🚀 go-pugleaf

mart...@sdf.lonestar.org (Stephen M. Jones) writes:

> does anyone know details on the PDP-10s
> that Microsoft used? KS10s, KL10s.  I 
> am looking for serial numbers and config
> or options they had.  also, has anyone 
> come across the pdp10 based dev tools
> that were used at microsoft?

Well, we know that their first was a KS-10 delivered in late December 1978 or
early January 1979...

-- 
Rich Alderson					  ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
      Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
	  omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
									--Galen

On 20 Jul 2018 16:42:12 -0400, Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com>
wrote:
>mart...@sdf.lonestar.org (Stephen M. Jones) writes:
>> does anyone know details on the PDP-10s
>> that Microsoft used? KS10s, KL10s.  I 
>> am looking for serial numbers and config
>> or options they had.  also, has anyone 
>> come across the pdp10 based dev tools
>> that were used at microsoft?
>
>Well, we know that their first was a KS-10 delivered in late December 1978 or
>early January 1979...

That wasn't an ADP Onsite system, was it?  (grin)

I thought part of Microsoft's very early shady past was that Bill and Paul used
Harvard's PDP-10 to develop their microcomputer BASIC product, contravening
University guidelines regarding commercial use of their systems by students.

On 20 Jul 2018 16:42:12 -0400, Rich Alderson wrote:
>
> mart...@sdf.lonestar.org (Stephen M. Jones) writes:
>
>> does anyone know details on the PDP-10s
>> that Microsoft used? KS10s, KL10s.  I 
>> am looking for serial numbers and config
>> or options they had.  also, has anyone 
>> come across the pdp10 based dev tools
>> that were used at microsoft?
>
> Well, we know that their first was a KS-10 delivered in late December 1978 or
> early January 1979...

I thought Stephen M. Jones meant on what computer their first BASIC was
written for the use on the MITS Altair in 1975.
-- 
Andreas

My random toughts and comments
https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

usenet@only.tnx (Questor) writes:

> On 20 Jul 2018 16:42:12 -0400, Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com>
> wrote:

>> Well, we know that their first was a KS-10 delivered in late December 1978
>> or early January 1979...

> That wasn't an ADP Onsite system, was it?  (grin)

Nope.  It was a straight purchase from DEC.

> I thought part of Microsoft's very early shady past was that Bill and Paul
> used Harvard's PDP-10 to develop their microcomputer BASIC product,
> contravening University guidelines regarding commercial use of their systems
> by students.

Well, the original code was written on the Harvard machine, yes.  After they
moved to Albuquerque, they leased time on a PDP-10 at one of the local school
districts.  That was their development platform until they moved Micro-soft to
Seattle, by which time they felt the need and could afford to own their own
development systems.

Microsoft used to recruit very heavily among Stanford students who used the
LOTS TOPS-20 systems, especially those who had taken Ralph Gorin's course on
assembly language programming on the system.  (Ralph literally wrote the book.)

-- 
Rich Alderson					  ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
      Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
	  omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
									--Galen

I am sorry, I want to clarify I am not asking about the use of the 
Harvard PDP-10 to write an 8080 simulator and BASIC.  What I'm interested
is in the machines (the KS10s) that were purchased in preparation for their
move from New Mexico to Washington state.  I believe they purchased a KL from
Storage Tech which was located in Colorado, but I am working on this.

I want to know the serial numbers, configuration, et cetera for the PDP-10
list.  I also am hoping to identify these machines amongst known existing
hardware (that has not been scrapped).

Thank you for your consideration and help.

-- 
  ..!sdf.org!martians  /  SDF Public Access UNIX System  /  http://sdf.org

I remember seeing a list once, so here is the list but Microsoft isn't listed...
https://web.archive.org/web/20050315112357/http://starfish.rcsri.org/rcs/DECsystem/FAQ/Serial_Number_Master.pdf

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 9:57:02 AM UTC-4, Harris Newman wrote:
> I remember seeing a list once, so here is the list but Microsoft isn't listed...
> https://web.archive.org/web/20050315112357/http://starfish.rcsri.org/rcs/DECsystem/FAQ/Serial_Number_Master.pdf

There is a much newer serial number list here: https://sites.google.com/site/mthompsonorg/Home/pdp-10/pdp-10-serial-numbers

On 2018-07-28, m. thompson <michael.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 9:57:02 AM UTC-4, Harris Newman wrote:
>> I remember seeing a list once, so here is the list but Microsoft isn't listed...
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20050315112357/http://starfish.rcsri.org/rcs/DECsystem/FAQ/Serial_Number_Master.pdf
>
> There is a much newer serial number list here: https://sites.google.com/site/mthompsonorg/Home/pdp-10/pdp-10-serial-numbers

When was the word microsoft registered.? 

I remember that in `Neuromancer', there was a device mentioned that one stuck in one's brain.

(Oh, same difference!)


-- 
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food

On 28 Jul 2018 15:47:53 GMT
ma...@mail.com wrote:

> When was the word microsoft registered.? 

	Mid 1970s.

> I remember that in `Neuromancer', there was a device mentioned that one
> stuck in one's brain.

	Neuromancer was published in 1984 so Microsoft had been around for
some time then

> (Oh, same difference!)

	I recall thinking when I read it that there was no way I'd connect
anything from Microsoft to my brain.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On 2018-07-28, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2018 15:47:53 GMT
> ma...@mail.com wrote:
>
>> When was the word microsoft registered.? 
>
> 	Mid 1970s.
>
>> I remember that in `Neuromancer', there was a device mentioned that one
>> stuck in one's brain.
>
> 	Neuromancer was published in 1984 so Microsoft had been around for
> some time then
>
>> (Oh, same difference!)
>
> 	I recall thinking when I read it that there was no way I'd connect
> anything from Microsoft to my brain.
>

My point exactly. I think that more recently, although Gibson is a very good writer,
he knows little about computers. I read somewhere that he was very disappointed with 
the first Mac's.




-- 
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food

On 28 Jul 2018 15:47:53 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:

>On 2018-07-28, m. thompson <michael.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 9:57:02 AM UTC-4, Harris Newman wrote:
>>> I remember seeing a list once, so here is the list but Microsoft isn't listed...
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20050315112357/http://starfish.rcsri.org/rcs/DECsystem/FAQ/Serial_Number_Master.pdf
>>
>> There is a much newer serial number list here: https://sites.google.com/site/mthompsonorg/Home/pdp-10/pdp-10-serial-numbers
>
>When was the word microsoft registered.? 

I believe July 6, 1982, with first use November 12, 1975, unless you
can find an earlier registration.

<https://trademarks.justia.com/732/36/microsoft-73236080.html>
>
>I remember that in `Neuromancer', there was a device mentioned that one stuck in one's brain.
>
>(Oh, same difference!)

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2018 15:47:53 GMT
> ma...@mail.com wrote:
> 
>> When was the word microsoft registered.? 
> 
> 	Mid 1970s.
> 
>> I remember that in `Neuromancer', there was a device mentioned that one
>> stuck in one's brain.
> 
> 	Neuromancer was published in 1984 so Microsoft had been around for
> some time then
> 
>> (Oh, same difference!)
> 
> 	I recall thinking when I read it that there was no way I'd connect
> anything from Microsoft to my brain.
> 

Gives  "blue screen of death" a whole new meaning, doesn't it? ;-)

-- 
Pete

On 28 Jul 2018 18:09:23 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>On 2018-07-28, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On 28 Jul 2018 15:47:53 GMT
>> ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>> When was the word microsoft registered.? 
>>
>> 	Mid 1970s.
>>
>>> I remember that in `Neuromancer', there was a device mentioned that one
>>> stuck in one's brain.
>>
>> 	Neuromancer was published in 1984 so Microsoft had been around for
>> some time then
>>
>>> (Oh, same difference!)
>>
>> 	I recall thinking when I read it that there was no way I'd connect
>> anything from Microsoft to my brain.
>>
>
>My point exactly. I think that more recently, although Gibson is a very good writer,
>he knows little about computers. I read somewhere that he was very disappointed with 
>the first Mac's.

Same for a number of near future sf games. I remember back in 1991 or
1992, we were chatting about the future capabilities of computers. We
decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram. 

We were wrong. It was on the I-Amiga listserve list.

On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
> We
> decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
> or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram. 

> We were wrong.

Ah, well.

I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
- Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious

There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
- Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation

640K of RAM should be enough for anybody
- Attributed to William H. Gates III, but he has denied it

I think there are others like it, in this case two out of the three quotes I could easily find are apparently spurious

John Savard

On 30 Jul 2018, Quadibloc wrote
(in article<86794864-1ef9-40d3...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
> > We
> > decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
> > or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram.
>
> > We were wrong.
>
> Ah, well.
>
> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
>
> There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
> - Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation
>
> 640K of RAM should be enough for anybody
> - Attributed to William H. Gates III, but he has denied it
>
> I think there are others like it, in this case two out of the three quotes I
> could easily find are apparently spurious
>
> John Savard

The famous UK example was that of Prof. Douglas Hartree, a quantum mechanic
who pioneered the calculation of atomic and molecular wavefunctions.

He is reputed to have said, in 1950:

"We have a computer here in Cambridge, one in Manchester and one at the NPL.
I suppose there ought to be one in Scotland, but that's about all."

-- 
Bill Findlay

On 2018-07-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
>> We
>> decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
>> or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram. 
>
>> We were wrong.
>
> Ah, well.
>
> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
>
> There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
> - Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation
>
> 640K of RAM should be enough for anybody
> - Attributed to William H. Gates III, but he has denied it
>
> I think there are others like it, in this case two out of the three quotes I could easily find are apparently spurious
>
> John Savard

For a few years, I upgraded motherboards ("He are you _still_ using that
old thing?"), but over the last 5 or so years, I cannot see any reason to
perhaps faster USSB ports?


-- 
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food

On 31 Jul 2018 07:07:01 GMT
ma...@mail.com wrote:

> For a few years, I upgraded motherboards ("He are you _still_ using that
> old thing?"), but over the last 5 or so years, I cannot see any reason to
> perhaps faster USSB ports?

	There are only two things that are likely to make me want to replace
the motherboard in this old Atom based M/B. Failure or more likely a need
for more than 4GB of RAM to keep the web browser happy.

	Even then I'm unlikely to buy a new motherboard - my file server
(erm NAS) is filling up and there are some nice looking pre-loved Proliants
on eBay with 12TB of drives and 12GB of RAM at a reasonable price - then
the file server motherboard with it's 8GB of RAM can go in the workstation.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, ma...@mail.com wrote:

> On 2018-07-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
>>> We
>>> decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
>>> or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram.
>>
>>> We were wrong.
>>
>> Ah, well.
>>
>> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
>> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
>>
>> There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
>> - Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation
>>
>> 640K of RAM should be enough for anybody
>> - Attributed to William H. Gates III, but he has denied it
>>
>> I think there are others like it, in this case two out of the three quotes I could easily find are apparently spurious
>>
>> John Savard
>
> For a few years, I upgraded motherboards ("He are you _still_ using that
> old thing?"), but over the last 5 or so years, I cannot see any reason to
> perhaps faster USSB ports?
>
Yes, there was still a lot of change for a "long time".  But then it 
passed apoint where you had enough of a computer to do many things fine, 
and then later it hit a point where you could still improve your computer, 
but it was a small incremental change for the price.  Kind of like "hifi" 
in the old days, there'd be lots of articles telling you what specs you 
needed, and then those specs became common place so the articles mostly 
disappeared.  The "average" stereo was "good enough" but you could also 
pay endlessly for some very small improvements.

Two years ago I got a refurbished quad core running at 3.4GHz, from what I 
can tell it was new in 2011.  I wanted to try a multi-core system, but 
this one idles most of the time, I've not yet thrown anything at it where 
the speed increses or I see a lot of action on the multiple cores.  So I 
could have stayed with the refurbished computer I got in 2012, which was 
3GHz and had a single core but threaded CPU.

As it was, I was able to get a computer that had PS/2 connectors for a 
keyboard and mouse, and which still had a serial and parallel port 
onboard, I think there are two serial ports in there.  Legacy, and the 
further into the future I go, the less I am likely to need the serial and 
parallel ports, while until fairly recently, I was close to needing them. 
The PS/2 connectors means if I find a good keyboard, I can use it.

When I get another computer, who knows when, I'm not likely to see much 
speed increase.  Maybe ram will be cheaper and thus more of it.  Maybe 
there will be more cores, but I'm not even using four of them now, though 
I'm glad to have the potential.  SO there will be changes, but likely 
giving up the legacy, and less speed up or improvement as time goes by.

Things have matured, and that offers stability.

   Michael

ma...@mail.com writes:

> For a few years, I upgraded motherboards ("He are you _still_ using that
> old thing?"), but over the last 5 or so years, I cannot see any reason to
> perhaps faster USSB ports?

Even the newest 10 Gbps USB can be added with an add on card and front
panel connectors. OTOH YMMV, for example the 5 Gbps front panel ports
I've added to my old desktop PC don't seem to go as fast as back panel
ports. And then again, I built a little USB SSD recently and it doesn't
seem to quite saturate 5 Gbps USB but it's still wicked fast so probably
not bothering with 10 Gbps ports.

For my old X201 Thinkpad, an upgrade would bring faster USB and faster
wifi but it's not a big deal.

On 30/07/2018 23:25, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
>> We
>> decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
>> or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram.
> 
>> We were wrong.
> 
> Ah, well.
> 
> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious

That was supposed to be in 1943 when no one had built a computer that 
stored its program in RAM.

> 
> There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
> - Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation
> 
> 640K of RAM should be enough for anybody
> - Attributed to William H. Gates III, but he has denied it
> 
> I think there are others like it, in this case two out of the three quotes I could easily find are apparently spurious
> 
> John Savard
> 

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

> On 30/07/2018 23:25, Quadibloc wrote:

>> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
>> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious

> That was supposed to be in 1943 when no one had built a computer that 
> stored its program in RAM.

Actually, no, this is a 1960's or later misremembering of something which TJW
*did* say, in a shareholders' report in the early 1950s about the marketing
trip he made touting the IBM 701, their first "scientific" computer.  He
reported that they visited 20 potential customers, expecting to get orders from
maybe 5 of them, and was pleasantly surprised to get 19.

-- 
Rich Alderson					  ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
      Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
	  omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
									--Galen

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:25:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
> > We
> > decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
> > or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram. 
> 
> > We were wrong.
> 
> Ah, well.
> 
> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious

I've tried to research that, but never could find any source
of that quote, so I doubt it is true.  Watson Sr did support
the construction of the 701 as a general purpose computer
to be sold to anyone, as opposed to a special-purpose computer
for a unique user (as many were in those days).


> There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
> - Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation

I don't know (if) or when that was said, but by the early 1960s,
home computers (actually a terminal connected to a super mainframe)
were definitely a hot topic.

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:


>> There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
>> - Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation
>
> I don't know (if) or when that was said, but by the early 1960s,
> home computers (actually a terminal connected to a super mainframe)
> were definitely a hot topic.
>
But that was about selling home users timesharing.

It may actually be the same thing, an expectation of centralized computers 
taking care of everyone, instead of a whole lot of computers.

Realistically, some of the early dismissal comes from the size and cost of 
computers,  initially few would be able to pay for them, let alone find a 
place for them.  But they were also probably blinded, unable to see a 
potential, maybe again because of the size and cost.

But once timesharing took off, there's little difference between offering 
it to a business and offering it to a home.  Cost factors in, but someone 
would have designed a cheaper Teletype machine, or even a non-mechanical 
terminal, and once you had the wider pool of consumers to draw from, you 
might make up in quantity what you lost in lower fees per user.

Even in the internet age, lots of ISPs offered "unlimited" useage after a 
while, and always fine print meaning "you can't connect all the time". 
LIke gym membership, they were selling something with an expectation that 
useage for many would be relatively low, so they get the money but didn't 
have to meet peak demands because relatively few would draw the peaks.

Things got cheaper becasue demand went up, which in turn allowed 
manufacturing costs to go down, which then brought in more conusmers.  IN 
the early days, who could imagine the future?  I have a quad core 3.4GHz 
computer with 8gigs of RAM and a 500gig hard drive, and most of the time 
it sits idle.  It was refurbished two years ago, I paid $351.  Way better 
than those early mainframes, who could have imagined?

   Michael

Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-07-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 28, 2018 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
>>>> We
>>>> decided that no home computyer would ever have a CPU that ran at 1 GHz
>>>> or better, nor have a gigabyte of ram.
>>> 
>>>> We were wrong.
>>> 
>>> Ah, well.
>>> 
>>> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
>>> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
>>> 
>>> There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
>>> - Kenneth H. Olsen, founder of the Digital Equipment Corporation
>>> 
>>> 640K of RAM should be enough for anybody
>>> - Attributed to William H. Gates III, but he has denied it
>>> 
>>> I think there are others like it, in this case two out of the three
>>> quotes I could easily find are apparently spurious
>>> 
>>> John Savard
>> 
>> For a few years, I upgraded motherboards ("He are you _still_ using that
>> old thing?"), but over the last 5 or so years, I cannot see any reason to
>> perhaps faster USSB ports?
>> 
> Yes, there was still a lot of change for a "long time".  But then it 
> passed apoint where you had enough of a computer to do many things fine, 
> and then later it hit a point where you could still improve your computer, 
> but it was a small incremental change for the price.  Kind of like "hifi" 
> in the old days, there'd be lots of articles telling you what specs you 
> needed, and then those specs became common place so the articles mostly 
> disappeared.  The "average" stereo was "good enough" but you could also 
> pay endlessly for some very small improvements.
> 
> Two years ago I got a refurbished quad core running at 3.4GHz, from what I 
> can tell it was new in 2011.  I wanted to try a multi-core system, but 
> this one idles most of the time, I've not yet thrown anything at it where 
> the speed increses or I see a lot of action on the multiple cores.  So I 
> could have stayed with the refurbished computer I got in 2012, which was 
> 3GHz and had a single core but threaded CPU.

I have a dual-core system. At max load I run about a core and a half. I
suspect that if gimp was better threaded I could easily max out two or
more.  I seldom run more than one "foregound" application at a time.
> 

-- 
Pete

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:53:08 -0400
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have a dual-core system. At max load I run about a core and a half. I
> suspect that if gimp was better threaded I could easily max out two or
> more.  I seldom run more than one "foregound" application at a time.

	That last bit speaks volumes, back in 1990 I was happily arranging
for a cluster of twenty machines with four 88K series processors each,
running an un-threaded kernel and no sign of threading in the user space
code, to run with all eighty processors going flat out for hours on end. All
it took was lots of processes, lots of drives (15 per box) dual networks
and careful elimination of bottlenecks.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:51:44 -0400
Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net> wrote:

> It may actually be the same thing, an expectation of centralized
> computers taking care of everyone, instead of a whole lot of computers.

	That is certainly the picture that appears in every science fiction
mention of computers pretty much right up until reality did something
different.

> Even in the internet age, lots of ISPs offered "unlimited" useage after a 
> while, and always fine print meaning "you can't connect all the time".

	I did when running Internet Eireann, but there was no fine print
users were welcome to dial in all day long (one user did dial in around 9am
and hung up around 5pm every work day[1]). We relied on the phone bills to
stop people being silly, it worked fine.

[1] When we noticed I rang them up and, after reassuring them that we
didn't mind them doing what they were doing, pointed out that they could
have a leased line connection for much less than the phone bill was costing
them. The answer came back that he would have to write up a business case
for capital expense to get a leased line but nobody cared about the phone
bill. A few months later they did order a leased line.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

> On 30/07/2018 23:25, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
>> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
> 
> That was supposed to be in 1943 when no one had built a computer that 
> stored its program in RAM.

I love the scene in Cryptonomicon, circa 1944, in which Lawrence
Waterhouse is contemplating the problem of "bury" & "disinter" while
playing the great organ in the Qwlgmian church, all stops out and the
air full of dust from decades-disused pipes, envisions mercury tube
[1] RAM [2] in much the same way as Tesla claimed to have imagined the
alternating current motor, tears out of the church barefoot in
mid-arpeggio, love and lust forgotten in his wild enthusiasm to build
it *now*.

Totally hilarious.  I can ony imagine that kind of brilliance and envy
it.

[1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
    are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
    technology. 

[2] Or SAM.  See [1].
 

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:11:24 -0400, Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Mike Spencer wrote:
>> [1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
>>    are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
>>    technology.
>>
>Blacksmithing isn't technology?  Just because something is familiar 
>doesn't cease to make it technology.  It might be "old technology" but 
>still technology.

Oh, there's always someone. "Bending metal? With FIRE!? Wow you must
be old, why don't you just 3D print that shit?"

Bad enough that naive youth dismiss technology invented since I was
born, worse that they call it "old" that was invented since I left
college. Always another wheel to reinvent. With bluetooth. And apps.

Although a while back I finally figured out that hardware is only
called "legacy" by someone who's selling something.

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Mike Spencer wrote:

>
> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 30/07/2018 23:25, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
>>> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
>>
>> That was supposed to be in 1943 when no one had built a computer that
>> stored its program in RAM.
>
> I love the scene in Cryptonomicon, circa 1944, in which Lawrence
> Waterhouse is contemplating the problem of "bury" & "disinter" while
> playing the great organ in the Qwlgmian church, all stops out and the
> air full of dust from decades-disused pipes, envisions mercury tube
> [1] RAM [2] in much the same way as Tesla claimed to have imagined the
> alternating current motor, tears out of the church barefoot in
> mid-arpeggio, love and lust forgotten in his wild enthusiasm to build
> it *now*.
>
In Heinlein's "Door into SUmmer" he has some memory tube that was created 
for military use.  From the descrption, it's hard to figure out what he 
was imagining.  But he can train his robotic devices by sending them 
through the motions, and the memory tube has lots of space for that. But, 
for a "secretary" type robot, he'll only give it a limited vocabulary and 
it may have to ask for a spelling of a woard.  The limitation was that the 
memory tube was too limited in capacity.  Now maybe it's some analog form 
of memory, but a dictionary won't take up much room, but I'd think 
controlling a robot doing fine work would require a lot more memory.

>
> [1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
>    are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
>    technology.
>
Blacksmithing isn't technology?  Just because something is familiar 
doesn't cease to make it technology.  It might be "old technology" but 
still technology.

   Michael

On 2018-08-03, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 30/07/2018 23:25, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
>>> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
>> 
>> That was supposed to be in 1943 when no one had built a computer that 
>> stored its program in RAM.
>
> I love the scene in Cryptonomicon, circa 1944, in which Lawrence
> Waterhouse is contemplating the problem of "bury" & "disinter" while
> playing the great organ in the Qwlgmian church, all stops out and the
> air full of dust from decades-disused pipes, envisions mercury tube
> [1] RAM [2] in much the same way as Tesla claimed to have imagined the
> alternating current motor, tears out of the church barefoot in
> mid-arpeggio, love and lust forgotten in his wild enthusiasm to build
> it *now*.
>
> Totally hilarious.  I can ony imagine that kind of brilliance and envy
> it.
>
> [1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
>     are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
>     technology. 
>
> [2] Or SAM.  See [1].
>  
>

I also love Stephenson. He seems to have access to a lot of info
that is not easily found.

There was a story once about someone who time-travelled to Iceland
of the Middle ages. The locals, when he arrived, tried to find something
useful he could do, including smithing. They had come to the conclusion
that he was so useless  at anything, they decided to castrate him to stop
the breed from multiplying, at which time, the hero discovered the way of
 returning to the present.


-- 
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food

On 2018-08-03, Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>>
>> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 30/07/2018 23:25, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
>>>> - Attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Sr.), but likely spurious
>>>
>>> That was supposed to be in 1943 when no one had built a computer that
>>> stored its program in RAM.
>>
>> I love the scene in Cryptonomicon, circa 1944, in which Lawrence
>> Waterhouse is contemplating the problem of "bury" & "disinter" while
>> playing the great organ in the Qwlgmian church, all stops out and the
>> air full of dust from decades-disused pipes, envisions mercury tube
>> [1] RAM [2] in much the same way as Tesla claimed to have imagined the
>> alternating current motor, tears out of the church barefoot in
>> mid-arpeggio, love and lust forgotten in his wild enthusiasm to build
>> it *now*.
>>
> In Heinlein's "Door into SUmmer" he has some memory tube that was created 
> for military use.  From the descrption, it's hard to figure out what he 
> was imagining.  But he can train his robotic devices by sending them 
> through the motions, and the memory tube has lots of space for that. But, 
> for a "secretary" type robot, he'll only give it a limited vocabulary and 
> it may have to ask for a spelling of a woard.  The limitation was that the 
> memory tube was too limited in capacity.  Now maybe it's some analog form 
> of memory, but a dictionary won't take up much room, but I'd think 
> controlling a robot doing fine work would require a lot more memory.
>
>>
>> [1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
>>    are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
>>    technology.
>>
> Blacksmithing isn't technology?  Just because something is familiar 
> doesn't cease to make it technology.  It might be "old technology" but 
> still technology.
>
>    Michael

I just discovered, via Youtube, carbon Fibre.


-- 
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food

On 2018-08-03, Scott <nob...@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:11:24 -0400, Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>> [1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
>>>    are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
>>>    technology.
>>>
>>Blacksmithing isn't technology?  Just because something is familiar 
>>doesn't cease to make it technology.  It might be "old technology" but 
>>still technology.
>
> Oh, there's always someone. "Bending metal? With FIRE!? Wow you must
> be old, why don't you just 3D print that shit?"
>
> Bad enough that naive youth dismiss technology invented since I was
> born, worse that they call it "old" that was invented since I left
> college. Always another wheel to reinvent. With bluetooth. And apps.
>
> Although a while back I finally figured out that hardware is only
> called "legacy" by someone who's selling something.

As someone who has used a lathe (eyesight gone too bad to do it any more)
I get hot under my collar when I read of people 3dprinting stuff like 
that. I suppose that if you 3dprinted a gun, you might only use it once
 or twice, but do a lot of damage.


-- 
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food

Scott <nob...@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:11:24 -0400, Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>> [1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
>>> are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
>>> technology.
>>> 
>> Blacksmithing isn't technology?  Just because something is familiar 
>> doesn't cease to make it technology.  It might be "old technology" but 
>> still technology.
> 
> Oh, there's always someone. "Bending metal? With FIRE!? Wow you must
> be old, why don't you just 3D print that shit?"
> 
> Bad enough that naive youth dismiss technology invented since I was
> born, worse that they call it "old" that was invented since I left
> college. Always another wheel to reinvent. With bluetooth. And apps.
> 
> Although a while back I finally figured out that hardware is only
> called "legacy" by someone who's selling something.
> 

Blacksmiths were  once considered to be priests or magicians (often the
same thing). Smithing was taught by a god.

-- 
Pete

On 04 Aug 2018 15:38:22 -0300, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

>
>nob...@example.org (Scott) writes:
>
>> Bad enough that naive youth dismiss technology invented since I was
>> born, worse that they call it "old" that was invented since I left
>> college. Always another wheel to reinvent. With bluetooth. And apps.
>
>Ah yes, technologies invented in my lifetime, some of which I never
>got around to adopting, that are now completely obsolete.

Literally, the example I thought about is the Copenhagen wheel, an
all-in-one electric assist bicycle wheel. You just swap it in for your
regular wheel, and presto, electric bike! An idea that's really not
bad at all, except...the thing is utterly and completely useless if
you don't have a bluetoothy smart phone running its app.

As the man said, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such...."

Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net> writes:


> Blacksmithing isn't technology?  Just because something is familiar 
> doesn't cease to make it technology.  It might be "old technology" but 
> still technology.

Oh, yes indeed.  Blacksmithing is very much a technology, some of it
many centuries old, some much more recent.  Some contemporary smiths
get deep into the most up to date details of metallurgy, alloys, heat
treating, even 3-D printing of differing alloy granules that are later
heat and pressure-fused and forged.

Personally, I'm intrigued by the aesthetics, ergonomics and physical
acts of hand-working a plastic medium to embody events  in mind,
mostly using the older, long-estalished tech.  See .sig, infra.

ObFolklore [but forging tech, not computers]:

In the early 70s, I had a chat with the blacksmith who worked in the
basement of the Dauphinee "block shop" in Lunenburg, NS.  He was
making hooks for tackle blocks, splitting the end of a piece of steel
stock, wrapping the split ends on a mandrill to form an eye, then
forge-welding the lapped ends. Why do it that way rather than
hot-punching the eye?  "It's stronger that way!", says he.

Well, forge welding is a skill that can be mastered but it's prone to
error, overlooked defects and outright failure.  A punched hole is not
(or at least far, far less so.)

It was much later that it dawned on me that the Dauhpinee shop had
been in operation for ca. 100 years and had established it's methods
when wrought iron was the article of commerce.  Since the late 19th
c., wrought iron has been completely replaced by low-carbon ("mild")
steel.  Mild steel tech produces a product that's pretty much
isotropic, uniform internal structre in all directions.  But wrought
iron was extremely anisotropic, had a lammelar stucture similar to
wood grain.  "Along the grain" and "across the grain" made a huge
difference in how you worked the medium.  And you would *never* make a
structural tension element by boring a hole near the end of, say, a 1"
pine board.  That would stress the grain in its weakest direction and
a chunk of wood would just pull out under tension.

Exactly the sme problem existed for wrought iron so a method that
wrapped the the "grain" of the iron around the hole (obviously not
doable with wood) was indeed stronger.  Or it had been in, say, 1900,
and HOWTO had been passed down from smith to smith ever since.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/hotiron.html

nob...@example.org (Scott) writes:

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:11:24 -0400, Michael Black <mbl...@pubnix.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>>> [1] Someone will surely correct my choice of technical terms. Y'all
>>>    are career hackers; I'm just a blacksmith with pretentions to
>>>    technology.
>>>
>> Blacksmithing isn't technology?  Just because something is familiar 
>> doesn't cease to make it technology.  It might be "old technology" but 
>> still technology.
> 
> Oh, there's always someone. "Bending metal? With FIRE!? Wow you must
> be old, why don't you just 3D print that shit?"

Um, leaving aside some (well, all) technical details of materials
science, engineering and so on:

   Because it's boring; for the same reason you don't dance by doing
   stuff on your touch screen.  The dynamics of doing stuff involves,
   yew know, actually *doing* stuff.

      Through their results, dynamics modify the setting for
      subsequent dynamics.  Dynamically created forms, if somhow
      consolidated, become molds for the course of further activity.

                                -- Paul Weiss, 1 + 1 != 2 

> Bad enough that naive youth dismiss technology invented since I was
> born, worse that they call it "old" that was invented since I left
> college. Always another wheel to reinvent. With bluetooth. And apps.

Ah yes, technologies invented in my lifetime, some of which I never
got around to adopting, that are now completely obsolete.

> Although a while back I finally figured out that hardware is only
> called "legacy" by someone who's selling something.

Just so.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Blacksmiths were  once considered to be priests or magicians (often the
> same thing). 

With some justification.  I think the PBS documentary, "Secrets of the
Viking Sword" is on-line somewhere if you look.  The average Man In
The Street^H^H^H^H^H^H Muddy Lane had neither the wit nor the patience
to learn to do somthing so tedious and demanding of persistent
attention to detail. (Nothing has changed. :-)

> Smithing was taught by a god.

There a smiths of both the present and recently past generations that
we regard more or less as demigods.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

ma...@mail.com writes:

> I also love Stephenson. He seems to have access to a lot of info
> that is not easily found.

My feeling is that Stephenson is "monstrous" in the same way that
comets were once regarded as monstrous, something inexplicable in the
context of a straightforward and well-ordered world.  I can't imagine
the cogntive state that can produce _Cryptonomicon_ or _The Baroque
Cycle_.  I was and remain totally gobsmacked by anyone being able to
do that.


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On 2018-08-04, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:

> There was a story once about someone who time-travelled to Iceland
> of the Middle ages. The locals, when he arrived, tried to find something
> useful he could do, including smithing. They had come to the conclusion
> that he was so useless  at anything, they decided to castrate him to stop
> the breed from multiplying, at which time, the hero discovered the way of
>  returning to the present.

Stuff like that always reminds me of that Harvard Lampoon sendup
"Bored of the Rings".  Just when all seemed lost, the eagles
descended, bearing a banner reading "DEUS EX MACHINA AIRLINES".

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, Mike Spencer wrote:
 
> There a smiths of both the present and recently past generations that
> we regard more or less as demigods.

If you think making swords like the Vikings made is hard, how about making violins 
like Stradivarius made?

John Savard

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> There a smiths of both the present and recently past generations that
>> we regard more or less as demigods.
>
> If you think making swords like the Vikings made is hard, how about making violins
> like Stradivarius made?
>
I don't think that would sound so good made of metal.

   Michael

On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 17:14:40 GMT
nob...@example.org (Scott) wrote:

> Literally, the example I thought about is the Copenhagen wheel, an
> all-in-one electric assist bicycle wheel. You just swap it in for your
> regular wheel, and presto, electric bike!

	Where's the battery ? There's not much involved in a standard
electric bike conversion, wheel, battery, control box, pedal sensors, brake
sensors. The battery is the heavy bit (even with lithium), fitting is a
little more fiddly with a rear wheel but not much.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 7:14:44 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, Mike Spencer wrote:

> >> There a smiths of both the present and recently past generations that
> >> we regard more or less as demigods.

> > If you think making swords like the Vikings made is hard, how about making violins
> > like Stradivarius made?

> I don't think that would sound so good made of metal.

No, you have to use wood. Although some interesting results have been obtained 
through the use of carbon fiber, plastic, and even titanium.

John Savard

On 2018-08-05, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-08-04, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>
>> ma...@mail.com writes:
>>
>> do that.
>
> He needs a decent editor to say to him "Yes, Neil, excellent, now go away
> and make it half the length".
>
>

I disagree.

Anyway, I have developed a theory about football matches, which should be
a maximum fo ten minutes long, each half. Several time I have looked at hour 
aftre hour of absolute boredom, go to make tea, and zonk!, the whole games
 changes before you get back


-- 
Ma...@ireland.com
Will Rant For Food

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> On 2018-08-04, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> ma...@mail.com writes:
>>
>>> I also love Stephenson. He seems to have access to a lot of info
>>> that is not easily found.
>>
>> My feeling is that Stephenson is "monstrous" in the same way that
>> comets were once regarded as monstrous, something inexplicable in
>> the context of a straightforward and well-ordered world.  I can't
>> imagine the cogntive state that can produce _Cryptonomicon_ or _The
>> Baroque Cycle_.  I was and remain totally gobsmacked by anyone
>> being able to do that.
> 
> He needs a decent editor to say to him "Yes, Neil, excellent, now go
> away and make it half the length".

If his books were half the length, they would provide only half the
enjoyment from reading them.  Or perhaps less than half, depending on
how imbued that putatively "decent" editor were with the notions of
mass marketing to a public typified by ca. 5th grade reading skills.

I confess to having been unable to get through The Idiot, which I only
attempted in order to try to fill in the holes created by the studio
when they cut Kurosawa's movie version to shreds.  And I could never
finish Gravity's Rainbow.  OTOH, I had no trouble with Murakami's
_1Q84_.   But Pynchon and Dostoevsky just don't have whatever it is
that Stephenson has.  

I've read the whole Cryptonomicon/Baroque Cycle corpus (which I tend
to think of as a single stupendous opus) 10 times.  And you think it's
too long for once?

       What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley
       feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for
       there would be no one who wanted to read one.
                         -- Neil Postman,  Amusing Ourselves to Death

Well, maybe a nice, pithy short one, eh?


ObComputers [sort of]:

    Did you know that the Maunder Minimum matches the period covered
    by The Baroque Cycle almost exactly?

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, Mike Spencer wrote:
>  
>> There a smiths of both the present and recently past generations that
>> we regard more or less as demigods.
> 
> If you think making swords like the Vikings made is hard, how about
> making violins like Stradivarius made?

Just so.

Oddly enough, maybe 3 years before I met Bert Shaw and was drawn to
blacksmithing, I had a whole summer and fall free during which I
played with the notion of going into stringed instrument work.
Disassembled a cheapo guitar, reassembled and refinished it as a fair
to middling one.  Never did much with violins but learned a great deal
about what's involved in the process of making one.

And I really liked the movie _The Red Violin_.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 7:14:44 PM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 12:56:53 PM UTC-6, Mike Spencer wrote:
> 
>>>> There a smiths of both the present and recently past generations that
>>>> we regard more or less as demigods.
> 
>>> If you think making swords like the Vikings made is hard, how
>>> about making violins like Stradivarius made?
> 
>> I don't think that would sound so good made of metal.
> 
> No, you have to use wood. Although some interesting results have
> been obtained through the use of carbon fiber, plastic, and even
> titanium.

And a project that's ben way back in the queue for years id to make a
contrabass banjo, probably a bowed version, from a big marching bass
drum I have.  But no, metal doesn't feel right for a violin.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 06:30:06 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 17:14:40 GMT
>nob...@example.org (Scott) wrote:
>
>> Literally, the example I thought about is the Copenhagen wheel, an
>> all-in-one electric assist bicycle wheel. You just swap it in for your
>> regular wheel, and presto, electric bike!
>
>	Where's the battery ?

Hey, remember that time in alt.folklore.computers when people talked
about this fellow called MRC, who used to hang out in alt.sys.pdp10?

Yeah. That was great.

On 05/08/2018 22:39, Huge wrote:
> On 2018-08-05, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-05, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-04, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ma...@mail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> do that.
>>>
>>> He needs a decent editor to say to him "Yes, Neil, excellent, now go away
>>> and make it half the length".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I disagree.
> 
> An opinion to which you are more than entitled, wrong as it is.
> 
>>
>> Anyway, I have developed a theory about football matches, which should be
>> a maximum fo ten minutes long, each half.
> 
> That long? I reckon about 90 seconds each way would suffice.
> 
Sorry to wander off-topic, but I believe that in soccer the problem is 
that the number of balls in use is wrong. Two or even zero would work 
better...

Dave

On 5 Aug 2018 21:39:57 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-08-05, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:

> > Anyway, I have developed a theory about football matches, which should
> > be a maximum fo ten minutes long, each half. 
> 
> That long? I reckon about 90 seconds each way would suffice.

	Nononono make that more like 90 hours each way, and consider that
while they're playing both players and fans are conveniently out of the way
in stadiums or plonked on sofas guzzling beer. The trouble starts when they
stop playing.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/