Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #2879 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-19 15:44 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-05-21 13:06 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 200 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-19 15:44 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-19 15:47 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-19 21:33 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-21 10:32 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-21 11:01 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-21 11:38 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-21 12:23 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn bill@server3.cs.scranton.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2014-05-21 12:40 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-21 15:59 +0300
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-21 13:16 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-21 18:38 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-21 13:18 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2014-05-21 13:46 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-21 21:22 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-21 15:03 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-21 15:20 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2014-05-22 21:40 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-05-22 08:20 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-05-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-05-23 07:21 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn pechter@tucker.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2014-05-21 19:11 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-21 20:18 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-21 21:16 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-21 22:19 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-05-21 23:02 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-05-22 05:42 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-22 19:22 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-05-22 19:26 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-05-22 17:52 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-22 18:02 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-23 02:02 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-05-23 13:16 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-23 06:51 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-23 09:35 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-05-23 19:55 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2014-05-23 09:49 -0600
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-23 19:24 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2014-05-23 14:23 -0600
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-24 16:19 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-23 07:32 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-23 07:09 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-23 09:36 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-23 19:00 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-23 15:21 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-23 21:58 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-24 00:34 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-05-24 10:22 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-23 17:35 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-24 10:20 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-05-24 21:41 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-24 00:33 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Christian Corti <use@reply.to> - 2014-05-24 10:39 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-24 09:28 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-24 13:13 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-05-24 10:51 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-05-24 18:50 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-24 20:05 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stan Barr <plan.b@dsl.pipex.com> - 2014-05-24 16:22 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-24 19:30 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-26 09:36 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-05-26 15:01 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-26 22:02 +0300
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-26 19:17 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-05-26 15:40 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-26 22:14 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Christian Corti <use@reply.to> - 2014-05-25 22:30 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-26 05:02 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-05-24 20:34 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-24 13:36 +0300
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-24 16:29 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-24 14:47 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Christian Corti <use@reply.to> - 2014-05-25 22:43 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-26 11:49 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-26 14:18 +0300
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Christian Corti <use@reply.to> - 2014-05-28 17:46 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-28 20:11 +0300
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-28 13:29 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-28 19:19 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-05-29 14:10 -0700
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-30 00:42 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-05-30 05:48 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Christian Corti <use@reply.to> - 2014-05-29 18:00 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-29 13:17 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-05-30 15:57 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-30 11:29 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-30 15:55 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-05-30 20:32 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-31 08:50 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-06-01 10:11 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-06-01 16:07 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-29 18:42 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Lawrence Statton <lawrence@perl.mx> - 2014-05-29 14:15 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-05-29 15:32 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-28 19:13 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-05-28 14:44 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-05-28 22:45 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-30 11:10 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2014-05-29 05:48 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-05-26 13:26 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-26 13:06 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-26 12:35 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Christian Corti <use@reply.to> - 2014-05-28 17:49 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-28 13:06 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "ratty" <ratty@gmail.com> - 2014-05-30 14:16 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-30 04:47 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-05-30 11:41 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "ratty" <ratty@gmail.com> - 2014-05-30 21:05 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2014-05-30 19:16 +0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-05-26 13:02 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-05-26 18:44 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-26 21:10 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-05-26 21:14 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-26 21:45 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-26 23:59 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-26 23:44 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2014-05-27 11:35 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-26 20:25 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-05-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-05-27 13:59 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-06-14 18:05 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Oeter Johns" <oj19854@nospam.com> - 2014-06-15 07:32 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-15 00:50 +0300
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-15 16:44 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-24 16:27 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-24 14:53 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "2ju" <2ju@gmail.com> - 2014-05-25 06:59 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-24 22:44 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-29 13:40 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-29 20:01 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-05-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-25 00:58 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-25 13:17 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-05-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-25 10:17 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-22 09:54 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-22 15:56 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-05-22 14:07 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2014-05-23 12:44 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-21 08:20 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-05-22 17:58 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-23 00:00 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-22 18:12 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-23 09:50 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-23 18:37 +0300
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-24 16:59 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn bill@server3.cs.scranton.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2014-05-23 16:22 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-23 12:08 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-23 12:03 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-23 21:58 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-24 03:20 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-24 13:11 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-05-24 21:47 -0400
What constitutes being a Yankee? [was Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn] Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2014-05-29 14:58 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-24 15:59 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2014-05-23 23:41 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-24 04:09 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-05-24 21:52 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2014-05-24 21:31 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-05-25 14:34 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2014-05-23 16:15 +0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-05-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn bill@server3.cs.scranton.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2014-05-21 14:35 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn bill@server3.cs.scranton.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2014-05-21 14:38 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2014-05-21 08:22 -0800
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-05-21 15:43 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-22 15:54 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2014-05-21 07:07 -0700
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-21 15:23 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-19 23:10 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-19 22:54 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-20 19:52 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-20 23:22 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-20 11:10 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2014-05-20 11:56 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-20 12:32 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2014-05-20 15:24 -0500
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2014-05-21 14:08 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-21 16:06 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-20 13:50 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Rob Brown <brown@greenslade.gmcl.internal> - 2014-05-20 19:49 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-21 10:35 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-05-20 21:11 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-20 21:20 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-20 13:45 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-05-21 05:31 +1000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2014-05-21 09:35 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-20 15:14 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Rob Brown <brown@greenslade.gmcl.internal> - 2014-05-20 20:00 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2014-05-20 16:45 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-05-20 21:14 -0700
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-21 09:42 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-21 10:33 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2014-05-20 13:40 +0000
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-21 09:40 +0200
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-05-21 08:27 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-21 16:10 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2014-05-21 12:11 -0400
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2014-05-21 20:52 +0100
Re: Revamped PDP-11 in Brooklyn jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2014-05-21 13:06 +0000
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 15:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1405261500490.16950@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #3232 |
On Mon, 26 May 2014, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > In article <240520141313190476%timstreater@greenbee.net>, > timstreater@greenbee.net (Tim Streater) writes: > >> In article <llpooq$7uv$1@speranza.aioe.org>, glen herrmannsfeldt >> <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >> >>> In alt.sys.pdp11 Christian Corti <use@reply.to> wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>>> That's a (US-)americanism. Nobody write "ug" or "um" in papers or >>>> other documents. And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what >>>> a picofarad (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead >>>> (????F). Now that's sick! >>> >>> In old electronics, it was micro-micro-farad, I presume before >>> the pico prefix was invented. I have seen it actually printed on >>> capacitors. Well, they might have been condensers, before the >>> word capacitor was invented. (But just after the Leyden Jar.) >> >> Have to be pretty old then. It was pF when I was mucking about with >> the things back in the 60s. > > When I was mucking about with the things back in the '60s, it was > still micro-microfarads. I think the prefix "pico" was just coming > into use at the time. > > Actually, in most cases "nanofarads" would have been more appropriate > to the values involved, but again it probably was just coming into use; > I remember seeing the occasional European capacitor marked in nF, but > nothing from North America. You'd usually see something like ".001 uF". > > Speaking of odd notation, I seem to recall that electrolytic capacitors > often had an extra "d" appended, as in "20 uFd". I never saw this on > any other type of capacitor, though. > That definitely happened. I think I've even seen uuFd, but not certain. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 22:02 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mwe4fjmu.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #3245 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca>: > On Mon, 26 May 2014, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> Speaking of odd notation, I seem to recall that electrolytic capacitors >> often had an extra "d" appended, as in "20 uFd". I never saw this on >> any other type of capacitor, though. >> > That definitely happened. I think I've even seen uuFd, but not certain. That's nothing. I remember once seeing an extra "ec" appended, as in "20 msec". Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lm040r$mnm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3232 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: (snip, someone wrote) >>>> That's a (US-)americanism. Nobody write "ug" or "um" in papers or >>>> other documents. And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what >>>> a picofarad (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead >>>> (µµF). Now that's sick! (snip) >> Have to be pretty old then. It was pF when I was mucking about with >> the things back in the 60s. > When I was mucking about with the things back in the '60s, it was > still micro-microfarads. I think the prefix "pico" was just coming > into use at the time. As I remember it, most small capacitors don't have units. You know what the unit is, and can call it either pF or uuF, whichever you prefer. But documentation would have units, though many had a default unit "unless specified". > Actually, in most cases "nanofarads" would have been more appropriate > to the values involved, but again it probably was just coming into use; > I remember seeing the occasional European capacitor marked in nF, but > nothing from North America. You'd usually see something like ".001 uF". I don't remember nF until about 1980, and even then it seemed strange. For a wide range of capacitors, if the number is greater than 1 it is pF, if it is less than 1 it is uF. I believe I have seen an electrolytic down to 1uF, but that is pretty rare, and you can pretty much tell by the shape. > Speaking of odd notation, I seem to recall that electrolytic capacitors > often had an extra "d" appended, as in "20 uFd". I never saw this on > any other type of capacitor, though. I think I even remember UFD on electrolytics. (Maybe a font with no lower case.) Maybe in rare cases mF, but usually microfarad with large numbers. Big electrolytics have plenty of space to write on. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 15:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1405261529570.16950@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #3249 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, 26 May 2014, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > > (snip, someone wrote) > >>>>> That's a (US-)americanism. Nobody write "ug" or "um" in papers or >>>>> other documents. And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what >>>>> a picofarad (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead >>>>> (µµF). Now that's sick! > > (snip) >>> Have to be pretty old then. It was pF when I was mucking about with >>> the things back in the 60s. > >> When I was mucking about with the things back in the '60s, it was >> still micro-microfarads. I think the prefix "pico" was just coming >> into use at the time. > > As I remember it, most small capacitors don't have units. You know > what the unit is, and can call it either pF or uuF, whichever you > prefer. But documentation would have units, though many had a > default unit "unless specified". > Everything had to have some unit, or else you couldn't figure out what was needed. But no, on schematics it was often the case that small values never had anything next to them, and thus the fine print would specify that they were pF or whatever back then. Large values would have the uF on them, since they were relatively uncommon. And the rest were .01, .1 and .001, and by standard you knew they were uF. The same thing for resistor wattage, they were 1/2 unless specified, right into the solid state age when finally one magazine realized the default should be 1/4 watt. >> Actually, in most cases "nanofarads" would have been more appropriate >> to the values involved, but again it probably was just coming into use; >> I remember seeing the occasional European capacitor marked in nF, but >> nothing from North America. You'd usually see something like ".001 uF". > > I don't remember nF until about 1980, and even then it seemed strange. > Even now nF never gets the use it deserves. I think there's a greater useage in Europe. But .001 is pretty well known, you look and know immediately that it's uF and likely a bypass capacitor, and for higher frequencies. You don't gain much by moving to 1nF. The one place where it may be helpful is for beginners, they can see 10pF, but is a .001 ten times greater, or a hundred times greater? Until they've dealved deeper, some other denominators might be more helpful. Or maybe not. > For a wide range of capacitors, if the number is greater than 1 it > is pF, if it is less than 1 it is uF. I believe I have seen an > electrolytic down to 1uF, but that is pretty rare, and you can > pretty much tell by the shape. > FOr reasons I can't figure, there are even electrolytics lower in value than 1uF. Since other types of capacitors fill in below 1uF without getting too large, I'm not sure why someone would specify a 0.47uF electrolytic. That tends to confuse the beginner, they think there is something specifically good about electrolytics, when their only importance is they provide higher values of capacitance in reasonable size packages. I can't think of a reason for a polarized capacitor, we make do with polarized capacitors because we need large value capacitors in small packages, and electrolytics are polarized by the way they are made. >> Speaking of odd notation, I seem to recall that electrolytic capacitors >> often had an extra "d" appended, as in "20 uFd". I never saw this on >> any other type of capacitor, though. > > I think I even remember UFD on electrolytics. (Maybe a font with no > lower case.) Maybe in rare cases mF, but usually microfarad > with large numbers. Big electrolytics have plenty of space > to write on. > Everyone knew what was being specified, so it didn't matter, and probably there was less of a standard. One could certianly see "m" used instead of "u". Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 22:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lm0ec3$hob$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3252 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: (snip) >> As I remember it, most small capacitors don't have units. You know >> what the unit is, and can call it either pF or uuF, whichever you >> prefer. But documentation would have units, though many had a >> default unit "unless specified". > Everything had to have some unit, or else you couldn't figure out what > was needed. I mean not marked on the outside. Silver mica, the purplish colored ones, have a unique shape and color that is hard to miss. (snip, I wrote) >> For a wide range of capacitors, if the number is greater than 1 it >> is pF, if it is less than 1 it is uF. I believe I have seen an >> electrolytic down to 1uF, but that is pretty rare, and you can >> pretty much tell by the shape. > FOr reasons I can't figure, there are even electrolytics lower in value > than 1uF. Since other types of capacitors fill in below 1uF without > getting too large, I'm not sure why someone would specify a 0.47uF > electrolytic. Well, the size of an electorlytic tends to follow voltage times capacitance. The oxide is thin enough that it doesn't change the package size much. Thicker oxide means more voltage and less capacitance. In the vacuum tube days, you might see 4uF 250V. > That tends to confuse the beginner, they think there is > something specifically good about electrolytics, when their only > importance is they provide higher values of capacitance in > reasonable size packages. I can't think of a reason for a > polarized capacitor, we make do with polarized capacitors > because we need large value capacitors in small packages, > and electrolytics are polarized by the way they are made. Well, tantalum electrolytics are special, in that they have lower inductance than aluminum electrolytics. If you need it in a really small package, then I suppose so. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Corti <use@reply.to> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <dg0a5b-g0c.ln1@news.online.de> |
| In reply to | #3066 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Christian Corti <use@reply.to> wrote: > > documents. And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what a > > picofarad (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead (µµF). > In old electronics, it was micro-micro-farad, I presume before the > pico prefix was invented. I have seen it actually printed on > capacitors. Well, they might have been condensers, before the > word capacitor was invented. (But just after the Leyden Jar.) The pico wasn't invented in the sixties and seventies? Well, I have old electronic books from the twenties with micro, nano and pico. But at that time, they also used "cm" (centimeters) for capacitors used in radios (mainly french ones). But that was abandonned I think in the fourties. Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 05:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lluhte$7j5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3180 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Christian Corti <use@reply.to> wrote: (snip) > The pico wasn't invented in the sixties and seventies? Well, I have old > electronic books from the twenties with micro, nano and pico. But at > that time, they also used "cm" (centimeters) for capacitors used in > radios (mainly french ones). But that was abandonned I think in the > fourties. In Gaussian, or CGS, units cm is the unit of capacitance. Seems that in the years before SI, some used CGS units, and they are still pretty popular in physics. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-24 20:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <bubautFtgddU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3062 |
Christian Corti <use@reply.to> wrote > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote >> Likewise, you often see "ug" or "um" because some apparently find it too >> difficult to write "µg" or "µm". The medical field uses "mcg", which is > That's a (US-)americanism. No, just a simplification. > Nobody write "ug" or "um" in papers Not clear what papers you are talking about. > or other documents. Not clear what documents you are talking about. <makes an obscene gesture in Banks' general direction> > And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what a picofarad > (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead (µµF). Can't recall anyone actually doing that. > Now that's sick! >> Yep; the SI unit of volume is cubic meters, but in most cases >> that doesn't result in convenient sizes, so we use liters instead; >> 1L = 1dm^3. Also very useful is 1mL = 1cm^3 (aka 1cc). > It's "ccm", not "cc". Wrong. > And liters are usually only used for liquids. Wrong. > And to be mathematically correct, it should be (dm)³ or (cm)³ or c³m³ ;-) >> or Mg, which could easily be confused with the (fairly common) mg. And >> nobody seems to use Mm, Gm, etc.; they just use large numbers of km. > No, we use tons, kilotons, megatons etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-24 13:36 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87oaynh3ai.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #3062 |
Christian Corti <use@reply.to>: > That's a (US-)americanism. Nobody write "ug" or "um" in papers or > other documents. And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what a > picofarad (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead (µµF). > Now that's sick! What Europeans fail to understand is that Americans already adopted the SI units. Thing is, the Anglo-American culture readily accepts influences from foreign cultures, but it never throws anything away. IOW, instead of *replacing* the traditional units with the SI equivalents, the Americans have added the SI units to the set. Thus, you buy milk in quarts but soda in liters. You measure your height in inches but the length of your skis in centimeters. You measure meat in ounces but vitamin C in milligrams and cocaine in kilograms. Besides, the SI-smug Europeans still stick to kilowatt-hours, kilometers-per-hour, degrees celsius or angle, minutes, seconds, teaspoons, tablespoons and calories. Why wouldn't you express electricity consumption in megajoules or the speed limits in meters-per-second? >> or Mg, which could easily be confused with the (fairly common) mg. >> And nobody seems to use Mm, Gm, etc.; they just use large numbers of >> km. > > No, we use tons, kilotons, megatons etc. Those are silly units; computers have demonstrated that gigas, teras and petas are quite pronounceable. The sun is 150 gigameters away. The US land area is 9 square megameters, that of Europe is 10 square megameters. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-24 16:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <117679562422640812.477359peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #3062 |
Christian Corti <use@reply.to> wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> Likewise, you often see "ug" or "um" because some apparently find it too >> difficult to write "µg" or "µm". The medical field uses "mcg", which is > > That's a (US-)americanism. Nobody write "ug" or "um" in papers or other > documents. And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what a > picofarad (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead (µµF). > Now that's sick! > I seem to recall that terminology from the 50s. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-24 14:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <llqt12$i6u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3062 |
On 24-May-14 03:39, Christian Corti wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> Likewise, you often see "ug" or "um" because some apparently find >> it too difficult to write "µg" or "µm". The medical field uses >> "mcg", which is > > That's a (US-)americanism. Nobody write "ug" or "um" in papers or > other documents. I see "us" and "um" all the time in trade articles, documentation, etc. "um" is falling out of use, though, now that transistors have shrunk down to "nm" scale--not to be confused with "nmi", which are nautical miles. > And apparently many (US-)americans don't know what > a picofarad (pF) is, they say (or write) micro-microfarad instead > (µµF). Now that's sick! AFAICT, that's just legacy from before "pico" was invented. >> Yep; the SI unit of volume is cubic meters, but in most cases that >> doesn't result in convenient sizes, so we use liters instead; 1L = >> 1dm^3. Also very useful is 1mL = 1cm^3 (aka 1cc). > > It's "ccm", not "cc". In common use, at least in the US, it's "cc". > And to be mathematically correct, it should be (dm)³ or (cm)³ or c³m³ > ;-) I have _never_ seen anyone write it that way; the entire unit is cubed, including the prefix, without needing parentheses. >> or Mg, which could easily be confused with the (fairly common) mg. >> And nobody seems to use Mm, Gm, etc.; they just use large numbers >> of km. > > No, we use tons, kilotons, megatons etc. Good point. We don't use mega, giga, etc. with grams, though; the tonne is a completely superfluous unit. 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 | Christian Corti <use@reply.to> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 22:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <591a5b-g0c.ln1@news.online.de> |
| In reply to | #3100 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > I see "us" and "um" all the time in trade articles, documentation, etc. Not in serious technical or scientific articles. > "um" is falling out of use, though, now that transistors have shrunk > down to "nm" scale--not to be confused with "nmi", which are nautical miles. You didn't get the point. The point is the usage of "um" instead of "µm" (with "mu", in case your news client doesn't handle non-ASCII characters). > AFAICT, that's just legacy from before "pico" was invented. "pico" has been "invented" centuries ago. > > It's "ccm", not "cc". > In common use, at least in the US, it's "cc". It's ccm, since the unit is meters. You can't strip the most important part. And in non-US, it's ccm. > > And to be mathematically correct, it should be (dm)³ or (cm)³ or c³m³ > > ;-) > I have _never_ seen anyone write it that way; the entire unit is cubed, > including the prefix, without needing parentheses. The problem is, the unit is "meters", the scale prefix is only a multiplier (mathematically). And yes, I've seen many people writing that in parentheses (including some professors at the university). As an example: (2*cm^3)^2 = 4*c^2*m^6 which is correct, but probably not intended. Instead, the result should be 4*(cm)^6 All depend from the actual point of view. > > No, we use tons, kilotons, megatons etc. > Good point. We don't use mega, giga, etc. with grams, though; the tonne > is a completely superfluous unit. That's correct, it is superfluous. Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-25 17:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lltsel$kc3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3181 |
On 25-May-14 15:43, Christian Corti wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: >> I see "us" and "um" all the time in trade articles, documentation, >> etc. > > Not in serious technical or scientific articles. In the academic world, communication itself is the product, so they expect perfection. In industry, though, communication is a means to some other end; if it is understood by the intended audience, that is good enough. (And in marketing, it appears that having the audience _misunderstand_ one's communication is often the goal.) >> "um" is falling out of use, though, now that transistors have >> shrunk down to "nm" scale ... > > You didn't get the point. The point is the usage of "um" instead of > "µm" I made that point myself; someone snipped the context. > (with "mu", in case your news client doesn't handle non-ASCII > characters). Mine obviously does, since I wrote "µm" myself. However, I am only doing that for this metadiscussion; in other contexts, I usually write "um" myself because I know that there are (still!) many users with non-Unicode-aware newsreaders. One of them even replied to one of my posts in this thread, as evidenced by "??m" in the quoted material. >>> It's "ccm", not "cc". >> >> In common use, at least in the US, it's "cc". > > It's ccm, since the unit is meters. You can't strip the most > important part. And in non-US, it's ccm. I have _never_ seen/heard anyone in the US use "ccm"; it's always either "mL" or "cc". I can't recall having ever seen "cm^3" either; that would be for dry measure, where we use non-metric units. >>> And to be mathematically correct, it should be (dm)³ or (cm)³ or >>> c³m³ ;-) > >> I have _never_ seen anyone write it that way; the entire unit is >> cubed, including the prefix, without needing parentheses. > > The problem is, the unit is "meters", the scale prefix is only a > multiplier (mathematically). And yes, I've seen many people writing > that in parentheses (including some professors at the university). > As an example: (2*cm^3)^2 = 4*c^2*m^6 which is correct, but probably > not intended. Instead, the result should be 4*(cm)^6 All depend from > the actual point of view. It depends on whether you consider prefixes to be an algebraic multiplier or whether you view "cm" as a different, indivisible unit derived from "m". The latter is much easier in practice. 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 | Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <260520141149437650%timstreater@greenbee.net> |
| In reply to | #3189 |
In article <lltsel$kc3$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > On 25-May-14 15:43, Christian Corti wrote: > > In alt.sys.pdp11 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > >> I see "us" and "um" all the time in trade articles, documentation, > >> etc. > > > > Not in serious technical or scientific articles. > > In the academic world, communication itself is the product, so they > expect perfection. In industry, though, communication is a means to > some other end; if it is understood by the intended audience, that is > good enough. > > (And in marketing, it appears that having the audience _misunderstand_ > one's communication is often the goal.) > > >> "um" is falling out of use, though, now that transistors have > >> shrunk down to "nm" scale ... > > > > You didn't get the point. The point is the usage of "um" instead of > > "µm" > > I made that point myself; someone snipped the context. > > > (with "mu", in case your news client doesn't handle non-ASCII > > characters). > > Mine obviously does, since I wrote "µm" myself. However, I am only > doing that for this metadiscussion; in other contexts, I usually write > "um" myself because I know that there are (still!) many users with > non-Unicode-aware newsreaders. One of them even replied to one of my > posts in this thread, as evidenced by "??m" in the quoted material. > > >>> It's "ccm", not "cc". > >> > >> In common use, at least in the US, it's "cc". > > > > It's ccm, since the unit is meters. You can't strip the most > > important part. And in non-US, it's ccm. The unit isn't metres. It's litres or cubic centimetres (cc). > I have _never_ seen/heard anyone in the US use "ccm"; it's always either > "mL" or "cc". I can't recall having ever seen "cm^3" either; that would > be for dry measure, where we use non-metric units. It's always cc. In France, Switzerland, the US, UK, i.e. the places I have lived or bought liquid products. -- "People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-26 14:18 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87bnukyeie.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #3203 |
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>:
> The unit isn't metres. It's litres or cubic centimetres (cc).
>
>> I have _never_ seen/heard anyone in the US use "ccm"; it's always
>> either "mL" or "cc". I can't recall having ever seen "cm^3" either;
>> that would be for dry measure, where we use non-metric units.
>
> It's always cc. In France, Switzerland, the US, UK, i.e. the places I
> have lived or bought liquid products.
In Finland, "cc" is not used nor would it be understood by most people.
It is "cm³". Example:
Mopon moottorin suurin sallittu iskutilavuus on 49 cm³ ja
kevytmoottoripyörän moottorin 125 cm³.
<http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskutilavuus>
Colloquially, cubic centimeters are simply called "cubes" ("kuutio")
among motorists. Liters are used when larger engines are talked about.
When talking about liquids, "ml" is the norm. Example:
Käsivoide Helosan, 100ml
<http://www.grolls.fi/tuote/k%C3%A4sivoide-helosan-100ml-iho
n-ja-haavanhoitovoide/92049/>
Flour etc is measured in "dl".
Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Corti <use@reply.to> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 17:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f0dh5b-atc.ln1@news.online.de> |
| In reply to | #3203 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> The unit isn't metres. It's litres or cubic centimetres (cc).
You have absolutely no understanding of units.
Of coure, the unit is (cubic) metres. Centi or deci (for litres) are
just multiplication factors.
Example:
1 cubic centimetre = 1cm * 1cm * 1cm
= 1 cm*cm*cm
= 1 c³m³
= 1 (cm)³
> It's always cc. In France, Switzerland, the US, UK, i.e. the places I
> have lived or bought liquid products.
No, it isn't; never ever within Europe.
From Wikipedia: "Aus dem Englischen stammt die Abkürzung »cc« für cubic
centimeter, die jedoch im SI-System nicht zulässig ist."
Essentially, that means that the abbreviation "cc" is forbidden in the
international SI system. And that is what everyone in Europe uses (we
don't really have antique units that aren't hidden SI units anymore).
(or look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_centimetre)
Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 20:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87a9a1eskz.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #3319 |
Christian Corti <use@reply.to>: > And that is what everyone in Europe uses (we don't really have antique > units that aren't hidden SI units anymore). At least in Finland, hours, minutes, degrees, days, weeks, months, years and [kilo]calories persist. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 13:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lm59tv$o65$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3319 |
On 28-May-14 10:46, Christian Corti wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >> The unit isn't metres. It's litres or cubic centimetres (cc). > > You have absolutely no understanding of units. > Of coure, the unit is (cubic) metres. Centi or deci (for litres) are > just multiplication factors. "meter" is the _base_ unit, and "centimeter" is a _derived_ unit that, in most cases, is represented by two letters. > Example: > 1 cubic centimetre = 1cm * 1cm * 1cm > = 1 cm*cm*cm > = 1 c³m³ > = 1 (cm)³ It's always "cm^3", just as a square kilometer (100ha) is always "km^2". I can't think of why you'd ever square a frequency or pressure, but that would be "Hz^2" or "Pa^2", not "H^2z^2" or "P^2a^2". >> It's always cc. In France, Switzerland, the US, UK, i.e. the places I >> have lived or bought liquid products. > > No, it isn't; never ever within Europe. > From Wikipedia: "Aus dem Englischen stammt die Abkürzung »cc« für cubic > centimeter, die jedoch im SI-System nicht zulässig ist." > Essentially, that means that the abbreviation "cc" is forbidden in the > international SI system. And that is what everyone in Europe uses (we > don't really have antique units that aren't hidden SI units anymore). > (or look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_centimetre) What the standards say and what happens in the real world often differ. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-28 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lm5csm$c7e$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3324 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: (snip) > It's always "cm^3", just as a square kilometer (100ha) is always "km^2". > I can't think of why you'd ever square a frequency or pressure, but that > would be "Hz^2" or "Pa^2", not "H^2z^2" or "P^2a^2". I was yesterday looking at a graph showing Kepler's 3rd law, with the y-axis in AU^3 and the x-axis in y^2 (that is, square years). Noise measurements often come out with a Hz^(-1/2) unit in them. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-29 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jg8fo99ev6ol5escgm6asmh442im4hlag5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3326 |
On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:19:50 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
<gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>I was yesterday looking at a graph showing Kepler's 3rd law, with
>the y-axis in AU^3 and the x-axis in y^2 (that is, square years).
>
>Noise measurements often come out with a Hz^(-1/2) unit in them.
OK. What do those units of measure mean?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web