Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #11730 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-07-05 14:28 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 788 — 65 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-13 19:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:02 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 17:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-13 23:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 12:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 13:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:41 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 15:05 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 14:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-13 23:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-17 08:46 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-17 10:51 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:54 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 13:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 14:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:56 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 19:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-14 09:48 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:08 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 00:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 13:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 13:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 12:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-15 15:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:19 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:08 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-17 16:09 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 22:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 03:47 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 23:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:03 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 10:20 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 12:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 04:38 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-02 14:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 08:13 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 12:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 12:36 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 07:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-01 22:17 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-02 21:35 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 20:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 22:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 12:03 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 15:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 18:28 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 03:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 09:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:15 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:42 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:54 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 20:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 22:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 21:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:15 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 18:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-04 09:01 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:32 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 19:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-05 17:11 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 14:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 18:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 17:31 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 14:51 -0400
Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 23:18 +0000
Re: software origami, was Is it a lost cause? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-07-04 08:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:20 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 16:15 -0400
Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:55 +0000
Re: ancient history, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 11:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-03 11:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-03 22:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-04 15:47 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 22:31 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 13:10 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 21:56 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 00:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 00:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 11:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 13:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 13:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 01:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:35 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 23:23 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 00:07 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:20 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 13:37 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 22:41 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 13:22 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 10:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 14:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 15:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 12:06 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-04 10:00 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-05 01:42 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-07-05 22:59 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 06:44 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-04 09:45 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-03 11:14 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 21:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-04 17:33 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 19:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:05 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 08:30 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-05 12:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 06:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:39 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:40 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 18:42 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:53 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 15:20 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:50 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-04 16:28 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:37 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:03 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:08 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:13 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 06:36 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 12:37 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:12 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 19:52 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:11 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:30 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:51 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 20:09 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 20:32 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 00:44 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-06 15:01 +0000
Re: tiny old computers, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:49 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 10:45 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-06 12:05 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 11:41 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-06 08:59 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:00 +0200
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 20:46 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 19:56 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:52 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:25 +0000
Re: stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 06:10 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:35 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-07-05 16:33 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:16 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 21:49 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-06 06:12 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:51 -0600
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:05 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-04 23:04 +0300
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 20:35 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:54 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 20:49 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-04 21:54 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:16 +0300
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:40 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-05 18:51 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-07-05 21:08 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-04 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:28 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:38 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 17:53 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-04 14:52 -0600
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 17:22 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-04 16:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:50 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-13 23:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 23:37 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 20:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-14 10:20 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-14 19:16 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-15 08:01 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 03:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 08:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 07:56 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-02 10:30 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-07-02 16:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 16:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-02 11:52 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-07-02 06:23 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 08:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 08:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-06-16 12:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-02 22:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 12:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 09:38 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 21:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 17:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-18 18:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-18 12:25 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-13 20:11 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> - 2016-06-14 23:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Darren Salt <newsspam@moreofthespa.m.invalid> - 2016-06-17 03:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 10:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:50 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-07-01 20:28 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-01 20:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-01 23:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-01 22:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 09:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 11:24 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-07-02 12:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-07-02 19:51 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 18:39 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 10:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 18:56 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 19:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 15:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-03 17:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 19:48 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-03 15:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-03 20:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:24 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 12:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-05 17:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 18:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 23:07 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 12:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-06 09:05 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-06 13:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 07:37 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 15:09 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 00:26 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-04 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 18:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 09:14 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:26 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 13:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 13:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 14:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-02 14:08 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-02 12:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-02 17:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-02 16:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:23 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:06 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 15:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-04 14:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 15:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:18 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 18:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-06 21:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-07 14:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 16:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-07 11:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:33 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 19:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-08 12:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:19 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 14:22 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-04 12:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-04 22:30 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 13:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 15:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-06 13:11 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-07 07:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-07 23:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-09 00:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 12:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 14:12 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:21 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 19:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 10:40 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-09 09:02 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-07-09 15:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 16:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Richard Ashbery <basura@invalid.addr.uk> - 2016-07-09 16:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 16:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-09 21:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 18:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-09 18:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-07-09 20:55 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-10 12:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 14:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-11 11:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-11 11:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 16:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 16:01 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 18:00 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-11 18:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-11 16:44 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-11 17:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-07-12 01:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-07-12 20:48 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 06:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-13 13:34 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2016-07-13 15:46 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 09:49 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:20 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:43 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-07-05 19:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 20:32 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 17:19 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-07 01:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-07 12:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-07 17:36 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-07-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-09 14:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-06 00:28 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-03 17:32 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-02 19:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rambo <Rambo@thisaintreal.org> - 2016-06-13 20:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-06-13 21:42 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:43 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-13 21:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-13 20:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-13 21:48 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 08:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:14 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 08:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 09:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 10:22 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:36 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 12:01 +0100
OT was Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-14 12:09 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-14 12:30 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-14 15:24 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-14 17:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:45 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 20:34 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:44 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-15 17:21 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 23:15 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:42 +0200
Symbolics [Re: Is it a lost cause?] colonel_hack@yahoo.com - 2016-06-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 09:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:29 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:47 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 11:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-14 13:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 13:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:20 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Brian Reay <no.sp@m.com> - 2016-06-14 08:35 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 11:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 15:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-14 15:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:02 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 20:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 22:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-14 21:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:15 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 23:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 10:01 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-15 12:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:39 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:53 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-14 18:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:50 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 01:59 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 17:06 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 19:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 19:44 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 10:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 11:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 11:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-15 08:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 17:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-16 07:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 08:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 11:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-16 13:34 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-16 07:49 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-17 12:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-17 12:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 13:06 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 14:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 20:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Steve Hall <sweet_stevie@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:48 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 11:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:40 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:10 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-19 13:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 16:05 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 19:04 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-06-16 09:37 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-16 14:42 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-14 13:55 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-15 20:12 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 11:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:47 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 22:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-16 09:49 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-15 10:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-16 01:55 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-16 12:30 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-06-18 02:03 +1000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-17 16:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-17 18:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-17 20:05 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 12:27 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 16:29 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:35 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 19:54 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:15 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 10:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-18 04:52 -0700
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 17:32 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-06-18 17:36 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 09:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:47 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:52 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:53 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 15:37 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 16:45 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 09:53 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-18 11:02 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 11:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2016-06-18 15:19 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 14:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:50 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 19:09 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 13:11 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 12:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 14:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 16:56 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-18 21:58 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 10:49 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-18 11:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-18 17:04 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-19 21:49 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? AndyW <Andy@nojunqmail.com> - 2016-06-20 07:41 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 15:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2016-06-19 14:13 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-19 22:12 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-19 19:24 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:27 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 11:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 12:10 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 17:24 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 17:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 19:18 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 21:18 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 18:38 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 18:25 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:17 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-20 19:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 20:52 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 23:02 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 06:01 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2016-07-03 13:50 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 20:11 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-03 23:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-04 07:05 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-05 12:56 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 12:54 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 13:14 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-05 16:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-05 16:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie <cdknospam@msn.com> - 2016-07-04 01:12 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-20 21:18 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 19:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-21 06:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 20:01 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 21:29 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-20 13:37 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-20 00:29 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 06:25 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-20 06:57 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-06-20 10:09 +0300
Re: Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-06-20 08:31 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-20 13:50 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-03 05:43 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-03 12:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:47 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:38 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:52 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 10:55 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:58 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:37 -0500
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 21:07 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-17 22:27 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-18 10:06 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 12:31 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-18 11:49 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-18 18:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 18:47 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2016-06-19 12:13 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-19 08:10 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-19 10:59 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-19 18:13 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2016-06-21 03:09 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 19:59 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-17 17:40 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 17:04 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 22:25 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-18 10:56 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 19:00 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-06-18 19:33 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 10:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 10:51 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 12:30 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-19 13:03 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 16:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-19 17:17 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:19 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-20 07:53 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2016-06-19 18:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-06-19 21:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 11:16 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-20 15:26 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-20 16:44 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-06-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-19 18:32 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-19 19:35 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-06-19 19:33 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-06-14 12:34 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-14 22:12 +0200
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-14 21:33 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 07:23 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-15 13:05 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-15 14:15 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:50 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:07 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-06-14 15:45 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 16:51 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-15 07:58 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-06-15 08:41 +0000
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-14 08:46 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-14 06:31 -0400
Re: Is it a lost cause? Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2016-06-15 12:08 +0100
Re: Is it a lost cause? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-15 16:36 +0100
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 21:31 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:16 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 15:42 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 17:54 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 18:33 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:14 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:19 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 21:42 +0000
Re: stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-04 21:47 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-04 17:55 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 02:46 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 08:58 +0100
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 07:54 -0700
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 15:43 -0700
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:57 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-05 16:06 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 14:05 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-07-05 13:24 -0500
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 14:29 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:59 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 18:31 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 15:32 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 20:05 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 22:36 -0400
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:14 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Rob <nomail@example.com> - 2016-07-06 07:59 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:59 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-05 20:05 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-07-05 19:57 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:16 +0000
Re: S/360 stacks, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-07-05 15:38 -0700
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Dennis <dennis@none.none> - 2016-07-04 19:55 -0500
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-05 12:46 -0500
Re: 360 architecture, was self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-07-05 21:11 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 20:32 -0400
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-06 07:20 +0000
Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-05 14:28 +0000
Page 10 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 40 Next page →
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 06:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31e40804c429ee5698a31c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12385 |
In article <nlcidj$eda$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > > In article <nlbafc$g08$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... > >> > >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > In article <nla0ga$r58$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... > >> >> > >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > In article <nl9p0j$3u1$2@dont-email.me>, martin@address-in-sig.invalid > >> >> > says... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 22:14:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Yep. A common use was, if a program could accept input from cards, paper > >> >> >> tape or magnetic tape, you would write it to use one of them, say cards, > >> >> >> and use either console switches or a parameter card to tell it which to > >> >> >> use for the next run, which would make the program patch itself before > >> >> >> starting to process its input. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Of course its inventors thought was that this would be wonderful on small > >> >> >> slow machines whose performance would be improved by removing conditional > >> >> >> jumps from the main loop but was still somehow big and fast enough to run > >> >> >> a COBOL program. > >> >> > > >> >> > This sounds like a different solution to the problem that IBM addressed > >> >> > with DD cards. > >> >> > >> >> Yeah, but it's just an example. > >> >> > >> >> So I tried to imagine a DD card for Paper Tape, and I was > >> >> coming up blank. So I took a quick look: > >> >> > >> >> http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.idad400/d4366.htm > >> >> > >> >> (The system no longer supports paper tape readers...) > >> >> > >> >> I think those were BTAM devices so, you would still need separate logic > >> >> for the paper tape. > >> > > >> > I've never run a paper tape on a 370 but a bit of googling suggests that > >> > somewhere in there there's a "DSORG=CX,BTAM". > >> > > >> > I suspect that if I do some digging I'll find somewhere in my files the > >> > JCL to send output to a 2741. > >> > >> Nope, you won't find that. > >> I've done a lot of BTAM. > >> There is no DSORG in a DD card for BTAM. > >> You just allocate the UCB. > >> When you do an OPEN, you can query the DEVTYPE but > >> the OS doesn't allow the "normal" access methods to > >> use the device. > > > > IBM's documentation seems to disagree with you. > > Please, feel free to provide a link. > That's the way I remember it. http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_ 2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieab600/dcbsub.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 09:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nldpaf$qsd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12424 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > In article <nlcidj$eda$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > In article <nlbafc$g08$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >> >> >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > In article <nla0ga$r58$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says... >> >> >> >> >> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> > In article <nl9p0j$3u1$2@dont-email.me>, martin@address-in-sig.invalid >> >> >> > says... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 22:14:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Yep. A common use was, if a program could accept input from cards, paper >> >> >> >> tape or magnetic tape, you would write it to use one of them, say cards, >> >> >> >> and use either console switches or a parameter card to tell it which to >> >> >> >> use for the next run, which would make the program patch itself before >> >> >> >> starting to process its input. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course its inventors thought was that this would be wonderful on small >> >> >> >> slow machines whose performance would be improved by removing conditional >> >> >> >> jumps from the main loop but was still somehow big and fast enough to run >> >> >> >> a COBOL program. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This sounds like a different solution to the problem that IBM addressed >> >> >> > with DD cards. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yeah, but it's just an example. >> >> >> >> >> >> So I tried to imagine a DD card for Paper Tape, and I was >> >> >> coming up blank. So I took a quick look: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_1.13.0/com.ibm.zos.r13.idad400/d4366.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> (The system no longer supports paper tape readers...) >> >> >> >> >> >> I think those were BTAM devices so, you would still need separate logic >> >> >> for the paper tape. >> >> > >> >> > I've never run a paper tape on a 370 but a bit of googling suggests that >> >> > somewhere in there there's a "DSORG=CX,BTAM". >> >> > >> >> > I suspect that if I do some digging I'll find somewhere in my files the >> >> > JCL to send output to a 2741. >> >> >> >> Nope, you won't find that. >> >> I've done a lot of BTAM. >> >> There is no DSORG in a DD card for BTAM. >> >> You just allocate the UCB. >> >> When you do an OPEN, you can query the DEVTYPE but >> >> the OS doesn't allow the "normal" access methods to >> >> use the device. >> > >> > IBM's documentation seems to disagree with you. >> >> Please, feel free to provide a link. >> That's the way I remember it. > > http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_ > 2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.ieab600/dcbsub.htm Looks like you are right. Sure can't remember ever having to use that. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1142321875.489235697.604307.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #12300 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 02/07/16 21:45, Martin Gregorie wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 21:35:42 +0300, Tauno Voipio wrote: >> >>> On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>>>>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with >>>>>>> Motorola >>>>> >>>>> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, >>>>> using a genuine "green card" reference card. >>>>> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" >>>>> [half a :-) there]. >>>>> I found a valid reason to use "execute": >>>>> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes without the overhead of all >>>>> 'dem registers for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" >>>>> instruction. >>>> >>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>> >>> >>> Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which is a least a >>> bad habit, if not a clear no-no. >>> >> Agreed, but it got into early COBOL as the ALTER ... TO PROCEED TO ... >> statement. IMO its the worst misfeature that ever got into a high level >> language. I've seen it used in the past about once, in the worst-written >> system I've ever had the misfortune to see. Apart from ALTER statements >> it had: >> >> - meaningless data names (all records and fields over 4 tape files called >> MTnn where nn incremented in each successive line) and so on for >> CFnn (cards), LPnn (line printer) and WSnn (working storage). >> >> - no sections in PROCEDURE DIVISION, only paragraphs which all had 5 >> digit numeric names, but not in any detectable sequence or meaningful >> order. >> >> The outfit I worked for had unfortunately bought it. It was immediately >> scrapped when we saw the code and we wrote an equivalent but much better >> system from scratch, but I digress.... >> >> ALTER was declared obsolete in COBOL 1985 and removed from the >> specification in 2002 but apparently is still supported by some compilers. >> >> > Sounds fun. > > Do you mean you could permanently alter a goto statement as it were? > Yup. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 19:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl9hpq$mo8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12294 |
Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> writes:
> On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early
>>>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with Motorola
>>>
>>> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school,
>>> using a genuine "green card" reference card.
>>> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted"
>>> [half a :-) there].
>>> I found a valid reason to use "execute":
>>> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes
>>> without the overhead of all 'dem registers
>>> for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" instruction.
>>
>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86.
>
> Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which
> is a least a bad habit, if not a clear no-no.
I don't see how EX is self modifying code.
No code is modified at all.
> It was no accident that execute was not included in x86's. The
> main need for it was in variable-port I/O, and it was corrected
> by having I/O addressed via DX.
Huh?
Don't know about X86, but EX is not used for I/O.
Even better than EX is EXRL (Execute using a relative address instead
of base displacement. The EXRL solves the clutter that comes from
using a label in column 1. If you are using structured programming
macros and indentation, a label messes up everything.
Here's one way to use EXRL:
SR R1,R1 clear R1
IC R1,LEN len of data to move
IF (AHI,R1,-1,NZ) calc len - 1 for MVC and test for no move needed
MVC TARGET(0),SOURCE move first byte
EXRL R1,*-6 move all the bytes
ENDIF ,
The reference to *-6 is the start of the MVC instruction so,
no label needed.
The trick is that you can safely move the first byte (TARGET(0)
overrides any length attribute TARGET might have).
There is no significant performance hit because you're
just really getting the SOURCE and TARGET fields into cache for the real move.
Another benefit is that the MVC and EXRL are right next to each other
making the code easier to read.
--
Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:14 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <nlahh3$42o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12305 |
On 3.7.16 02:12, Dan Espen wrote: > Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> writes: > >> On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote: >>> Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>>>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem with Motorola >>>> >>>> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, >>>> using a genuine "green card" reference card. >>>> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" >>>> [half a :-) there]. >>>> I found a valid reason to use "execute": >>>> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes >>>> without the overhead of all 'dem registers >>>> for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" instruction. >>> >>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >> >> Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which >> is a least a bad habit, if not a clear no-no. > > I don't see how EX is self modifying code. > No code is modified at all. It is - you do construct an instruction, and then run it. >> It was no accident that execute was not included in x86's. The >> main need for it was in variable-port I/O, and it was corrected >> by having I/O addressed via DX. > > Huh? > > Don't know about X86, but EX is not used for I/O. That's right. In 360, it was to fill in the missing possibility to change the fixed length code in the instruction. The needed use in 8080 derivatives was the same, but the cast-in-concrete instructions are for I/O there. In my vocabulary, any way of building an instruction and then running it is self-modifying code. The computed GOTO (indirect branch/jump) is a different can of worms. There are perfectly legitimate uses for it, but it is also a way to wreak havoc. -- -TV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 12:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nlarfg$q67$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12318 |
On 03/07/16 09:14, Tauno Voipio wrote: > On 3.7.16 02:12, Dan Espen wrote: >> Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote: >>>> Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>>>>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem >>>>>>> with Motorola >>>>> >>>>> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, >>>>> using a genuine "green card" reference card. >>>>> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" >>>>> [half a :-) there]. >>>>> I found a valid reason to use "execute": >>>>> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes >>>>> without the overhead of all 'dem registers >>>>> for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" instruction. >>>> >>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>> >>> Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which >>> is a least a bad habit, if not a clear no-no. >> >> I don't see how EX is self modifying code. >> No code is modified at all. > > It is - you do construct an instruction, and then run it. > >>> It was no accident that execute was not included in x86's. The >>> main need for it was in variable-port I/O, and it was corrected >>> by having I/O addressed via DX. >> >> Huh? >> >> Don't know about X86, but EX is not used for I/O. > > > That's right. In 360, it was to fill in the missing possibility > to change the fixed length code in the instruction. The needed use > in 8080 derivatives was the same, but the cast-in-concrete instructions > are for I/O there. > > In my vocabulary, any way of building an instruction and then > running it is self-modifying code. > MMm. well lets say you construct a CALL TABLE or JUMP TABLE ...and modify the contents. or even have the power to write to the PC stack ... you don't need explicit machine instructions to effect self modifiable code. And indeed as multitasking scheduler is in a sense self modifying code. Effect an interruption, save the context, switch the stack pointer, restore new context and IRET. > The computed GOTO (indirect branch/jump) is a different can of > worms. There are perfectly legitimate uses for it, but it is > also a way to wreak havoc. > Anything that is useful is also hazardous -- Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87oa6eeq00.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #12324 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > MMm. well lets say you construct a CALL TABLE or JUMP TABLE > ...and modify the contents. > > or even have the power to write to the PC stack ... > > you don't need explicit machine instructions to effect self modifiable code. > > And indeed as multitasking scheduler is in a sense self modifying code. > > Effect an interruption, save the context, switch the stack pointer, > restore new context and IRET. performance issue shows up in machines that prefetch and decode a block of instructions ... where instruction modified may have already been fetched and decoded. also shows up in machines with separate I&D caches where I-cache is assumed to be read/only ... and storage modifications only show up as D-cache (I-cache issues similar to I-stream having already fetched and decode instruction before modification occurs). recent (Boyd) thread with post about having done dynamic adaptive resource management (as undergraduate in the 60s, IBM picked up and included in CP67 https://slightlyeastofnew.com/2016/06/29/bookends/ past posts on dynamic adaptive resource management (sometimes referred to as "fair share" because "fair share" was default resource policy http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare Boyd posts & URLs from around the web http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 11:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlbarg$g08$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12324 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 03/07/16 09:14, Tauno Voipio wrote: >> On 3.7.16 02:12, Dan Espen wrote: >>> Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> writes: >>> >>>> On 2.7.16 19:26, Peter Flass wrote: >>>>> Jeff Jonas <jeffj@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> cursing over lack of orthogonality when writing code for the early >>>>>>>> Intel chips and the Zilog Z80. This was almost never a problem >>>>>>>> with Motorola >>>>>> >>>>>> I learned IBM 360 assembler in high school, >>>>>> using a genuine "green card" reference card. >>>>>> What a rich selection of instructions to do "just what I wanted" >>>>>> [half a :-) there]. >>>>>> I found a valid reason to use "execute": >>>>>> execute MVC for a variable number of bytes >>>>>> without the overhead of all 'dem registers >>>>>> for the System/370's MVCL "Move-Characters-Long" instruction. >>>>> >>>>> I REALLY, REALLY miss Execute on x86. >>>> >>>> Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code, which >>>> is a least a bad habit, if not a clear no-no. >>> >>> I don't see how EX is self modifying code. >>> No code is modified at all. >> >> It is - you do construct an instruction, and then run it. >> >>>> It was no accident that execute was not included in x86's. The >>>> main need for it was in variable-port I/O, and it was corrected >>>> by having I/O addressed via DX. >>> >>> Huh? >>> >>> Don't know about X86, but EX is not used for I/O. >> >> >> That's right. In 360, it was to fill in the missing possibility >> to change the fixed length code in the instruction. The needed use >> in 8080 derivatives was the same, but the cast-in-concrete instructions >> are for I/O there. >> >> In my vocabulary, any way of building an instruction and then >> running it is self-modifying code. >> > > MMm. well lets say you construct a CALL TABLE or JUMP TABLE > ...and modify the contents. If you change instructions and execute them, self modifying. If you change offsets or masks and use them in an EX instruction, not self modifying. > or even have the power to write to the PC stack ... Not self modifying. > you don't need explicit machine instructions to effect self modifiable code. ? > And indeed as multitasking scheduler is in a sense self modifying code. > Effect an interruption, save the context, switch the stack pointer, > restore new context and IRET. Not by any definition I know about. >> The computed GOTO (indirect branch/jump) is a different can of >> worms. There are perfectly legitimate uses for it, but it is >> also a way to wreak havoc. >> > Anything that is useful is also hazardous ? -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 21:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nlcfi9$lsk$1@panix1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #12294 |
>Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code A polite view of EXECUTE is that it implements a one instruction subroutine :-) I believe self modifying code is justified when the CPU lacks a feature required to accomplish a necessary task. Code obfuscation is a clever hack but not for production code. The IBM 360's EXECUTE modified the 2nd byte of the target instruction. For "S" (storage) format instructions, the 2nd byte is the length as a literal. By executing an "S" instruction, the length was now variable from any of the general purpose registers. Classic CPUs followed these simple cycles - fetch an instruction from memory into the instruction register - increment the PC (program counter) [the instruction could depend on the PC already pointing to the next instruction to fetch, important for PC-relative addressing] - execute the instruction in the instruction register Some systems hijacked the memory access to jam in an alternate instruction. For example, Intel 8080 peripherals reply to an interrupt acknowledge with a 1 byte RESTART instruction (RST 0 - RST 7) to force a jump-to-subroutine to the interrupt handler because there was no interrupt vector hardware. Some systems allowed loading the instruction register to jam in an instruction. It was then executed immediately, without any memory access or program counter increment. A few examples of that: 1) The custom CPU of the AN/ALR-66 radar warning receiver allowed loading the ALU result directly into the instruction register. Since it had only 1 index register, I kinda almost justified using that for indexing other tables without juggling the index register for every access. It worked like this: The instruction format for memory access (load, store) had the address at the least significant 12 bits. (it was a 24 bit machine). So adding an index/offset/subscript to the instruction (from one of the general registers) resulted in modifying just the address, leaving the rest of the instruction unchanged. Put the result into the instruction register and VOILA! Instant alternate index register! I tested that only while I was learning the system and NEVER PUT ANY SUCH HORROR INTO PRODUCTION! The reason? It was impossible to debug. There was no way to examine the result of the ALU before it was executed because it was internal to the CPU beyond the reach of the display panel or any logic probes. 2) Vintage computers such as the LGP-21 allowed direct access to the instruction register via programming or the front panel, thus "the story of Mel". 3) Microprocessor systems too cheap to have a front panel with circuitry to read/write RAM forced the poor user to jam instructions into the CPU (instruction fetch from switches instead from RAM) just to read/write RAM, set PC, etc. But that's following the fine tradition of cost reduction used by early machines such as the Bendix G-15, LGP-30, LGP-21. I vaguely remember how each Flexowriter keystroke shifted 5-6 bits into the instruction register to 'single step' execute once enough bits were accumulated. The days of self modifying code are over with instruction pre-fetch, pipelines, cache, strict Harvard architecture (separate I and D memory) and microcontrollers/SoC that run code only from flash. That's what killed cleverness such as running one ahead of the instruction fetch as in this clever way to clear all memory on an IBM 1130 with just 2 instructions. [the IAR: Instruction Address Register is what we now call the PC: Program Counter]. C000 load accumulator from memory address IAR D000 store accumulator to memory address IAR Then ZAP! All memory was 0xD000 (all memory was 16 bits wide). Without any index register for *c++, how does it work? The magic is IAR-relative addressing. The "load accumulator" loads the accumulator with the contents of memory at (IAR + 0): zero offset from the IAR. Since the IAR was already incremented, it points to the STORE instruction. The "store accumulator" stores the accumulator (containing the store instruction itself) to memory at (IAR + 0). Since the IAR was already incremented, that is the memory location immediately AFTER the STORE instruction executing. Lather, rinse, repeat :-) -- jeff jonas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 17:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v6llnb12k644pn25caika59npujloaulb3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #12382 |
On 4 Jul 2016 18:39:55 GMT, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> declaimed the
following:
>
>One of the more successful early CPUs did not have an index register, did
>not have a stack pointer, and had no way of using the PC to access data.
>It did have a way to do serial access to array elements.
While the Sigma did have index capability (using registers 1-7; 0
encoded no indexing), it also supported one-level indirect addressing -- in
which the data being loaded was retrieved via an address stored at the
address in the operation. So one could work arrays via the complex of:
LD,<scratch register> Start_of_Array
ADD,<scratch register> Offset
LD,<data register> *<scratch register> ;* means indirect address
vs
LD,<index register> Offset
LD,<data register> Start_of_Array,<index register>
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 19:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <20160704190518.442869a29f5586a640ecbcd4@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #12382 |
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:35:44 +0000 (UTC) John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > > I think there needs to be a distinction between self modifying > > code > >(evil incarnate) and self extending code (quite common - think JIT > >compilers). I've never seen a good reason for the former and in these > >days of deep pipelines and multi-layer caching it would almost certainly > >be a terrible thing to do from a performance perspective. > > Oh, you young folks. Guilty as charged, barely out of my first half century. > Self-modifying code made interesting programs possible. Back in the > heroic era of the 1940s and early 1950s, there were no index > registers, no indirect addressing, just instructions. So to add up a > list of numbers, the program loop patched the ADD instruction to > change the address of the location to add. It seems like a kludge now, > but the ability for the program to modify itself was a huge advance. I see. Thank you I had not been aware of that stage of the evolution of instruction sets. > These days I agree, index registers handle most of the reasons you'd > modify code, and computers are now fast enough that we can afford to > do stuff the longer and clearer way. Of course, every time you > compile something and load the code into memory, whether JIT or an > ordinary program fetch, that's self-modifying code in action. That's why I brought in the self extending concept, to my eye there's a substantial difference between adding new code and changing the code that's there. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlej2r$1g8v$2@miucha.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #12401 |
> That's why I brought in the self extending concept, to my eye >there's a substantial difference between adding new code and changing the >code that's there. So how do you feel about load-time relocation of dynamically loaded code?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 21:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <du01p7FqerU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12453 |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 21:05:31 +0000, John Levine wrote: >> That's why I brought in the self extending concept, to my eye >>there's a substantial difference between adding new code and changing >>the code that's there. > > So how do you feel about load-time relocation of dynamically loaded > code? WARNING: Do not argue with John about this. Well, not until you've read his book! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 08:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <20160705083040.c1caf1faab04663f07e673b5@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #12453 |
On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:05:31 +0000 (UTC) John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > > That's why I brought in the self extending concept, to my eye > >there's a substantial difference between adding new code and changing the > >code that's there. > > So how do you feel about load-time relocation of dynamically loaded code? Yeah that's tricky, is all modification self modification. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 12:03 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, was Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <n7ydncrynuB0DubKnZ2dnUU78XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #12473 |
On 05/07/2016 08:30, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:05:31 +0000 (UTC) > John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: > >>> That's why I brought in the self extending concept, to my eye >>> there's a substantial difference between adding new code and changing the >>> code that's there. >> >> So how do you feel about load-time relocation of dynamically loaded code? > > Yeah that's tricky, is all modification self modification. > On the Plessey S250 each subroutine had its own block. The entire block was moved and the 3 word entry in the system table updated. All addresses were offsets down the block. The start offset lived in a special capability register. Unfortunately the operating system was hopeless at updating the global system table.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 06:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160704064342.d9f389159695423441ca84c6@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #12382 |
On 3 Jul 2016 21:53:13 -0400 jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) wrote: > >Execute is the lightest model of self-modifying code > > A polite view of EXECUTE is that it implements a > one instruction subroutine :-) > > I believe self modifying code is justified > when the CPU lacks a feature > required to accomplish a necessary task. I think there needs to be a distinction between self modifying code (evil incarnate) and self extending code (quite common - think JIT compilers). I've never seen a good reason for the former and in these days of deep pipelines and multi-layer caching it would almost certainly be a terrible thing to do from a performance perspective. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dtvorrFqerU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12403 |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:28:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > I think all processors have had the ability to load the contents of what > a register points to. > > THat is what a program counter or stack pointer does. Of course. But not all processors have had stack pointers, not all processors have had index registers, and the PC can't be used to access data in a useful way (at least for arrays, I am aware of the PDP-11 etc.). One of the more successful early CPUs did not have an index register, did not have a stack pointer, and had no way of using the PC to access data. It did have a way to do serial access to array elements. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 18:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <dtvotgFqerU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12403 |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 16:38:53 +0000, John Levine wrote: >>I think all processors have had the ability to load the contents of what >>a register points to. > > Nope, although I can believe all the ones built since you started > programming did. The PDP-8 I started programming on sure didn't. If > you wanted to do that, you had to store the accumulator into memory and > use that location as an indirect address. > >>THat is what a program counter or stack pointer does. > > Stack pointer? You must be new here. Just seen this. Sory, I also replied. You will guess the CPU to which I am referring (I have two downstairs!) -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 18:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <dtvp00FqerU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12403 |
On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:53:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 04/07/16 17:38, John Levine wrote: >>> I think all processors have had the ability to load the contents of >>> what a register points to. >> >> Nope, although I can believe all the ones built since you started >> programming did. The PDP-8 I started programming on sure didn't. If >> you wanted to do that, you had to store the accumulator into memory and >> use that location as an indirect address. > > well so it could load a memory address pointed to by another memory > addrres? Thats an index regsiter, just in RAM rather than in the CPU. You really don't like to be wrong, do you? Goalposts moving. > Makes sene when you built te CPU out of TTL. That CPU was not originally built out of TTL. >>> THat is what a program counter or stack pointer does. >> >> Stack pointer? You must be new here. >> > Are you telling me a PDP 8 didnt have a stack pointer? Yes. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 19:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: self-modifying code, Is it a lost cause? |
| Message-ID | <nlebbp$fgm$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #12407 |
On 04/07/16 19:42, Bob Eager wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:53:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 04/07/16 17:38, John Levine wrote: >>>> I think all processors have had the ability to load the contents of >>>> what a register points to. >>> >>> Nope, although I can believe all the ones built since you started >>> programming did. The PDP-8 I started programming on sure didn't. If >>> you wanted to do that, you had to store the accumulator into memory and >>> use that location as an indirect address. >> >> well so it could load a memory address pointed to by another memory >> addrres? Thats an index regsiter, just in RAM rather than in the CPU. > > You really don't like to be wrong, do you? Goalposts moving. > >> Makes sene when you built te CPU out of TTL. > > That CPU was not originally built out of TTL. So what was it built out of? > >>>> THat is what a program counter or stack pointer does. >>> >>> Stack pointer? You must be new here. >>> >> Are you telling me a PDP 8 didnt have a stack pointer? > > Yes. > > -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 40 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 40 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web