Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #640153
| Path | csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Are low tech computers viable? |
| Date | Wed, 12 Jul 2017 05:36:44 -0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 15 |
| Sender | Jim Pennino <jimp@mail.specsol.com> |
| Message-ID | <c4pg3e-nfp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <6bfab69a-cf75-4b30-812d-4ab2884e9eb7@googlegroups.com> <oreb3e-3j7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <vt0bmc97i7j3tlocf1lse4c4q2n5rsvv59@4ax.com> |
| Injection-Info | mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7efef51c6ab6242d06595b22db7b8227"; logging-data="22650"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IvHlWKd93U21YaU3VTRtl" |
| User-Agent | tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc)) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:buWPXoBG8rXAu9PuadOiUaYzk3g= |
| Xref | csiph.com sci.physics:640153 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:10:48 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>chemguy <rick_kingstone777@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> It is well known that bees communicate essential information by performing a dance ritual within the hive. It may be possible to design a low tech computer based upon the dance of the bees. >> >>Or one based on opera singing pigs. > > Now and then you make perfect sense. If you are looking for sense you should not be reading this group. -- Jim Pennino
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Are low tech computers viable? chemguy <rick_kingstone777@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-09 19:18 -0700
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 19:32 -0700
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:33 -0500
Re: Are low tech computers viable? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 05:10 +0000
Re: Are low tech computers viable? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-10 18:38 -0400
Re: Are low tech computers viable? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 01:47 +0000
Re: Are low tech computers viable? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-10 22:44 -0400
Re: Are low tech computers viable? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 05:59 +0000
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 21:05 -0500
Re: Are low tech computers viable? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 05:36 +0000
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 07:01 -0700
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2017-07-10 08:21 -0400
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 06:18 -0700
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 06:45 -0700
Re: Are low tech computers viable? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 19:34 -0700
Re: Are low tech computers viable? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-10 22:45 -0400
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Mushnik <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 21:48 -0500
Re: Are low tech computers viable? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-10 22:24 -0700
Re: Are low tech computers viable? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-07-14 14:12 -0700
csiph-web