Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 4 Feb 2007 21:51 In article <45C6884C.667EAE24(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [... dropping main subject ...] > I never actually met an 8 in >the flesh just an 11. At one time the PDP-8 was the most common computer in the world. The PDP-12 was a nifty machine too. It was a combination of a PDP-8 machine with another machine called the "link machine". The instruction set could be toggled between the two. They were wildly different machines so you could get some interesting results by mixing the two types of code. The Link used ones compliment. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MassiveProng on 4 Feb 2007 22:01 On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:19:25 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >MassiveProng wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >> >>> >> >>> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >> >>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >> >> >> >>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What was being >> >>rationed in 1975 ? >> > >> >I found it. whew! >> > >> >Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, Harper-Collins; >> >1993; page 44. >> > >> >"But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange >> >controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory >> >restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens >> >could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency measure' >> >at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive >> >governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial >> >investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." >> > >> >/BAH >> >> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, and >> economic growth initiative. > >Interesting comment. > >In the following period we had skyrocketing inflation (under Thatcher) and it >marked the time when outsourcing also started to take serious hold. > Wasn't it already heading that way as she came in, and a lot of the damage already done though?
From: Eeyore on 4 Feb 2007 22:14 MassiveProng wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >MassiveProng wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. > >> >>> > >> >>> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how > >> >>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. > >> >> > >> >>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What was being > >> >>rationed in 1975 ? > >> > > >> >I found it. whew! > >> > > >> >Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, Harper-Collins; > >> >1993; page 44. > >> > > >> >"But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange > >> >controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory > >> >restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens > >> >could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency measure' > >> >at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive > >> >governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial > >> >investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." > >> > > >> >/BAH > >> > >> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, and > >> economic growth initiative. > > > >Interesting comment. > > > >In the following period we had skyrocketing inflation (under Thatcher) and it > >marked the time when outsourcing also started to take serious hold. > > > Wasn't it already heading that way as she came in, and a lot of the > damage already done though? Labour had been very protective of manufacturing industry whereas Thatcher's approach was to let 'the market' do its thing. She believed that 'the market' was the only important factor in the economy and distanced government from any long-term strategic thinking about industry. So, if it was cheaper to get stuff from abroad whether outsourced or simply imported from foreign suppliers, that was what went. Heck, we now even buy stuff like locomotives from the USA and ships from Italy, France and Germany, our own industry in those areas now being a minute fraction of what it once was. Thatcher also believed strongly in the service economy. As such, the UK is now regarded as being 'post-industrial'. Graham
From: MassiveProng on 4 Feb 2007 22:22 On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 03:14:01 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >MassiveProng wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >MassiveProng wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >> >> >>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >> >> >> >> >> >>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What was being >> >> >>rationed in 1975 ? >> >> > >> >> >I found it. whew! >> >> > >> >> >Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, Harper-Collins; >> >> >1993; page 44. >> >> > >> >> >"But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange >> >> >controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory >> >> >restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens >> >> >could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency measure' >> >> >at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive >> >> >governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial >> >> >investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." >> >> > >> >> >/BAH >> >> >> >> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, and >> >> economic growth initiative. >> > >> >Interesting comment. >> > >> >In the following period we had skyrocketing inflation (under Thatcher) and it >> >marked the time when outsourcing also started to take serious hold. >> >> >> Wasn't it already heading that way as she came in, and a lot of the >> damage already done though? > >Labour had been very protective of manufacturing industry whereas Thatcher's >approach was to let 'the market' do its thing. She believed that 'the market' was >the only important factor in the economy and distanced government from any >long-term strategic thinking about industry. > >So, if it was cheaper to get stuff from abroad whether outsourced or simply >imported from foreign suppliers, that was what went. > >Heck, we now even buy stuff like locomotives from the USA and ships from Italy, >France and Germany, our own industry in those areas now being a minute fraction of >what it once was. > >Thatcher also believed strongly in the service economy. As such, the UK is now >regarded as being 'post-industrial'. > > So you are saying that her cutting these said controls was a bad thing for the value of british pounds sterling? Would it have been better to have retained it?
From: krw on 4 Feb 2007 22:33
In article <eq4j4v$8ss_002(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.202ea6899fc4bb25989f54(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <eq23j4$8qk_002(a)s939.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> In article <gm08s2luj0mrj73m00vt7isc8sb4kvt630(a)4ax.com>, > >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> >On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:11:52 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > >> >Gave us: > >> > > >> >>MassiveProng wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> On Fri, 02 Feb 07 14:04:45 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>>>In article <8e65s297p2fs3tfodc3mk1rmqu2phstukv(a)4ax.com>, > >> >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>>On Thu, 01 Feb 07 12:46:52 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>>It isn't the burners. It is the computer board in the stove that > >> >>>>>>is bad. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The stove has a clock, a cooking timer, and maybe some thermal probe > >> >>>>>monitoring ports. That isn't a computer. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>It has one board. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Which incorporates all the items I listed above. Being a single > >> >>> board STILL does NOT make it a computer. > >> >>> > >> >>> Nice attempt at a sidestep, though. > >> >> > >> >>Your definitions are, to coin a phrase, unique. > >> > > >> > You're an idiot. I work in the industry. > >> > > >> > It would be termed a micro-controller, at best. > >> > > >> > STILL NOT a computer. > >> > > >> >>"An electronic device for the storage and processing of information." > >> > > >> > A calculator would fit the definition. It isn't a computer either. > >> >It IS a calculator. > >> > > >> > The controller in an oven is a micro-controller, nothing more. > >> > > >> > The consumer device has to have Windows CE or the like on it, and > >> >have a user interface with a gui to BE a computer. > >> > >> <spluttering emoticon wipes oatmeal off screen> > > > >Come on BAH! Didn't the PDP-10 run Windows CE? > > I often wish that those guys had spent one more month playing > on the -10 system. They might have learned about buffer mode > I/O and how to do memory management. Which guys? > <snip> > > >> > You really have more people laughing at you than you realize. > >> > >> Riiight. > > > >Well, there is one, evidently. > > You guys laugh at what I say a lot. There was no laughter there. > I *finally* got to use my expensive VRRROOOMMM machine. Then > spent the rest of my energy chipping ice with what was left. > I only had two inches to blow. It must have rained a some > point. I've used mine a bunch so far this year. Nothing more than four or five inches though. The last few times was less than 2". Ice on the bottom is no fun at all. Ice on the top or middle is no problem. I'll often leave some snow if it's going to get warm -- Keith > |