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


Groups > sci.physics > #532266 > unrolled thread

The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century.

Started byMax Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au>
First post2015-11-11 19:50 -0800
Last post2015-11-25 22:57 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 180 — 15 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics


Contents

  The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-11 19:50 -0800
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 04:22 +0000
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-12 10:05 -0500
        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:10 +0000
          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:52 -0500
            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:13 +0000
              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:38 -0500
                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 01:27 +0000
                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-14 15:55 -0500
                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 21:28 +0000
                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-15 10:30 -0500
                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 20:23 +0000
                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-16 05:42 -0500
                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-16 19:29 +0000
                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-17 05:08 -0500
                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-17 20:22 +0000
                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:16 -0800
                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 16:11 -0600
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:43 -0600
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-12 11:06 -0600
        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:01 +0000
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-14 15:52 -0800
        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 01:03 +0000
          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-18 02:09 -0800
            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-18 19:39 +0000
              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 00:27 -0500
                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 05:40 +0000
                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 07:50 -0500
                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-19 18:37 +0000
                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 11:47 -0800
                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. "Sam Gordon" <invalid@examplll.com> - 2015-11-19 11:58 -0800
                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:21 -0800
                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-19 23:35 -0500
                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 07:22 +0000
                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 09:20 -0500
                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 17:47 +0000
                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-20 15:31 -0500
                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 21:56 +0000
                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 08:18 -0500
                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:02 +0000
                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-22 09:17 -0500
                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:07 +0000
                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-23 08:11 -0500
                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:24 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-24 21:37 -0500
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 19:08 -0800
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:33 -0500
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:44 +0000
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 06:25 -0800
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
                                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 08:51 -0800
                                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
                                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 20:10 -0800
                                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 10:00 -0600
                                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 10:21 -0800
                                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-15 14:18 -0600
                                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:08 +0000
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:12 +0000
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:19 +0000
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-24 22:35 -0500
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 06:08 +0000
                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-21 14:37 +0000
                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 18:49 +0000
                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-22 14:50 +0000
                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:17 +0000
                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-23 14:13 +0000
                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:32 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-24 13:20 +0000
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 19:38 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-25 13:43 +0000
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 19:25 +0000
                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 11:03 -0500
                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 19:19 +0000
                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 11:46 -0800
                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 20:27 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:58 -0800
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 21:04 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-22 19:05 -0500
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 00:59 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 18:46 -0800
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 06:07 +0000
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 04:00 -0800
                                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 18:37 +0000
                                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 20:17 -0800
              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-19 16:07 -0800
                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 00:37 +0000
                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-22 16:28 -0800
                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 01:10 +0000
                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-25 14:13 -0800
                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-25 23:37 +0000
                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-29 16:17 -0800
                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-30 01:22 +0000
                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-03 15:12 -0800
                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 00:15 +0000
                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-03 23:34 -0500
                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-04 05:14 +0000
                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-05 17:01 -0800
                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 02:37 +0000
                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 00:55 -0500
                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-06 15:07 +0000
                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-06 10:15 -0500
                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:51 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-07 03:23 -0500
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 13:46 +0000
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-07 19:20 +0000
                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-07 15:53 -0800
                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-06 18:44 +0000
                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-14 15:12 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 16:56 +0000
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 13:13 -0600
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:32 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 20:47 +0000
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 21:36 +0000
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-14 22:33 +0000
                                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 00:09 +0000
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 21:57 -0600
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:00 +0000
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jürgen Großenbuch <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-15 15:02 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 19:13 +0000
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:31 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:11 -0500
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 03:44 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 23:04 -0500
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:01 +0000
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:36 -0500
                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-12 02:43 -0800
                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-12 19:18 +0000
                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 00:48 -0500
                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 06:08 +0000
                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 03:21 -0500
                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 19:13 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 14:37 -0500
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:36 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 15:48 -0500
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:58 -0500
                                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:32 +0000
                                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 20:54 -0500
                                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:15 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 19:55 -0500
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 01:52 +0000
                                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 22:38 -0500
                                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 06:07 +0000
                                                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:38 -0500
                                                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 05:04 +0000
                                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 06:50 -0500
                                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-12-15 13:06 +0000
                                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 08:53 -0500
                                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:52 +0000
                                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 19:48 +0000
                                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-15 22:12 -0500
                                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-16 03:44 +0000
                                              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:15 +0000
                                                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 20:20 +0000
                                                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Jason Wyome <jasonw@hotmail.org> - 2015-12-13 20:37 +0000
                                                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-13 21:06 +0000
                                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-12-15 02:24 -0800
                                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-15 20:03 +0000
                        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-26 15:18 +0000
                          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Max Keon <mskeon@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-11-27 01:32 -0800
                            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-27 14:06 +0000
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-12 15:17 -0800
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:34 +0000
        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 05:57 -0500
          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 19:23 +0000
            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-13 19:53 -0500
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:26 -0800
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-19 19:40 -0800
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-20 15:57 -0800
      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 00:30 +0000
        Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-20 21:53 -0500
          Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 07:15 +0000
            Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 13:46 -0500
              Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 19:57 +0000
                Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 15:50 -0500
                  Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-21 22:44 +0000
                    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-21 22:30 -0500
                      Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-22 05:14 +0000
    Re: The Case For Quick Basic In The 21st Century. emptypost@hotmail.com - 2015-11-25 22:57 -0800

Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →


#535300

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-25 06:08 +0000
Message-ID<2svfic-pqh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#535281
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> 
> FreeBASIC is not a "new" BASIC language. You don't need to learn much
> new if you are familiar with any Microsoft-BASIC variant.
 
Sounds like your dream language.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534368

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2015-11-21 14:37 +0000
Message-ID<PM0005250E0C7FBCC9@aca403cc.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#534259
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>
>>> Puerile; no.
>>>
>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>
>> Spoil-sport!
>
> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.

Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.

/BAH

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


#534383

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-21 18:49 +0000
Message-ID<7vq6ic-0v7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#534368
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>
>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>
>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>
>>> Spoil-sport!
>>
>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
> 
> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
> 
> /BAH

I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
in both areas.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534553

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2015-11-22 14:50 +0000
Message-ID<PM000525227FEBC6D6@aca41c74.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#534383
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>
>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>
>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>
>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
> in both areas.

Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing services
so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option will
take precedence over a system computing service.

The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.

/BAH

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


#534588

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-22 19:17 +0000
Message-ID<eug9ic-b1h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#534553
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>
>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>>
>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
>> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>> in both areas.
> 
> Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing services
> so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option will
> take precedence over a system computing service.
> 
> The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
> computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.
> 
> /BAH

Well, as consumer computers don't really have a need for things that are
common in the industrial arena, there isn't much motivation for Apple
or Microsoft to provide them.

One of the most disastrous projects I was ever involved with was the
time a manager mandated we use an Apple II instead of the PDP-11's
we normally used because the Apple was so inexpensive by comparison.

By the time it was done, so much engineering effort was put into the
project it would have paid for several PDP-11's, plus the final 
product was pathetic compared to the usual PDP-11 solution.



-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534783

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2015-11-23 14:13 +0000
Message-ID<PM00052535FE3B99B2@aca41148.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#534588
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
>>> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>>> in both areas.
>>
>> Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing services
>> so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option will
>> take precedence over a system computing service.
>>
>> The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
>> computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Well, as consumer computers don't really have a need for things that are
> common in the industrial arena, there isn't much motivation for Apple
> or Microsoft to provide them.
>
> One of the most disastrous projects I was ever involved with was the
> time a manager mandated we use an Apple II instead of the PDP-11's
> we normally used because the Apple was so inexpensive by comparison.

He only compared the price of the hardware of one system with the other?!!!!!
In my job, I would have stopped the nonsense by talking to his manager or
that guy's manager or that guy's manager...

>
> By the time it was done, so much engineering effort was put into the
> project it would have paid for several PDP-11's, plus the final
> product was pathetic compared to the usual PDP-11 solution.

<grin>  And there wasn't any DDT or TECO....or blinkenlights.

/BAH

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


#534852

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-23 18:32 +0000
Message-ID<en2cic-rmp.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#534783
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> /BAH
>>>>
>>>> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
>>>> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>>>> in both areas.
>>>
>>> Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing services
>>> so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option will
>>> take precedence over a system computing service.
>>>
>>> The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
>>> computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> Well, as consumer computers don't really have a need for things that are
>> common in the industrial arena, there isn't much motivation for Apple
>> or Microsoft to provide them.
>>
>> One of the most disastrous projects I was ever involved with was the
>> time a manager mandated we use an Apple II instead of the PDP-11's
>> we normally used because the Apple was so inexpensive by comparison.
> 
> He only compared the price of the hardware of one system with the other?!!!!!
> In my job, I would have stopped the nonsense by talking to his manager or
> that guy's manager or that guy's manager...

Yep, that is exactly what he did and would not listen to anything else.

Unfortunately, there was no one else above him.

In his defense, the concept of controlling "stuff" with a computer was
basically uncharted territory at the time and he did learn his lesson
from the debacle.

>> By the time it was done, so much engineering effort was put into the
>> project it would have paid for several PDP-11's, plus the final
>> product was pathetic compared to the usual PDP-11 solution.
> 
> <grin>  And there wasn't any DDT or TECO....or blinkenlights.
> 
> /BAH

-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#535018

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2015-11-24 13:20 +0000
Message-ID<PM0005254945A3F440@aca4008d.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#534852
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>>>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>>>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>>>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /BAH
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
>>>>> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>>>>> in both areas.
>>>>
>>>> Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing services
>>>> so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option will
>>>> take precedence over a system computing service.
>>>>
>>>> The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
>>>> computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> Well, as consumer computers don't really have a need for things that are
>>> common in the industrial arena, there isn't much motivation for Apple
>>> or Microsoft to provide them.
>>>
>>> One of the most disastrous projects I was ever involved with was the
>>> time a manager mandated we use an Apple II instead of the PDP-11's
>>> we normally used because the Apple was so inexpensive by comparison.
>>
>> He only compared the price of the hardware of one system with the
other?!!!!!
>> In my job, I would have stopped the nonsense by talking to his manager or
>> that guy's manager or that guy's manager...
>
> Yep, that is exactly what he did and would not listen to anything else.
>
> Unfortunately, there was no one else above him.

Ah, small group.  I hadn't thought about this non-benefit with a small
group.

>
> In his defense, the concept of controlling "stuff" with a computer was
> basically uncharted territory at the time and he did learn his lesson
> from the debacle.

At least he was capable of learning.  How much calender time did it
take?

A PDP-8 would have been wonderful. ;-)

/BAH

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


#535134

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-24 19:38 +0000
Message-ID<auqeic-d0e.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#535018
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>>>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>>>>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>>>>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>>>>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /BAH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
>>>>>> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>>>>>> in both areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing services
>>>>> so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option will
>>>>> take precedence over a system computing service.
>>>>>
>>>>> The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
>>>>> computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.
>>>>>
>>>>> /BAH
>>>>
>>>> Well, as consumer computers don't really have a need for things that are
>>>> common in the industrial arena, there isn't much motivation for Apple
>>>> or Microsoft to provide them.
>>>>
>>>> One of the most disastrous projects I was ever involved with was the
>>>> time a manager mandated we use an Apple II instead of the PDP-11's
>>>> we normally used because the Apple was so inexpensive by comparison.
>>>
>>> He only compared the price of the hardware of one system with the
> other?!!!!!
>>> In my job, I would have stopped the nonsense by talking to his manager or
>>> that guy's manager or that guy's manager...
>>
>> Yep, that is exactly what he did and would not listen to anything else.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there was no one else above him.
> 
> Ah, small group.  I hadn't thought about this non-benefit with a small
> group.
> 
>>
>> In his defense, the concept of controlling "stuff" with a computer was
>> basically uncharted territory at the time and he did learn his lesson
>> from the debacle.
> 
> At least he was capable of learning.  How much calender time did it
> take?

Other than a very long time for what the project was, I don't remember.
 
> A PDP-8 would have been wonderful. ;-)

We were just starting out in the make a computer control "things" world
but had already settled on PDP-11 as the platform of choice and already
had a rather large library of tested helper code in Fortran for the
off the shelf I/O interface boards.

Of course all that was useless for an Apple II. Things like A/D and
D/A boards had to be designed from scratch as well as the software
to use them.



-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#535329

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2015-11-25 13:43 +0000
Message-ID<PM0005255DB22D0CE2@aca42932.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#535134
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>>>>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>>>>>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>>>>>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>>>>>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app
implementations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /BAH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
>>>>>>> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>>>>>>> in both areas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing
services
>>>>>> so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option
will
>>>>>> take precedence over a system computing service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
>>>>>> computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /BAH
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as consumer computers don't really have a need for things that are
>>>>> common in the industrial arena, there isn't much motivation for Apple
>>>>> or Microsoft to provide them.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the most disastrous projects I was ever involved with was the
>>>>> time a manager mandated we use an Apple II instead of the PDP-11's
>>>>> we normally used because the Apple was so inexpensive by comparison.
>>>>
>>>> He only compared the price of the hardware of one system with the
>> other?!!!!!
>>>> In my job, I would have stopped the nonsense by talking to his manager or
>>>> that guy's manager or that guy's manager...
>>>
>>> Yep, that is exactly what he did and would not listen to anything else.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there was no one else above him.
>>
>> Ah, small group.  I hadn't thought about this non-benefit with a small
>> group.
>>
>>>
>>> In his defense, the concept of controlling "stuff" with a computer was
>>> basically uncharted territory at the time and he did learn his lesson
>>> from the debacle.
>>
>> At least he was capable of learning.  How much calender time did it
>> take?
>
> Other than a very long time for what the project was, I don't remember.
>
>> A PDP-8 would have been wonderful. ;-)
>
> We were just starting out in the make a computer control "things" world
> but had already settled on PDP-11 as the platform of choice and already
> had a rather large library of tested helper code in Fortran for the
> off the shelf I/O interface boards.
>
> Of course all that was useless for an Apple II. Things like A/D and
> D/A boards had to be designed from scratch as well as the software
> to use them.

One of JMF's first jobs was to control a (IIRC) 2-ton bin on rails which
was used to pick up parts in a warehouse.  They tried and tried
but couldn't control the speed, especially w.r.t. stopping.
Computers were too big and comm lines were too slow.  10 years
later they could have done it with the new hardware technology.

/BAH

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


#535423

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-25 19:25 +0000
Message-ID<diehic-5pm.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#535329
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>>>>>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>>>>>>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>>>>>>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>>>>>>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app
> implementations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /BAH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can understand that. The majority of things I have done require IPC
>>>>>>>> and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>>>>>>>> in both areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yea.  Their focus is on distribution, not delivery of computing
> services
>>>>>>> so when there is a trade-off to be decided, the distribution option
> will
>>>>>>> take precedence over a system computing service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The funcionality we had in our OSes, will begin to appear in today's
>>>>>>> computing services.  The computing biz is extremely cyclic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /BAH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as consumer computers don't really have a need for things that are
>>>>>> common in the industrial arena, there isn't much motivation for Apple
>>>>>> or Microsoft to provide them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the most disastrous projects I was ever involved with was the
>>>>>> time a manager mandated we use an Apple II instead of the PDP-11's
>>>>>> we normally used because the Apple was so inexpensive by comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>> He only compared the price of the hardware of one system with the
>>> other?!!!!!
>>>>> In my job, I would have stopped the nonsense by talking to his manager or
>>>>> that guy's manager or that guy's manager...
>>>>
>>>> Yep, that is exactly what he did and would not listen to anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, there was no one else above him.
>>>
>>> Ah, small group.  I hadn't thought about this non-benefit with a small
>>> group.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In his defense, the concept of controlling "stuff" with a computer was
>>>> basically uncharted territory at the time and he did learn his lesson
>>>> from the debacle.
>>>
>>> At least he was capable of learning.  How much calender time did it
>>> take?
>>
>> Other than a very long time for what the project was, I don't remember.
>>
>>> A PDP-8 would have been wonderful. ;-)
>>
>> We were just starting out in the make a computer control "things" world
>> but had already settled on PDP-11 as the platform of choice and already
>> had a rather large library of tested helper code in Fortran for the
>> off the shelf I/O interface boards.
>>
>> Of course all that was useless for an Apple II. Things like A/D and
>> D/A boards had to be designed from scratch as well as the software
>> to use them.
> 
> One of JMF's first jobs was to control a (IIRC) 2-ton bin on rails which
> was used to pick up parts in a warehouse.  They tried and tried
> but couldn't control the speed, especially w.r.t. stopping.
> Computers were too big and comm lines were too slow.  10 years
> later they could have done it with the new hardware technology.
> 
> /BAH

Yep, the MicroPDP-11 series in a 5 inch box instead of a 5 foot rack
revolutionized process control.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534562

FromWally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date2015-11-22 11:03 -0500
Message-ID<mip35btla86hi9srip6vsb5vldsmidsvo4@4ax.com>
In reply to#534383
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>
>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>
>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>> 
>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>> 
>> /BAH
>
>I can understand that. 

So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
an IT department?


>The majority of things I have done require IPC
>and often threads to work and in my opinion Microsoft is still lacking
>in both areas.

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


#534589

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-22 19:19 +0000
Message-ID<52h9ic-b1h.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#534562
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Puerile; no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoil-sport!
>>>>
>>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>>> 
>>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>>> 
>>> /BAH
>>
>>I can understand that. 
> 
> So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
> an IT department?

I said I could understand it, period.

Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
in showing what a bigot you are.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534597

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-22 11:46 -0800
Message-ID<47981eb8-ca28-4587-bfa6-4458468b890c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#534589
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> >>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
> >>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Puerile; no.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spoil-sport!
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
> >>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
> >>> 
> >>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
> >>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
> >>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
> >>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
> >>> 
> >>> /BAH
> >>
> >>I can understand that. 
> > 
> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
> > an IT department?
> 
> I said I could understand it, period.
> 
> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
> in showing what a bigot you are.

Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.

> -- 
> Jim Pennino

-- Mahipal 'Pronounced WhoCares?!'

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


#534603

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-22 20:27 +0000
Message-ID<s2l9ic-djh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#534597
Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> > 
>> >>jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 11/20/2015 12:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>>>> dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 11/20/2015 2:22 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I don't know who 'M$' is; is this an attempt to be funny?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M%24
>> >>>>>>> Are you laughing yet?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Puerile; no.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I have seen Microsloth from other puerile posters.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Spoil-sport!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've always thought things like that were childish and branded the
>> >>>> users of such as bigots; yes there are software bigots.
>> >>> 
>> >>> Sometimes.  Other times, there are software developers and
>> >>> maintainers who have to make something work well and are stopped
>> >>> by asspects (correct spelling of a word we used to describe a bug
>> >>> which was a feature of the software) of MS' OS and app implementations.
>> >>> 
>> >>> /BAH
>> >>
>> >>I can understand that. 
>> > 
>> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
>> > an IT department?
>> 
>> I said I could understand it, period.
>> 
>> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
>> in showing what a bigot you are.
> 
> Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.
 
It is sour grapes and nothing more.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534608

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-22 12:58 -0800
Message-ID<a1dbb1f0-1ba9-4dde-88a9-55983eb38105@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#534603
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!>

> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
> >> > an IT department?
> >> 
> >> I said I could understand it, period.
> >> 
> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
> >> in showing what a bigot you are.
> > 
> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.
>  
> It is sour grapes and nothing more.

No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job?

Look Jim, I know you well, I have read you for years, so be mean if
you must. But, Wally is right, in 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, or 2 bits mode.

> -- 
> Jim Pennino

-- Mahipal

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


#534610

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-22 21:04 +0000
Message-ID<27n9ic-9qh.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#534608
Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
> <trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!>
> 
>> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
>> >> > an IT department?
>> >> 
>> >> I said I could understand it, period.
>> >> 
>> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
>> >> in showing what a bigot you are.
>> > 
>> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.
>>  
>> It is sour grapes and nothing more.
> 
> No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job?

About 20 years ago just before I started my own IT company when I tired
of head hunters taking a big cut.

Unless you mean when was the last time I interviewed someone.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534648

FromWally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date2015-11-22 19:05 -0500
Message-ID<41m45bpiqvtc0pit8j2fv30rak0kirji0t@4ax.com>
In reply to#534610
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:04:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>> <trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!>
>> 
>>> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
>>> >> > an IT department?
>>> >> 
>>> >> I said I could understand it, period.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
>>> >> in showing what a bigot you are.
>>> > 
>>> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.
>>>  
>>> It is sour grapes and nothing more.
>> 
>> No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job?
>
>About 20 years ago just before I started my own IT company when I tired
>of head hunters taking a big cut.
>
>Unless you mean when was the last time I interviewed someone.

When was the last time IT policies beyond your control prevented you
from doing your job?

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


#534657

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-23 00:59 +0000
Message-ID<j05aic-a4j.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#534648
Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:04:02 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> <trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!>
>>> 
>>>> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
>>>> >> > an IT department?
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> I said I could understand it, period.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
>>>> >> in showing what a bigot you are.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.
>>>>  
>>>> It is sour grapes and nothing more.
>>> 
>>> No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job?
>>
>>About 20 years ago just before I started my own IT company when I tired
>>of head hunters taking a big cut.
>>
>>Unless you mean when was the last time I interviewed someone.
> 
> When was the last time IT policies beyond your control prevented you
> from doing your job?

Never.

The concept is ridiculous and any company that acted like that would
soon be out of business.

I have seen lots of people run afoul with IT for playing games, looking
at porn, running side businesses, generally wasting time, and infecting
company machines with software brought from home.

About 35 years ago I did get a little tired of having to have the
corporate IT department, which at the time was purely business
computing on mainframes, approve purchase orders for engineering
computers (which was a new concept at the time), so I made a
presentation to corporate management to make a distinction between
the two with engineering managers having authority over engineering
purchases, which was promptly approved.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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


#534691

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-22 18:46 -0800
Message-ID<a8639072-94f0-4347-9728-df948fc81523@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#534610
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 4:16:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 3:31:05 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 18:49:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > 
> > <trim /BAH /bah /BAH sheeple talk, Hi /BAH!>
> > 
> >> >> > So it isn't puerile, childish, or bigoted if spoken by a priest from
> >> >> > an IT department?
> >> >> 
> >> >> I said I could understand it, period.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Your use of the phrase 'priest from an IT department' goes a long way
> >> >> in showing what a bigot you are.
> >> > 
> >> > Wake up Jim, that's a perfect phrase, accurate in any tone.
> >>  
> >> It is sour grapes and nothing more.
> > 
> > No it's not, when was the last time you interviewed for an IT job?
> 
> About 20 years ago just before I started my own IT company when I tired
> of head hunters taking a big cut.

You did the wise step Jim. I wish I had. I am doing it now.

> Unless you mean when was the last time I interviewed someone.

Fine, whom did you end up hiring? Got linkedin links for them?

> -- 
> Jim Pennino

-- Mahipal  

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


Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web