non portable - a problem with direct access
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: McFor: a MATLAB-to-Fortran 95 Compiler
Next: 100% free dell laptaps offerd by dell and Vodafone companies.
From: robin on 6 Aug 2010 12:17 "Nick Maclaren" <nmm(a)gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:i3ba88$hmp$1(a)gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk... | In article <4c58c055$0$34573$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, | robin <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> wrote: | >| >| > | >| >| | >| >| TTYs came in in the mid-1960s | >| > | >| >TTYs were being used in 1960 and even earlier. | >| >There were demonstrations used on remote installations | >| >back in the 1950s. | >| | >| Sigh. Yes, of course I know that. It's not the point. They were | >| specialist devices until the first time-sharing computers started | >| to be used for real work, which was in the mid-1960s. | > | >Liverpool University was using TTYs for time sharing in or prior to 1962. | | Sometimes I wonder why I ever bother replying to you. Flat-screen | displays existed for 20 years before they started to be used, Don't be ridiculous. | and | it is the latter stage (with regard to data entry) that this thread | is about. This thread started off as direct access. I challenged your statements about TTYs, and that's what this sub-thread is about. | Cambridge is one of the candidates for introducing that usage, and | I suggest that you read up a bit more about the history of time | sharing and, in particular, which universities are generally credited | with introducing it. Oh, and look at my Email address, too. Had you actually bothered to read up about it yourself, you would have found that time-sharing was documented as being introduced in 1961. | >| And, even then, they were too scarce to be used for data entry, | > | >In the 1950s, and 1960s they were never "too scarce". | >They were manufactured by the thousands for telegraph work -- | >if not tens of thousands --and could be purchased from such manufactures | >as Creed, Siemens, and Teletype. | | Either you are playing political word games or are completely bone- | headed. You are being arrogant and tedious. | Yes, OF COURSE, the kit was widespread - the problem was | simultaneous connexions to the (rare and limited) computers. There | were some systems that claimed proudly that they could support up | to four (4! Count them!) simultaneous connexions. So now it's rare and limited computers. Previously you claimed (wrongly) that it was that TTYs were "too scarce". | >| which was done offline, and they were used for editing, debugging, | >| etc. | > | >Sure, many of those in computer installations were used | >off-line because the only computer input mode was paper tape I/O. | >However, some systems had TTYs on line. | | Yes, I used them and visited sites with others. In the 1960s. Good. I hope that you got the point. In fact, TTYs were being used (attached to) computers in the very early 1960s. As well as that, time-sharing was running in 1961. | I am speaking from both personal knowledge and information received | directly from some of the originators of the usage. And so am I. The Bendix G15 was sold from 1955, and its input was apparently a Friden flexowriter. More than 400 G15s machines were sold.
From: Uno on 10 Aug 2010 01:37 On 8/6/2010 4:01 AM, Nick Maclaren wrote: > In article<8c22v6Fo86U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Uno<merrilljensen(a)q.com> wrote: >> >> I'm having a problem not wanting to reach out and twist your british >> head off right about now to release a geyser of what must lie in your >> belly: fish, chips, ugly german monarchs and shepherd's pie, whatever >> horrid thing that must be. > > That summarises this thread in a nutshell. There's really nothing > that I can add to it. Please add my apology to this estimation. I seem to have some anger issues with the U.K. right now. I like you Nick, and hope/think you're one of the good guys. -- Uno
From: Uno on 10 Aug 2010 02:39 Louis Krupp wrote: > On 8/6/2010 3:29 AM, Uno wrote: >> Nick Maclaren wrote: >>> In article <1jmlqtr.102d8o110yfgw0N%nospam(a)see.signature>, >>> In addition to the problems you mentioned, that approach also makes >>> it gratuitously hard for people with poor vision to read, and stops >>> the use of the screen readers for blind people. >> >> http://i34.tinypic.com/zwc1vc.png That's an odd screenshot to possess, >> and in a better font for the vision-challenged, which is why I read it >> in the first place. This was a while back when my vision went through a >> bad phase. >> >> I'm having a problem not wanting to reach out and twist your british >> head off right about now to release a geyser of what must lie in your >> belly: fish, chips, ugly german monarchs and shepherd's pie, whatever >> horrid thing that must be. > > Be nice. Who do you think saved our butts at Kasserine Pass? > > And shepherd's pie isn't bad. You can get it here in the States, too, > if you would like to try some. Fish and chips can be disgusting -- I've > had some in Milton Keynes that would qualify -- but you don't have to > buy it in Milton Keynes, and in fact you don't have to go to Milton > Keynes at all. I've had some very nice fish and chips at the railway > station in Redhill, and some decent fish and chips in Melrose, not far > from Melrose Abbey. Not that anyplace in Melrose is far from the Abbey. > > And the current British royal family hasn't been German for 93 years, > the House of Windsor having been proclaimed in 1917. My family hasn't > been American for much longer than that. And as far as Germans go, > where do you think Baron von Steuben came from, and who do you think > whipped the Continentals into an army at Valley Forge? > >>> >>> For conveying information, plain text rules. For obfuscating it, >>> then screenshots rule. Very useful in marketing! >> >> British Phood. Beyond Prince_Charles. >> >> Do you still have a house of lords? I've started to think that the >> senate just needs to go away. > > Some British people have been overheard whispering that they wish the > House of Lords were more like the U.S. Senate. Can you think of anybody who is abetted by the richie riches being able to kill anything almost anonymously. Yeah, that's the people who sell our national security to the best-contributing $$. Rush Limbaugh was fine with revealing security aspects of the first lady's visit to Spain. I guess I think the british need to constrain us from the worst of our rednecks. You might be wondering what the rest of us are doing, but I'm in the murder capital of the SW, and I don't have much time to prevent the "special relationship" from bumping us from our usual standards, including things like war crimes. Maybe the germans can help us with our rednecks. -- Uno
From: Uno on 10 Aug 2010 03:01 Harold Stevens wrote: > In <i3gq2h$ct0$1(a)gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk> Nick Maclaren: > > [Snip...] > >> That summarises this thread in a nutshell > > Ranks right up with "robin" for obtusely running off into the weeds. > I spent two hours out in the weeds today. Saw several bunnies. Dozens of grasshoppers. Birds everywhere. The plant that springs up in the monsoon looks and feels like alphalpha, but isn't. Geoff was up 4 skins, but he hadn't been opening up his game. He was hyzering and high. I stayed low and right. The course opens up in the back, with 20 copcars passing, 2 osprey flying, and a couple blackhawks reminding us us we are toast unless they like us. Abq: where road runners are superstars. -- Uno
From: Nick Maclaren on 10 Aug 2010 03:24
In article <8cc3ccF5auU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Uno <merrilljensen(a)q.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm having a problem not wanting to reach out and twist your british >>> head off right about now to release a geyser of what must lie in your >>> belly: fish, chips, ugly german monarchs and shepherd's pie, whatever >>> horrid thing that must be. >> >> That summarises this thread in a nutshell. There's really nothing >> that I can add to it. > >Please add my apology to this estimation. I seem to have some anger >issues with the U.K. right now. I like you Nick, and hope/think you're >one of the good guys. Apology accepted! I have heard worse on this group :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren. |