it stop? I don't know the exact date, but I think the use of boys ended way back in the 1950s. Telegrams were expensive, and relatively rare for working people. I think they were more for the 'more comfortable' and business community. I was told by several sources that working people only used telegrams to announce a death, so a telegraph messenger was not a welcome sight, especially during WW II. Indeed, someone wrote a well-known fiction book about the life of a boy messenger. WU attempted to solve the delivery problem with Mailgram, letting the US Post Office do the delivery. It was a big success for a while. I remember CompuServe offering a Mailgram interface, and I thought that was kind of neat, a link between the past and the future. I remember Mailgram printers were quite wavy and the delivered document looked cheap (IMHO). The old telegrams, printed by teleprinter on a distinguished looking blank, had some dignity and importance about them, while a Mailgram looked like junk mail. (Indeed, toward the end WU sold the service for junk mail). Like so many companies, in the 1960s developed a fancy modern logo and redid the telegram and Mailgram blank to be ultra modern. I thought it was ugly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dkogemFpl8hU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160953 |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:58:13 -0700, hancock4 wrote: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:04:47 AM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: > >> I don't think our family ever received a telegram. I think of boys on >> bicycles delivering them as the standard MO, i.e., there is no >> preceding telephone call. If my understanding was ever true, when did >> it stop? > > I don't know the exact date, but I think the use of boys ended way back > in the 1950s. Apart from in the Catholic Church :( Seriously, I am pretty sure that in the UK, there were telegram deliveries well into the 1980s. I remember (earlier than that) that the boys used motorbikes - red BSA Bantams - for quite a while. http://www.realclassic.co.uk/bikepix/post06080301.jpg -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnee7gc.1c5.mausg@Smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #160954 |
On 2016-03-14, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:58:13 -0700, hancock4 wrote: > >> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:04:47 AM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: >> >>> I don't think our family ever received a telegram. I think of boys on >>> bicycles delivering them as the standard MO, i.e., there is no >>> preceding telephone call. If my understanding was ever true, when did >>> it stop? >> >> I don't know the exact date, but I think the use of boys ended way back >> in the 1950s. > > Apart from in the Catholic Church :( > > Seriously, I am pretty sure that in the UK, there were telegram > deliveries well into the 1980s. I remember (earlier than that) that the > boys used motorbikes - red BSA Bantams - for quite a while. > > http://www.realclassic.co.uk/bikepix/post06080301.jpg > Boys did the carrying into the 50's in ireland, then a local golf club got a phone. That was that. Up to the 70's, it was customary to send a congratulary telegram to weddings, and time would be taken to read them out. The Hospitals sweeps informed winners that they had won with telegrams, (There was a joke that a rural family would see the telegraph boy coming, get excited, and the telegram would say something like "You took the wrong pigs, return them" -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31511a59168d7b4c98a025@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160953 |
In article <2f2c05b9-9d14-4f79-9318-44e06926b22d@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 11:04:47 AM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: > > > I don't think our family ever received a telegram. I think of boys on > > bicycles delivering them as the standard MO, i.e., there is no preceding > > telephone call. If my understanding was ever true, when did it stop? > > I don't know the exact date, but I think the use of boys ended > way back in the 1950s. FWIW, in "Alas, Babylon", written in 1959 and placed in that approximate time frame, Pat Frank mentions that the bicycle messenger at the Western Union office (a "boy" only in the racially pejorative sense) was off duty on a Saturday. Whether he was describing the contemporary state of WU or his remembrance of times past I have no idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314c73a4aad4509a989fe2@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160839 |
In article <16m4ebpgco28bt6d5t8bj2qt0ah7urpo9h@4ax.com>, Newsgnus@gmail.com says... > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> > wrote: > > >On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote: > >> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say: > > > >> > When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came years > >> >later. > > > >> Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud? And Baudot teletype code? > > > >Now, that is a good one! > > My first 'home' computer didn't have a modem. > Storage was a cassette recorder. > > My 2nd had a 110 baud modem that you set the phone handset into. > > I was in HEAVEN when I got a 1200 baud that could actually DIAL > withOUT the use of a phone. The first computer I used I communicated with via a 2741 terminal. The first one I owned had a cassette for a while but I very quickly upgraded it with a diskette drive--unfortunately I wasn't in a situation to buy an Altair and wish I had been--it wasn't until near the end of the CP/M era that I could afford my own machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h_6dnToPZ9OcNn_LnZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #160839 |
The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:55:58 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> > wrote: > >>On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gregory G. Woodbury wrote: >>> Robert Billing <unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> shaped electrons to say: >> >>> > When I started 110 baud was The Industry Standard, 300 baud came years >>> >later. >> >>> Newcomer, don't you remember 50 baud? And Baudot teletype code? >> >>Now, that is a good one! > > My first 'home' computer didn't have a modem. > Storage was a cassette recorder. My first computer slept in a hole on the side of the road and it was uphill 30 miles in the snow to get to school where we had no breakfast or shoes. Your turn. Actually, my first home digital computer didn't have a modem at first, nor floppy drives. Programs were loaded from cassette tape. That wasn't very satisfactory, so I quickly got a floppy drive and then later got a 300 baud modem (not one with an acoustic coupler though). I originally felt that a better printer was more important than a modem, so I got a second printer before a modem. Once I found out about bulletin boards and connected to a few, the modem increased in importance. :) > > My 2nd had a 110 baud modem that you set the phone handset into. > > I was in HEAVEN when I got a 1200 baud that could actually DIAL > withOUT the use of a phone. I don't remember whether it was when I moved from 300 to 1200, or from 1200 to 2400 that I was really impressed because text then loaded faster than I could read. :) I think you had to be much more motivated to learn to use computers years ago, and it was a bit of a secret world that no everyone knew about. Now computing devices are everywhere and I don't think that most people even know how amazing that is. I suppose every technology gets to the point where people take it for granted. We miss something when we do that. One of the things I like about this newsgroup, and that caused me to lurk for a long time and just read, is that many people who post here still have an attachment to some older technologies and still seem to have that sense of wonder about them. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbuul601qrf@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160852 |
On 2016-03-11, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > I don't remember whether it was when I moved from 300 to 1200, or from > 1200 to 2400 that I was really impressed because text then loaded > faster than I could read. :) For me, going from 300 to 1200 was the big jump - although going from there to 2400 was a welcome increase as well. That was about the time people started misusing the term "baud". When I went to 1200 bps, my .sig read "600 baud and proud of it!" I didn't have to change it when I went to 2400 bps. :-) > I think you had to be much more motivated to learn to use computers > years ago, and it was a bit of a secret world that no everyone knew > about. Now computing devices are everywhere and I don't think that most > people even know how amazing that is. Knowing what's going on inside is still a secret world - but now, alas, few people _want_ to know about it. :-( > I suppose every technology gets to the point where people take it for > granted. We miss something when we do that. Amen, brother. > One of the things I like about this newsgroup, and that caused me to > lurk for a long time and just read, is that many people who post here > still have an attachment to some older technologies and still seem to > have that sense of wonder about them. :) True. It's fun to think about what we're doing in terms of old hardware and software. It's also infuriating, though, when we think of how much progress has been eaten up by bloatware. For instance, response times haven't really improved much at all. That's why I like using - and writing - old-style software on new machines: it runs like lightning. -- /~\ 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 | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <noDEy.74616$Io5.48126@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #160863 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: >On 2016-03-11, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >> I don't remember whether it was when I moved from 300 to 1200, or from >> 1200 to 2400 that I was really impressed because text then loaded >> faster than I could read. :) > >For me, going from 300 to 1200 was the big jump - although going from >there to 2400 was a welcome increase as well. > For me, it was from 110 (ASR-33) to 300 (Decwriter LA-120) - a three-fold increase (and a full 132 columns instead of 80, but the LA120 didn't have a paper tape reader/punch). The terminal room at University (LSI ADM3a) ran at 1200, but if you knew that the dip switches were under the little plate on the left (iirc), you could select up to 9600 if you used the SET TERM command first (VMS) (although if too many folks did this, the 11/45 terminal concentrator would choke).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Jqqdnbn3It1gvX7LnZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160863 |
Charlie Gibbs wrote: > True. It's fun to think about what we're doing in terms of old > hardware and software. It's also infuriating, though, when we > think of how much progress has been eaten up by bloatware. For > instance, response times haven't really improved much at all. > That's why I like using - and writing - old-style software on > new machines: it runs like lightning. > One of the most responsive systems I ever had was an S-100, CP/M system with a Z-80 CPU. But, I had a Memorex 10 MB Winchester-type SASI disk drive on it. Of course, CP/M had no directory hierarchy, so it was one massively confusing pile of files. Then, I moved to a uVAX-II, and that was fantastic for a few years. Now, I use a 3.4 GHz Intel i5 system running Linux, with an SSD. It is pretty responsive to use, but has easily 1000X the processing speed and more than 1000X the memory capacity of the uVAX, and maybe 10K time that of the CP/M system. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314d28e85ce7fcda989fe4@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160863 |
In article <nbuul601qrf@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid says... > > On 2016-03-11, Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > > > I don't remember whether it was when I moved from 300 to 1200, or from > > 1200 to 2400 that I was really impressed because text then loaded > > faster than I could read. :) > > For me, going from 300 to 1200 was the big jump - although going from > there to 2400 was a welcome increase as well. > > That was about the time people started misusing the term "baud". > When I went to 1200 bps, my .sig read "600 baud and proud of it!" > I didn't have to change it when I went to 2400 bps. :-) > > > I think you had to be much more motivated to learn to use computers > > years ago, and it was a bit of a secret world that no everyone knew > > about. Now computing devices are everywhere and I don't think that most > > people even know how amazing that is. > > Knowing what's going on inside is still a secret world - but now, alas, > few people _want_ to know about it. :-( > > > I suppose every technology gets to the point where people take it for > > granted. We miss something when we do that. > > Amen, brother. > > > One of the things I like about this newsgroup, and that caused me to > > lurk for a long time and just read, is that many people who post here > > still have an attachment to some older technologies and still seem to > > have that sense of wonder about them. :) > > True. It's fun to think about what we're doing in terms of old > hardware and software. It's also infuriating, though, when we > think of how much progress has been eaten up by bloatware. For > instance, response times haven't really improved much at all. > That's why I like using - and writing - old-style software on > new machines: it runs like lightning. We test PC code against mainframe code--different programs by different programmers on different architectures that are supposed to give the same results. It's fascinating to watch the PC grind away for 20 minutes and the mainframe, with an only slightly faster processor and several thousand users, spit the same calculation out in 20 seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160312022016.572e0dee@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #160882 |
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:12:09 -0500 "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > > We test PC code against mainframe code--different programs by > different programmers on different architectures that are supposed to > give the same results. It's fascinating to watch the PC grind away > for 20 minutes and the mainframe, with an only slightly faster > processor and several thousand users, spit the same calculation out > in 20 seconds. What calculation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87io0sjvwj.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160882 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > We test PC code against mainframe code--different programs by different > programmers on different architectures that are supposed to give the > same results. It's fascinating to watch the PC grind away for 20 > minutes and the mainframe, with an only slightly faster processor and > several thousand users, spit the same calculation out in 20 seconds. MIPS measured by Dhrystone ... is count of benchmark iterations compared to 370/158 assumed to be 1MIP processor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_instructions_per_second z900, 16 processors, 2.5BIPS (156MIPS/proc), Dec2000 z990, 32 processors, 9BIPS, (281MIPS/proc), 2003 z9, 54 processors, 18BIPS (333MIPS/proc), July2005 z10, 64 processors, 30BIPS (469MIPS/proc), Feb2008 z196, 80 processors, 50BIPS (625MIPS/proc), Jul2010 EC12, 101 processors, 75BIPS (743MIPS/proc), Aug2012 the z13 refs that I've seen published is that it has 30% more throughput than EC12 (or about 100BIPS) with 40% more processors ... or about 710MIPS/proc. Claim was that at least half the per processor throughput improvement from z10->z196 was the introduction of cache miss compensation features that have been in other architectures for decades, out-of-order execution, branch prediction, speculative execution, etc. Further refinements supposedly contributes to further throughput improvement in EC12. z196-era e5-2600v1 blade have ratings 400-500+ BIPS depending on model ... 16 processors (25BIPS-33BIPS/processor). Current e5-2600v4 blade supposed to be 3-4 times e5-2600v1 ... somewhere around 1500BIPS (possibly 15 times that of z13) e5-2600 blade can go for a couple thousand compared to around $30M for the mainframe. e5-2600 can be configured with comparable configuration to z10, z196, ec12, z13, etc ... with fibre-channel with much higher throughput than mainframe FICON (running over fibre-channel) and industry fixed block disks as used by mainframes where they have overhead of CKD emulation on same industry fixed block disks compareable e5-2600 server should have signifciantly better throughput than mainframe server at 1/10,000 (or less) the cost. for unloaded PC to run 100 times slower than heavily loaded mainframe would have to mean that there are other factors at play. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314d98bc4400f864989fe9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160886 |
In article <87io0sjvwj.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > We test PC code against mainframe code--different programs by different > > programmers on different architectures that are supposed to give the > > same results. It's fascinating to watch the PC grind away for 20 > > minutes and the mainframe, with an only slightly faster processor and > > several thousand users, spit the same calculation out in 20 seconds. > > MIPS measured by Dhrystone ... is count of benchmark iterations compared > to 370/158 assumed to be 1MIP processor > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_instructions_per_second > > z900, 16 processors, 2.5BIPS (156MIPS/proc), Dec2000 > z990, 32 processors, 9BIPS, (281MIPS/proc), 2003 > z9, 54 processors, 18BIPS (333MIPS/proc), July2005 > z10, 64 processors, 30BIPS (469MIPS/proc), Feb2008 > z196, 80 processors, 50BIPS (625MIPS/proc), Jul2010 > EC12, 101 processors, 75BIPS (743MIPS/proc), Aug2012 > > the z13 refs that I've seen published is that it has 30% more throughput > than EC12 (or about 100BIPS) with 40% more processors ... or about > 710MIPS/proc. > > Claim was that at least half the per processor throughput improvement > from z10->z196 was the introduction of cache miss compensation features > that have been in other architectures for decades, out-of-order > execution, branch prediction, speculative execution, etc. Further > refinements supposedly contributes to further throughput improvement in > EC12. > > z196-era e5-2600v1 blade have ratings 400-500+ BIPS depending on model > ... 16 processors (25BIPS-33BIPS/processor). > > Current e5-2600v4 blade supposed to be 3-4 times e5-2600v1 ... somewhere > around 1500BIPS (possibly 15 times that of z13) > > e5-2600 blade can go for a couple thousand compared to around $30M for > the mainframe. > > e5-2600 can be configured with comparable configuration to z10, z196, > ec12, z13, etc ... with fibre-channel with much higher throughput than > mainframe FICON (running over fibre-channel) and industry fixed block > disks as used by mainframes where they have overhead of CKD emulation on > same industry fixed block disks > > compareable e5-2600 server should have signifciantly better throughput > than mainframe server at 1/10,000 (or less) the cost. > > for unloaded PC to run 100 times slower than heavily loaded mainframe > would have to mean that there are other factors at play. Yep, you're starting to "get it". How much overhead is there in Windows? How much in MVS?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87k2l7aa0m.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #160890 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > Yep, you're starting to "get it". How much overhead is there in > Windows? How much in MVS? don't run windows, the cloud megadatacenters with servers mostly run linux, hundreds of thousands of systems with millions of processors in a cloud megadatacenters. it has been long time since industry standard TPC & SPEC numbers manage to leak out for mainframe. IBM still publishes TPC numbers for non-mainframe but it has been ages since any numbers for mainframe http://www.tpc.org/ similarly for SPEC https://www.spec.org/ largely motivated by cloud megadatacenters benchmarks are starting to include energy efficiency per operation. system costs have been so commoditized, that for the cloud megadatacenters power & cooling has increasingly become major cost. when there use to be mainframe TPC DBMS transaction benchmarks manage to leak out, unix&linux systems got ten times throughput or more than mainframe (and cost/transaction was off the chart). most recent, there was peak i/o benchmark numbers leaked out for z196 ... it got 2M IOPS using 104 FICON (running on 104 fibre-channel). about the same time there was a single fibre-channel for e5-2600 blade claiming over million IOPS (two such fibre-channel having higher throughput than 104 FICON running on 104 fibre-channel). z196 has 14 system support processors dedicated for off loading some of the i/o processing (these are in addition to the "80" processors for execution). Published numbers are that all 14 processors run 100% busy doing 2.2M/sec SSCH (i/o) instructions ... however recommend operational characteristics is to keep the system support processors to 75% busy or 1.5M/sec SSCH. So far I've only seen EC12 throughput expressed in approx. some percent more than z196, and similarly z13 throughput expressed in approx. some percent more than EC12 ... but no actual benchmarks ... and for z13, not even the previously quoted BIPS numbers. really long ago and far away, did compare NFS 8kbyte packet transfer in UNIX at aggregate/total 5k instructions and equivalent operation in MVS with LU6.2 was 160kbyte instructions (at a time when MVS tcp/ip pathlength through VTAM was longer than the SNA pathlength through VTAM). At the time MVS pathlength for just interrupt processing was 10k instructions ... some part of which have since been offloaded to the system support processors (i.e. UNIX could completely do two NFS 8kbyte packet transfers in the instructions that it took MVS to just do processing for single interrupt; the MVS instructions didn't actually go away, just been offloaded into extra dedicated processors). The one place that mainframe does save some advantage ... is calls between applications and subsystems. unix/linux have always been multiple different address spaces and operations had to be message passing through kernel calls. MVS history has forever been pointer passing API in the same address space (from os/360 days). This was an enormously tramantic moving to MVS with everything in different address space. Eventually they defined access registers and program call/return instructions. There are hardware tables for program call for the defined subsystems ... including their address space information. Access registers allow for multiply defined active virtual address spaces, primary and some number of alternates. The program call instruction will swap the application address space into a non-primary access register and load the called subsystem into the primary access register. The subsystem than has instructions to load/store from the non-primary (calling application) virtual address space. Then program return instruction will move the calling application virtual address space from non-primary virtual address space access register back into the primary virtual address space access register. In non-mainframe hardware, a call to subsystem in different address space will require kernel call with lots of processing in the kernel (which is moved into hardware architecture in mainframe). For this to dominate in benchmark ... it would have to be nearly all kernel processing time (handling message passing calls back & forth between address spaces) ... since all the other MVS processing is taking significantly larger number of instructions on significantly slower processor. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web