Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #639929
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Are low tech computers viable? |
| Date | 2017-07-11 05:59 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <s36e3e-nhg.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink) |
| References | <6bfab69a-cf75-4b30-812d-4ab2884e9eb7@googlegroups.com> <oreb3e-3j7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <596401d2$0$36014$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> <pand3e-g4f.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <59643ba1$0$60248$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 7/10/2017 9:47 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 7/10/2017 1:10 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com drooled: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Troll and babble >> >> The resident troll continues to seek attention through ad hominems and >> rambling babble. >> >> > Didn;t I'd say the the senil Yet more ad hominem and babble from the resident troll. -- 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