Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 27 Nov 2006 19:57 On 11/19/06 11:27 PM, in article ejrlct$dj9$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org, "jasen" <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: > On 2006-11-19, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> A TTY keyboard used a current loop, typically 20 mA. When a key was >> pressed, the selector bars would fall into notches, mechanically encoding >> the opening and closing of the 20 mA. loop to generate the code pulses. >> >> When receiving, the TTY machine would mechanically decode the series of 20 >> mA. pulses and shift the selector bars to set-up the right character to >> print. >> >> This has nothing in common with a modern computer. If you wish to misuse >> the terminology you are free to do so, but there is no way you can >> rationally support it, technically. SED is STILL, sort of a technical Board >> (I think), so it would be nice of you to at least try, > > the CRT based terminals that replaced the teletype machines, are called > "glass tty" by many. Many can be as wrong as 1, but if that's the current slang for what we in the industry called a "dumb terminal," that's ok. I'd have named them Dufus. > > the term is now used to mean any TTY-like connection to a computer > (especially one runnin unix or similar), be that via an asynchrounous > serial link (eg RS232), network connection (eg: telnet session) or > , a pseudo-tty like xterm gives, or even the console in character mode. TTY connections were 20 or 60 mA. current on twisted pair. The similie isn't all that good. Don > > > Bye. > Jasen
From: lucasea on 27 Nov 2006 19:57 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:ekf18i$abg$10(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <MPG.1fd2d7e6ed030e26989ce1(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>In article <slrnemhu90.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, don(a)manx.misty.com >>says... >>> In article <4568E855.908535E2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote: >>> > >>> >T Wake wrote: >>> > >>> >> "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote >>> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Have you ever read anything modern ? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thatcher was quite mad btw. >>> >> > >>> >> > "Quite" - barking towards the end. There is no love for Thatcher in >>> >> > Wales, for example. Less then for Beeching, in faact. >>> >> >>> >> Yeah, she had some great ideas for making Britain strong by >>> >> dismantling > our >>> >> heavy industry, ruining our mining economy and making the country > reliant on >>> >> FSU states for the import of basics like coal. >>> >> >>> >> For once I side with the Welsh here :-) >>> > >>> >Courtesy of what Thatcher started we are now apparently a >>> >'post-industrial >>> >economy' with manufacturing recently only contributing 17% of the GNP. >>> > >>> >I reckon this bubble's due to burst. >>> >>> USA appears to me "post-industrial" due to problems caused more by >>> Democrats than by Republicans, but mostly not fixed (especially not >>> fixing more than causing additional damage) by Republicans when they >>> recently spent quite a few years in the White House, both houses of >>> Congress and governor of over 30 of USA's 50 "states"! >> >>Conservative Republicans have never had a functional majority in >>congress. There are too many RINOs to get anything done but trade >>pork. >>> >>> Good time for a centrist 3rd party? As opposed to the Libertarians >>> favoring and opposing things along ideological lines, including >>> opposition >>> of some things that no prosperous democracy survived without since the >>> Industrial Revolution? As opposed to parties even less centrist than >>> the >>> Libertarians? >> >>A third party will never happen. The framers intentional set the >>country up for two-party rule. > > Actually they set it up for no party. Remember how the vice-president was > to > be chosen? The runner-up to the president. And keep in mind that at least one of the framers (Jefferson) and early statesmen (Washington, Franklin) warned against a two-party system. I understand some preferred a no-party system, and others (Washington is the one I remember) advocated a multiple-party system. >> Powerful minority parties were an >>anathema to them, as is seen now in parliamentary systems. Not at all. They saw the problems in England with a two-party system, and at least some felt they could be solved with multiple parties. Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 20:00 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <52483$456b1860$49ecfde$979(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>>In article <MPG.1fd28e4b92c5a97989cc1(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <asydncaDLYw_J_XYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, >>>>usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:phineaspuddleduck-416009.21422525112006(a)free.teranews.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <Ls-dnZRLjKdkKvXYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I certainly agree on that. "Chavs" have a tendency to crop up most in >>> >>>the >>> >>> >>>>>>>areas most affected by Thacherite policies. >>>>>> >>>>>>It seems to be a rebellion to the way things were done. You have the >>>>>>worst of both systems. The right wing view that everything now >>>>>>disallowed is permissible, and the left wing view that the state should >>>>>>mollycoddle you. Add that to a fanatical hatred of anything not "local" >>>>>>and "familar" and you have a chav. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm left of centre myself. I can see the need for the state to keep >>>>>>checks and balances, but human nature sometimes really makes me cry! >>>>> >>>>>Prior to getting embroiled in this thread, I thought I was fairly right of >>>>>centre. I now see the error in my ways and I am firmly left of centre now. >>> >>>I >>> >>> >>>>>suspect half the apparently right wing extremists posting on this thread >>>>>live very different lives away from USENET. >>>> >>>>No, you're a left-wing extremist, right there with the dumb donkey. >>>>This isn't surprising since you're both socialist Europeons. >>>> >>> >>> >>>To you, anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a socialist. >> >>You probably ought to read history about Attila (and note the >>spelling, it's not a Brit name.) > > > From wikipedia: > > "n Hungary and Turkey the names of Attila (sometimes as Atilla in Turkish)," > > Also see http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3atilla_p1dz.htm From your web page: "While most people see Atilla [more often spelled "Attila"]..." The following tidbit comes fom a web page that makes the hyperhstory page look like a comic book parody on the later history of the Huns: "Hungarian-speaking population of Hungary from the German, Slavic, and Romanian minorities. Sz�kely, ethnic group of Transylvania and of present-day Romania, is another good example. The Sz�kely (also known as Szeklers or Siculi) came into Transylvania either with or before the Magyars. Their organization was of the Turkic type, and they are probably of Turkic (possibly Avar) stock. By the 11th cent., however, they had adopted Magyar speech. Some scholars disputed the word 'adopt' since they believe that Sz�kely were of Magyar family, related to one of the two sons of Attila the Hun. Sz�kely later formed one of three privileged nations of Transylvania (the others were the Magyars and the Saxons). " http://www.republicanchina.org/Hun.html This page provides a learned study of enough elements to provide the reader with sufficient information to make a reasonable decision about the languages involved and to arrive at the "correct" spelling of Attila's name. I don't care why you spelled the name as you did. You're in the minority.
From: lucasea on 27 Nov 2006 20:02 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:ekf1ib$abg$12(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <ekc28m$8ss_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <MPG.1fd2d7e6ed030e26989ce1(a)news.individual.net>, >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>In article <slrnemhu90.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, don(a)manx.misty.com >>>says... >><snip> >> >>>> Also, the USA's worst-in-the-world "War On Drugs"! Punish users >>>> inadequately and make most punishment to distribution, so as to give >>>> a profit motive to smarter meaner distributors! >>>> I thing USA is better off choosing either of two extremes: >>>> >>>> 1) Get caught with half a joint, spend 2 years in "The Joint". >>>> According >>>> to my German teacher when I was taking German in highschool, that was >>>> the >>>> law of Germany! >>>> >>>> 2) Make USA's recreational drug laws like they were in 1900 - when >>>> marijuana, cocaine and opiates were LEGAL! >>> >>>Legalizing marijuana is a good idea, the government doesn't like it >>>because unlike alcohol or tobacco it cannot be taxed. It's too >>>easy to grow. I don't like the idea of legalizing cocaine or >>>opiates. THe cost to society of these things now makes tobacco look >>>like chump change. >> >>In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession >>of tobacco illegal. That kind of rhetoric has already started >>in Massachusetts. And, since this is an all-Democrat state, >>you others can't blame Republicans. It is one of life's >>largest ironies that the Democrats, who call themselves >>Liberals, are the most tight-assed, prudish, intolerable >>people. >> >>/BAH > > Whatever happened to "your right stops when it injures me"? I think the quote is something along the lines of "your right to throw a punch ends at the end of my nose." Her assertion about making possession of tobacco illegal is simple fear-mongering, however. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 27 Nov 2006 20:10
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:V6idnY0aS9CZeffYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > Treatment is not massively effective, but it is slightly more effective > than detention. Add to this the fact that prison often does nothing but serve as a giant networking opportunity for criminals. There are plenty of cases reported of people put in jail for relatively minor offenses, only to learn new criminal skills and develop a network, and emerge a hardened criminal that does a lot worse than his/her original offense. Eric Lucas |