🚀 go-pugleaf

ma...@mail.com writes:

> 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!)

Gibson in an interview I remember from the 80s said he misunderstood what the
company was doing, and thought that the name would become a generic like
"kleenex" or "xerox".

-- 
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

Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
> ma...@mail.com writes:
> 
>> 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!)
> 
> Gibson in an interview I remember from the 80s said he misunderstood what the
> company was doing, and thought that the name would become a generic like
> "kleenex" or "xerox".
> 

Or ex-lax.

-- 
Pete

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:26:56 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

> > Gibson in an interview I remember from the 80s said he misunderstood what the
> > company was doing, and thought that the name would become a generic like
> > "kleenex" or "xerox".
 
> Or ex-lax.

Come to think of it, that is actually an old joke...

the computer in the Hepburn-Tracy movie "Desk Set" was called EMERAC... no, 
that's not quite what I was looking for...

Ah, yes, I got it confused with the computer EPICAC from the works of Kurt 
Vonnegut. Ipecac being a natural laxative.

John Savard

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:26:56 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > Gibson in an interview I remember from the 80s said he misunderstood what the
>> > company was doing, and thought that the name would become a generic like
>> > "kleenex" or "xerox".
> 
>> Or ex-lax.
>
>Come to think of it, that is actually an old joke...
>
>the computer in the Hepburn-Tracy movie "Desk Set" was called EMERAC... no, 
>that's not quite what I was looking for...
>
>Ah, yes, I got it confused with the computer EPICAC from the works of Kurt 
>Vonnegut. Ipecac being a natural laxative.

Not quite.  The word you are looking for is "emetic".  It causes
forceful voiding of the digestive tract, but from the upper, not the
lower orifice.  If someone has some substance in their stomach that it
is important not be in their stomach and a stomach pump is not readily
available, ipecac is the goto option.  However one must be careful
with it--there are substances that do more damage on the way up than
they would if left in place for a while.

On 2018-07-30, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> ma...@mail.com writes:
>> 
>>> 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!)
>> 
>> Gibson in an interview I remember from the 80s said he misunderstood what the
>> company was doing, and thought that the name would become a generic like
>> "kleenex" or "xerox".
>> 
>
> Or ex-lax.
>

More useful?


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

On 2018-07-30, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:26:56 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>> > Gibson in an interview I remember from the 80s said he misunderstood what the
>> > company was doing, and thought that the name would become a generic like
>> > "kleenex" or "xerox".
>  
>> Or ex-lax.
>
> Come to think of it, that is actually an old joke...
>
> the computer in the Hepburn-Tracy movie "Desk Set" was called EMERAC... no, 
> that's not quite what I was looking for...
>
> Ah, yes, I got it confused with the computer EPICAC from the works of Kurt 
> Vonnegut. Ipecac being a natural laxative.
>
> John Savard

One thing that amuses me, in the TV ads here for a laxitive, it seems that
a main constituant is senna, thousands of years old.


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

On 2018-07-31, J  Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:26:56 PM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Gibson in an interview I remember from the 80s said he misunderstood what the
>>> > company was doing, and thought that the name would become a generic like
>>> > "kleenex" or "xerox".
>> 
>>> Or ex-lax.
>>
>>Come to think of it, that is actually an old joke...
>>
>>the computer in the Hepburn-Tracy movie "Desk Set" was called EMERAC... no, 
>>that's not quite what I was looking for...
>>
>>Ah, yes, I got it confused with the computer EPICAC from the works of Kurt 
>>Vonnegut. Ipecac being a natural laxative.
>
> Not quite.  The word you are looking for is "emetic".  It causes
> forceful voiding of the digestive tract, but from the upper, not the
> lower orifice.  If someone has some substance in their stomach that it
> is important not be in their stomach and a stomach pump is not readily
> available, ipecac is the goto option.  However one must be careful
> with it--there are substances that do more damage on the way up than
> they would if left in place for a while.

++

Charcoal seems to be indicated these times.



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

On Friday, July 20, 2018 at 3:40:09 AM UTC-4, Stephen M. Jones wrote:
> 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?

Ok, this has almost nothing to do with the subject at hand,
but I'll throw it out anyway:

In 1958, the Northwest Telephone Co, serving Redmond, WA,
installed new Stromberg-Carlson switchgear to allow callers
to dial long distance calls themselves.

The improvements are described in this article:
https://books.google.com/books?id=mG5YAAAAIBAJ&lpg=PA6&dq=direct%20distance%20dialing&pg=PA6#v=onepage&q&f=false

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 8:31:26 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 15:16:44 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >the computer in the Hepburn-Tracy movie "Desk Set" was called EMERAC... no, 
> >that's not quite what I was looking for...

> >Ah, yes, I got it confused with the computer EPICAC from the works of Kurt 
> >Vonnegut. Ipecac being a natural laxative.

> Not quite.  The word you are looking for is "emetic".

Well, while EPICAC is closer to Ipecac, when I think of EMERAC, instead of 
"emetic", I had always thought of _hemmorhoids_. Particularly given the older 
form of "emerods".

John Savard

On 01/08/2018 21:51, Michael Black wrote:
> 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.
> 

I think its a totally failure of folks in "industry" to follow up 
trends. So DEC made its money by being smaller and nimbler than IBM or 
more generally "the BUNCH". The trouble is that they continued to focus 
on the BUNCH and large computers while neglecting to observe that 
smaller manufacturers were doing to them what they had done to the large 
machines.

This happens all the time. Look SUN, Prime, DataGeneral and to some 
extent HP...

Dave



> 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
> 

On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> 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.

And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
(FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
but they're just being used as terminals.

-- 
/~\  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 2 Aug 2018 19:08:42 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
> but they're just being used as terminals.

	Except the centralised computers aren't really there, many of the
ones we use are virtual and prone to moving about as the physical hardware
is changed. As for the hostnames many of those are setup to direct you to a
nearby data centre where a load balancer will decide which stateless
virtual machine will handle this request for you (often they all have the
same IP address - as well as another unique one). The next request could go
somewhere completely different.

-- 
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 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
> but they're just being used as terminals.
>

Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present 
reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)


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

<ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>> 
> 
> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present 
> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
> 
> 

Facebook is apparently losing users now, as young people move on to other
platforms.

-- 
Pete

On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On 2 Aug 2018 19:08:42 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>
> 	Except the centralised computers aren't really there, many of the
> ones we use are virtual and prone to moving about as the physical hardware
> is changed. As for the hostnames many of those are setup to direct you to a
> nearby data centre where a load balancer will decide which stateless
> virtual machine will handle this request for you (often they all have the
> same IP address - as well as another unique one). The next request could go
> somewhere completely different.

True, the hardware is no longer quite as centralized.  Control, however, is.

-- 
/~\  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 8/2/2018 5:16 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>>
>>
>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present
>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
>>
>>
> 
> Facebook is apparently losing users now, as young people move on to other
> platforms.
> 

It's about time Facebook is losing users;
Facebook has been using losers for years!!!  :-)

-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

On 2018-08-02, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>> 
>> 
>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present 
>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
>> 
>> 
>
> Facebook is apparently losing users now, as young people move on to other
> platforms.
>

Or the names are checked. I am extremely proud that I am on under
an obviously wrong name.

The Family are into facebook, so I read it to keep up.


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

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2018-08-02, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>> 
>> 
>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present 
>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
> 
> Most of the people on FB make the "eternal September" crowd look like
> intellectual giants.
> 
> 

Look at the accusation that the Russians meddled in the election by posting
bogus stuff on Favebook. Who the heck gets their political information from
FB??? If there are many people doing this we have a lot more problems than
just Russians!

-- 
Pete

On 2018-08-03, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-02, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present 
>>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
>> 
>> Most of the people on FB make the "eternal September" crowd look like
>> intellectual giants.
>> 
>> 
>
> Look at the accusation that the Russians meddled in the election by posting
> bogus stuff on Favebook. Who the heck gets their political information from
> FB??? If there are many people doing this we have a lot more problems than
> just Russians!
>

The accusation, as far as I can make out, is that the russians gave the 
information to wikileaks, which posted it. What nobody seems to question is whether
 the information was accurate, which it seems to have been.

I have a relative, young, that posted on Facebook, pictures of himself in the pub
with his friends, empty glasses of beer all round. It took a while to get him
to understand that it might be seen by prospective employers.


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

On 8/3/2018 5:02 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-02, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present
>>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
>>
>> Most of the people on FB make the "eternal September" crowd look like
>> intellectual giants.
>>
>>
> 
> Look at the accusation that the Russians meddled in the election by posting
> bogus stuff on Favebook. Who the heck gets their political information from
> FB??? If there are many people doing this we have a lot more problems than
> just Russians!
> 
The same could be said of TV, junk mail, the National Enquirer, People 
Magazine, my brother-in-law, etc. People get their information 
(political or not) from what they're exposed to. And they'll absorb 
some of it even though they're not trying to. That's how advertising 
works.

And a lot of people use Farcebook as their primary means of 
communication with the world. Their relatives and friends are there. 
They don't send letters any more, they do it all on Farcebook.

In any case, a lot of the allegedly Russian stuff on Facebook wasn't 
obviously "politicial", it was things like "Save the 2nd Amendment" or 
"[insert religion here] is raping girls in [your hometown here]", 
stuff designed to inspire fear or widen divisions. It wasn't "Vote for 
Politician X".

Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> writes:
>On 8/3/2018 5:02 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present
>>>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
>>>
>>> Most of the people on FB make the "eternal September" crowd look like
>>> intellectual giants.
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> Look at the accusation that the Russians meddled in the election by posting
>> bogus stuff on Favebook. Who the heck gets their political information from
>> FB??? If there are many people doing this we have a lot more problems than
>> just Russians!
>> 
>The same could be said of TV, junk mail, the National Enquirer, People 
>Magazine, my brother-in-law, etc. People get their information 
>(political or not) from what they're exposed to. And they'll absorb 
>some of it even though they're not trying to. That's how advertising 
>works.
>
>And a lot of people use Farcebook as their primary means of 
>communication with the world. Their relatives and friends are there. 
>They don't send letters any more, they do it all on Farcebook.
>
>In any case, a lot of the allegedly Russian stuff on Facebook wasn't 
>obviously "politicial", it was things like "Save the 2nd Amendment" or 
>"[insert religion here] is raping girls in [your hometown here]", 
>stuff designed to inspire fear or widen divisions. It wasn't "Vote for 
>Politician X".

Then there was Faux news and not-so-brightbart.

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 13:22:49 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>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.

He said it -- around 1977, if memory serves.

The hobby market was just beginning to emerge at the time.  The machines were
relatively slow, had very little storage, and were somewhat complicated to use.
The justifications for having one in the home were quite flimsy.  Balancing
one's checkbook, or storing and re-portioning recipes were often cited as the
usual reasons.  It would be a few years before computers started becoming more
common in the home, primarily for playing games.  And it was a few more years
after that when their use as communications terminals drove widespread adoption.

In a sense, Ken Olsen was right.  Very few people do any actual computing with
their computers.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 20:56:40 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
> It's about time Facebook is losing users;
> Facebook has been using losers for years!!!  :-)

Yeah, MySpace is so much better. ;-)

I guess I read somewhere they're moving to Google (Hangouts, YouTube...).
-- 
Andreas

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

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere, but
> they're just being used as terminals.

And, with neural nets, AI and centralized social media servers, we're
trending back toward the very old joke (abbreviated here because y'all
know it):

   After spending 5 years and 1.3 gazillion quatloos on building The
   Ultimate Computer, the Governor was invited to ceremonially turn it
   on and enter the first question.

   So the Governor flipped the switch and the lights dimmed
   perceptibly.  He typed in, "Is there a God?"  The lights dimmed
   over 4 states for ten minutes.  Then the printer typed out:

        NOW THERE IS.

   ---

   "Pray without ceasing." -- I Thessalonians, 5:17

    Or check social media on your phone every 90 seconds?


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

On 2018-08-03, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 20:56:40 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
>> It's about time Facebook is losing users;
>> Facebook has been using losers for years!!!  :-)
>
> Yeah, MySpace is so much better. ;-)
>
> I guess I read somewhere they're moving to Google (Hangouts, YouTube...).

AFAIK, Murdock took over one of the pre-Facebooks.


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

Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/2018 5:02 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present
>>>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
>>> 
>>> Most of the people on FB make the "eternal September" crowd look like
>>> intellectual giants.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Look at the accusation that the Russians meddled in the election by posting
>> bogus stuff on Favebook. Who the heck gets their political information from
>> FB??? If there are many people doing this we have a lot more problems than
>> just Russians!
>> 
> The same could be said of TV, junk mail, the National Enquirer, People 
> Magazine, my brother-in-law, etc. People get their information 
> (political or not) from what they're exposed to. And they'll absorb 
> some of it even though they're not trying to. That's how advertising 
> works.
> 
> And a lot of people use Farcebook as their primary means of 
> communication with the world. Their relatives and friends are there. 
> They don't send letters any more, they do it all on Farcebook.
> 
> In any case, a lot of the allegedly Russian stuff on Facebook wasn't 
> obviously "politicial", it was things like "Save the 2nd Amendment" or 
> "[insert religion here] is raping girls in [your hometown here]", 
> stuff designed to inspire fear or widen divisions. It wasn't "Vote for 
> Politician X".
> 

Right, in addition to their pro-Trump propaganda now it turns out they're 
also promoting anti-Trump "resistance", and probably the "Antifa" thugs,
just to stir things up.

-- 
Pete

<ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-08-03, Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-02, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-08-02, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And now, under reality v2.0, the wheel is coming around again.
>>>>> We're going back to centralized computers taking care of everyone
>>>>> (FSVO "care").  There are still lots of computers everywhere,
>>>>> but they're just being used as terminals.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Is Facebook the present reality of Eternal September (Not the site, the present 
>>>> reality of the mob of people who would discover the Internet in September.)
>>> 
>>> Most of the people on FB make the "eternal September" crowd look like
>>> intellectual giants.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Look at the accusation that the Russians meddled in the election by posting
>> bogus stuff on Favebook. Who the heck gets their political information from
>> FB??? If there are many people doing this we have a lot more problems than
>> just Russians!
>> 
> 
> The accusation, as far as I can make out, is that the russians gave the 
> information to wikileaks, which posted it. What nobody seems to question is whether
>  the information was accurate, which it seems to have been.

They created a bunch of fake profiles, individuals and groups, and posted a
lot  of cr@p, which their other personae then liked and/or shared to give
them more exposure.

> 
> I have a relative, young, that posted on Facebook, pictures of himself in the pub
> with his friends, empty glasses of beer all round. It took a while to get him
> to understand that it might be seen by prospective employers.
> 
> 



-- 
Pete

On 2018-08-03, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a relative, young, that posted on Facebook, pictures of himself in the pub
> with his friends, empty glasses of beer all round. It took a while to get him
> to understand that it might be seen by prospective employers.

You don't mention just how drunk they were or if they were misbehaving
somehow, but an employer that can't tolerate me going out for beer with
friends now and then is probably not one I want to work for.

Niklas
-- 
When you need a helpline for breakfast cereals, it's time to start
thinking about tearing down civilisation and giving the ants a go.
                         -- Chris King in asr

On 2018-08-06, Niklas Karlsson <ank...@yahoo.se> wrote:
> On 2018-08-03, ma...@mail.com <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a relative, young, that posted on Facebook, pictures of himself in the pub
>> with his friends, empty glasses of beer all round. It took a while to get him
>> to understand that it might be seen by prospective employers.
>
> You don't mention just how drunk they were or if they were misbehaving
> somehow, but an employer that can't tolerate me going out for beer with
> friends now and then is probably not one I want to work for.


Its a way to check how stupid your prospective employee is. Yes,
 you are entitle to have a drink after work, but you have to be
stupid to post on Facebook with several empty glasses in front of you..

Then there was the couple that were in a horrifying car crash,
 and claimed, until the insurance company checked the Facebook pages of
all concerned. They had  each other down as friends.

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

ma...@mail.com writes:
>On 2018-08-03, Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 20:56:40 -0500, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>> It's about time Facebook is losing users;
>>> Facebook has been using losers for years!!!  :-)
>>
>> Yeah, MySpace is so much better. ;-)
>>
>> I guess I read somewhere they're moving to Google (Hangouts, YouTube...).
>
>AFAIK, Murdock took over one of the pre-Facebooks.
>

Fox owned (owns?) myspace.