| Re: Qbasic [message #317096 is a reply to message #317065] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 16:09   |
|
|
Originally posted by: Jack Brown
<mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnni11q9.18r.mausg@Smaus.org...
> On 2016-04-26, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>>> > Horsehockey. Show me the thousands of atheist missionaries
>>>> > out there forcibly converting the savages to the only true
>>>> > religion. 99.99%of athiests just wish the religious nutcakes
>>>> > would leave them aloneand stay out of their private lives.
>>>>
>>>> That is mostly just an observation that Chritianity is more
>>>> popular than atheism.
>>>
>>> Globally, Christianity (32%) is only about twice as popular as
>>> atheism (15%), yet the former have killed a LOT more than twice
>>> as many people as the latter--as have many other religions that
>>> are less popular.
>>>
>>
>> Probably over the last couple of millenea, but more recently Stalin, an
>> athiest, killed a lot of people, and there is no clear consensus about
>> what
>> Hitler believed either.
>
> Joseph Djugashvili(*sp) was aa failed priest in the Georgian Church,
He was never a priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Early_life
When Ioseb was sixteen, he received a scholarship to attend the
Tiflis Spiritual Seminary, the leading Russian Orthodox seminary
in Tiflis; the language of instruction was Russian. Despite being
trained as a priest, he became an atheist in his first year.[
> as a Marxist he would have believed that religion was "Opium for the
> People", a fraud to keep the masters in control.
Doesn’t explain why the Russian Orthodox church was close
to wiped out during the time when he was driving the bus.
> Hitler had read Nietzsche (sp?) and misunderstood him. In Germany
> at the timee, there was an allience of Christian faiths, and the state
> since Bismark's attempt to seperate them failed. THis hindered the
> religious elite from opposing him more actively.
Separate issue to what he believed himself.
>>>> After my earlier post I realized that most of the women I have
>>>> had long-term relationships were rather serious Christians. ...
>>>> None of them tried to convert me.
>>>
>>> If they had a serious problem with you being non-Christian, they
>>> probably wouldn't have entered the relationship in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>> My experience is that most Catholics and mainline Protestants are
>>> happy to live and let live, at least until there are kids and
>>> often even then, but most Evangelical Protestants are
>>> not.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317097 is a reply to message #317069] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 16:11 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0005317686A4D23A@aca4129f.ipt.aol.com...
> Andreas Eder wrote:
>> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>
>>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>>>
>>>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>>
>>>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> > he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> > description is of an agnostic.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>>>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>
>>> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
>>> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>
>> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
>> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being a
>> teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
>
> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the hypothesis.
You can't with plenty of rigorous science like the big bang either.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317101 is a reply to message #317087] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 19:53 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>>> acoustically coupled handset?
>>
>> I was using dial up until October of 2012, some people are still using
>> them. It was a 56K modem, and certainly not acoustic coupled...
>
> Still using a 56K USR modem. Only high-speed option here is rural
> wireless, a lot of bother to get it installed, not so very fast.
> They can't put the antenna in the obvious place -- a power pole on my
> property near the house -- due to a mare's nest of corporate
> permissions, fees, waivers etc. so they end up walking around on the
> roof of your house.
>
I was thinking of you (and Nyssa) but I suddenly wasn't sure if you were
here or just in other newsgroups. It's neat to find people overlapping
more than one newsgroup I read, but that makes it harder to remember where
I find them.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317102 is a reply to message #317084] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 20:01 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>>
>> Lee Felsenstein's Pennywhistle modem was acoustic, in 1976. There was
>> an early internal modem for the Apple II that was acoustic. But once
>> the more unified modems took over, ie the ones that were controlled
>> via the serial port, I think those were all direct connect.
>
> Both the Anderson Jacobsen and the Pennywhistle I used in the 80s were
> acoustic and had serial ports.
>
> I find it difficult to believe an *INTERNAL* modem (that fit into a
> slot) was acoustically coupled, just because it would be very difficult
> to jam a handset in the space provided ;)
>
> Novation (which did make a crummy RS-232 interface A/C modem) also made
> a Super Whizbang Neato toy for the Apple called the AppleCat ][ -- which
> was a one-slot direct connect modem with a programmable tone generator
> (in case you were one interested in experimenting with the effects that
> 700,900,1100, etc signalling might be useful for... KP+916+027+121+ST)
>
I'm picturing a Novation modem in a review, yes a very flexible piece of
hardware, and it had external cups for acoustic coupling. Maybe I'm
mixing things up, but right at the beginning, like I said, acoustic modems
meant no need for a DAA.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317103 is a reply to message #317083] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 20:05 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>> But in hobby circles, the acoustic modems may have hung on a bit
>> longer, since one didn't need a DAA or approval of the whole modem.
>> Steve Ciarcia certainly described an acoustic modem in the early
>> eighties, I want to say 1984 but I don't know.
>
> The small rectangle flat card-swipe, point-of-sale terminals were an
> emulated pc/xt and could be heard with the funny modem connection noise
> for dial-up transactions (low-volume merchants that had separate dial-up
> for every transactions, now lots are moving to internet). Last decade
> there was some look at moving to 56kbit dialup, but with an
> avg. transaction size of 60bytes, the 56kbit modem protocol connect
> negotiation took longer than slow-speed negotiation & transmission of
> 60bytes.
>
Yes, you've mentioned that before. A friend noticed it too, he had a
business for putting debit card like things in places like prisons (and
then he sold out to a bigger company in the US, I can't remember the names
of either companies) and he had noted the same thing, the faster modems
took too long to negotiate. At one point he was going around buying used
USR external modems (one surplus place had them for five dollars, until he
bought a bunch, at which point they wanted ten dollars each), but later he
found tiny modem cards that were cheap. He gave me one that didnt' work,
he'd put a hole in it and put it on a keychain. I wonder where I put it?
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317107 is a reply to message #317102] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 21:00 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> I'm picturing a Novation modem in a review, yes a very flexible piece
> of hardware, and it had external cups for acoustic coupling. Maybe
> I'm mixing things up, but right at the beginning, like I said,
> acoustic modems meant no need for a DAA.
>
But by 1977, the DAA was dead as the dodo, when docket 19528 was
published, setting up the registration requirements of Part 68. Any
manufacturer who met the technical standards, and filed the paperwork
could connect directly to the network without renting a DAA.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317109 is a reply to message #317107] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 22:39 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>> I'm picturing a Novation modem in a review, yes a very flexible piece
>> of hardware, and it had external cups for acoustic coupling. Maybe
>> I'm mixing things up, but right at the beginning, like I said,
>> acoustic modems meant no need for a DAA.
>>
>
> But by 1977, the DAA was dead as the dodo, when docket 19528 was
> published, setting up the registration requirements of Part 68. Any
> manufacturer who met the technical standards, and filed the paperwork
> could connect directly to the network without renting a DAA.
>
But isn't it more that the external DAA was gone?
You had to get type approval for things attached to the phone line. And
you could get DAAs as modules, I have a few around, that were type
approved, which meant that anyone attaching to the phone line just had to
buy one of these, rather than get their whole piece of equipment approved
For a company making a whole lot of modems, it makes sense to build up the
equivalent of the DAA inside the modem, likely it being cheaper because as
part of the modem it could be less universal, and then getting the modem
type approved.
But for the early projects that never sold that many, or even later
experimenting, it was cheaper to buy the DAA modules.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317110 is a reply to message #317109] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 23:03 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote:
>
>> But by 1977, the DAA was dead as the dodo, when docket 19528 was
>> published, setting up the registration requirements of Part 68. Any
>> manufacturer who met the technical standards, and filed the paperwork
>> could connect directly to the network without renting a DAA.
>>
> But isn't it more that the external DAA was gone?
Well -- yes.
> You had to get type approval for things attached to the phone line.
Which was trivial ... I've had probably 75 different designs of mine go
through compliance for both Part 68 and Part 15. You sent a half-dozen
units to someone like ETL, wrote them a check, and filed a form. The
whole shebang was a minuscule part of the entire R&D process.
> And you could get DAAs as modules, I have a few around, that were type
> approved, which meant that anyone attaching to the phone line just had
> to buy one of these, rather than get their whole piece of equipment
> approved
I guess we're having a bit of vocabulary shift -- when I think DAA I
think of an WECo 813 [? that sounds right, but it was 40 years ago]
device that sat between CPE and The Network.
When I think of the modules you could buy from (e.g. Cermetek), that's
just deferring type-acceptance to some other company for an outrageous
markup, and I'd never have called them a DAA -- although I can see how
they could be considered the semantic equivalent.
> For a company making a whole lot of modems, it makes sense to build up
> the equivalent of the DAA inside the modem, likely it being cheaper
> because as part of the modem it could be less universal, and then
> getting the modem type approved.
I'd disagree with that -- it was just not that expensive to do Part 68
compliance. And by 1980 (right? that was the year?) you had to do Part
15 testing on the "complete assembly" anyway, so you're not really
saving yourself anything.
> But for the early projects that never sold that many, or even later
> experimenting, it was cheaper to buy the DAA modules.
Well - prototypes were self-certifying, so no issue there; and the cost
of buying part-68 certified interface modules was so high that the break
even point was about 50 units.
> Michael
--NK1G
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317114 is a reply to message #317103] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 03:09 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604272002260.7196@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>>> But in hobby circles, the acoustic modems may have hung on a bit
>>> longer, since one didn't need a DAA or approval of the whole modem.
>>> Steve Ciarcia certainly described an acoustic modem in the early
>>> eighties, I want to say 1984 but I don't know.
>>
>> The small rectangle flat card-swipe, point-of-sale terminals were an
>> emulated pc/xt and could be heard with the funny modem connection noise
>> for dial-up transactions (low-volume merchants that had separate dial-up
>> for every transactions, now lots are moving to internet). Last decade
>> there was some look at moving to 56kbit dialup, but with an
>> avg. transaction size of 60bytes, the 56kbit modem protocol connect
>> negotiation took longer than slow-speed negotiation & transmission of
>> 60bytes.
>>
> Yes, you've mentioned that before. A friend noticed it too, he had a
> business for putting debit card like things in places like prisons (and
> then he sold out to a bigger company in the US, I can't remember the names
> of either companies) and he had noted the same thing, the faster modems
> took too long to negotiate. At one point he was going around buying used
> USR external modems (one surplus place had them for five dollars, until he
> bought a bunch, at which point they wanted ten dollars each), but later he
> found tiny modem cards that were cheap. He gave me one that didnt' work,
> he'd put a hole in it and put it on a keychain. I wonder where I put it?
In northern EUrope (Germany, BeNeLux,Scandinavia) ISDN was built so extensively
that an ISDN line could be had for as little as a POTS line as long as
you accepted higher comms charges. This ISDN also has a 16 kilobit
X.25 on the signalling channel, and they pay by the kilopacket, around
half a dollar per thousand packets on these expensive dialling plans.
This lead to all the POS equipment doing their validation with one 128 byte
ISDN packet back and forth. Enough for user,credentials,account, amount
by a wide margin. Fast and cheap.
As DSL has taken over, this has been encapsulated over the Internet using
XOT. A simple XOT modem is less than $100. The usage is still large enough
to be visible in the national IP exchange traffic. X.25 lives.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317116 is a reply to message #317097] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 03:02 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <dockntF5r4cU1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PM0005317686A4D23A@aca4129f.ipt.aol.com...
>> Andreas Eder wrote:
>>> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>
>>>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>>> >
>>>> > Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> >
>>>> > > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> > > he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> > > description is of an agnostic.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>>>> > Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>>
>>>> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>>> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>>> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
>>>> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>
>>> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
>>> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being a
>>> teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
>>
>> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the hypothesis.
>
> You can't with plenty of rigorous science like the big bang either.
Well, you can. You just need to survey the relevant orbits for anything down
to ~5 cm, and identify each and every one of the objects.
Disproving it is a lot simpler. Just find a teapot.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317117 is a reply to message #317085] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 02:48 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <87r3dqvq9h.fsf@senguio.mx>,
Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
>> avg. transaction size of 60bytes, the 56kbit modem protocol connect
>> negotiation took longer than slow-speed negotiation & transmission of
>> 60bytes.
>>
>
> I know that the one I had (Zon? Does that sound right?) it was Bell 103
> ... from when the answering modem started giving carrier, it IMMEDIATELY
> started spewing ... the ENTIRE transaction took maybe 4 seconds of
> online time (half of that waiting)
The Bell 103 is a pure FM (as in Frequency Modulation) design. It runs
all the time; and is really an analogue device. I know of some medical
uses where they really use the analogoue properties of it.
Frequency <-> voltage on two different bands. It can go up to slightly
more than 600 baud on a very clean phone line, but for practical use 450
is about the maximum for somewhat noise-free operation.
It has no preamble, handshake or sync. Just transmit and receive all
the time.
The 1200/2400 bps (at 600 baud) modems need handshake and sync.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317118 is a reply to message #317090] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 02:59 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <55eeb5c2-7043-4cf4-b0e7-c8d156e33843@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 6:40:51 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>>>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>
> Just as one hand cannot clap on empty air, communication involves the
> transmission of information from one place to another. So, indeed, there is no
> such sound, and the analogy with Zen is valid.
>
>>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>>> acoustically coupled handset?
>
>>> That should start something :)
>
>> I hear it every morning. I can tell if I'm going to have comm problems
>> by the sound.
>
> Now, that's interesting.
>
> I've used acoustic coupling at 300 baud, but when I used the Internet over
> dial-up, though I managed even at 14.4 kilobaud, even at the maximum of 56k
> today's web sites would mostly not work.
>
> For a while, in addition to conventional dial-up, I also used a local freenet
> which one used a terminal emulation program to talk to, which allowed browsing
> the web with Lynx and so on. That service, though, is no longer available in my
> locality.
>
> So I'm a bit surprised you have anything to communicate _with_ using an
> acoustic coupler (or even a telephone modem card) in this day and age.
There are still lots of modem banks operational. I even saw some Livingston
Portmaster gear the other day, still in pristine condition and operational,
20 years after they were made. Very well kept by the operator.
These are 300/1200/2400/4800/9600/14400/28800/33600/56000 bps modems run
electronically on 10-modem cards, and connect with the phone network
with up to 2 ISDN PRIs (30+30 channels in rightopondia, 24+24 on the
other side of the pond). 3 modem card slots, for up to 30 modem calls.
The remaining channels could be used for isdn, with a number of
protocols supported. All for IP and/or uucp.
It can also bond channels, up to 12, for a total capacity of 64000x12,
or 56000x12 in leftopondia. 3/4 of a megabit, over ISDN. You'd better
have a good calling plan for that.
Yes, the usage over the POTS network is decreasing, but it has almost
stopped declining at around 5% of the top rate ca 2001.
One other thing about 28k++ modems is that they have a lot of built-
in latency. 300 ms is quite normal, when compression etc has been
enabled.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317121 is a reply to message #317086] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 08:06 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Andreas Eder wrote:
>>> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>
>>>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>>> >
>>>> > Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> >
>>>> > > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> > > he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> > > description is of an agnostic.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> > between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>>
>>>> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>>> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>>> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
>>>> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>
>>> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
>>> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being
>>> a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
>>
>> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the hypothesis.
>
> Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
> that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all, implementation
> is left as an exercise for the reader.
>
That's the brute force method but still doesn't disprove the existence
if none are found. AFter all, there might have been one where you just
looked.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317123 is a reply to message #317082] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 08:06 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> Walter Banks wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>>>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>>>
>>>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>>>
>>>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>>>
>>>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>>> acoustically coupled handset?
>>>
>>> That should start something :)
>>
>> I hear it every morning. I can tell if I'm going to have comm problems
>> by the sound.
>>
> But surely you aren't using an acoustic modem.
Not the device but the functionality. I do occasionally pick up my
telephone handset to listen.
>
> The direct connect ones generally have a speaker so you can monitor the
> connection. And yes, once you get used to it, you can tell when
> something's a miss, it sounds different.
Especially if there is a scream which lasts 15 seconds.
The last time I used an acoustic coupler was when I brought in a VT05
into the hospital when JMF had his laryngectomy. He would call up
the machine and watch SYSTATs and show the doctors. So that was in
1987.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317124 is a reply to message #317121] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 08:43 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 28 Apr 2016 12:06:24 GMT
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de
>>>> > says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist
>>>> >> > claims he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never
>>>> >> > will. Your description is of an agnostic.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> >> between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>> >
>>>> > It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>>> > would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>>> > could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with
>>>> > certainty takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>>
>>>> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But
>>>> what do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about
>>>> not being a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money
>>>> on it. :-)
>>>
>>> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the
>>> hypothesis.
>>
>> Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
>> that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all,
>> implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>
> That's the brute force method but still doesn't disprove the existence
> if none are found. AFter all, there might have been one where you just
> looked.
You have to collect *every* object of the right size (or tag them)
it only works if you survey them all.
--
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/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317134 is a reply to message #317116] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 15:49 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
news:m4p8vc-fa1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <dockntF5r4cU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:PM0005317686A4D23A@aca4129f.ipt.aol.com...
>>> Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de
>>>> > says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist
>>>> >> > claims
>>>> >> > he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> >> > description is of an agnostic.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> >> between
>>>> >> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>> >
>>>> > It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>>> > would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>>> > could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with
>>>> > certainty
>>>> > takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>>
>>>> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But
>>>> what
>>>> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being
>>>> a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
>>>
>>> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the
>>> hypothesis.
>>
>> You can't with plenty of rigorous science like the big bang either.
>
> Well, you can. You just need to survey the relevant orbits for anything
> down to ~5 cm, and identify each and every one of the objects.
That isnt an experiment, that is observation.
> Disproving it is a lot simpler. Just find a teapot.
Again, that is observation, not experiment.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317137 is a reply to message #317118] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 16:43 |
Clark G
Messages: 69
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in
news:hvo8vc-fa1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name:
> In article <55eeb5c2-7043-4cf4-b0e7-c8d156e33843@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> I've used acoustic coupling at 300 baud, but when I used the Internet
>> over dial-up, though I managed even at 14.4 kilobaud, even at the
>> maximum of 56k today's web sites would mostly not work.
>>
>> For a while, in addition to conventional dial-up, I also used a local
>> freenet which one used a terminal emulation program to talk to, which
>> allowed browsing the web with Lynx and so on. That service, though, is
>> no longer available in my locality.
>>
>> So I'm a bit surprised you have anything to communicate _with_ using
>> an acoustic coupler (or even a telephone modem card) in this day and
>> age.
>
> There are still lots of modem banks operational. I even saw some
> Livingston Portmaster gear the other day, still in pristine condition
> and operational, 20 years after they were made. Very well kept by the
> operator.
>
> These are 300/1200/2400/4800/9600/14400/28800/33600/56000 bps modems
> run electronically on 10-modem cards, and connect with the phone
> network with up to 2 ISDN PRIs (30+30 channels in rightopondia, 24+24
> on the other side of the pond). 3 modem card slots, for up to 30 modem
> calls. The remaining channels could be used for isdn, with a number of
> protocols supported. All for IP and/or uucp.
>
> It can also bond channels, up to 12, for a total capacity of 64000x12,
> or 56000x12 in leftopondia. 3/4 of a megabit, over ISDN. You'd better
> have a good calling plan for that.
>
> Yes, the usage over the POTS network is decreasing, but it has almost
> stopped declining at around 5% of the top rate ca 2001.
>
> One other thing about 28k++ modems is that they have a lot of built-
> in latency. 300 ms is quite normal, when compression etc has been
> enabled.
>
> -- mrr
My ISP Telus still includes 10 hours of dialup in their DSL service. It
still worked when I tried it 3 months ago with my trusty 56K external USR
modem.
If the DSL went down and the dialup still worked, I could at least get
email. Most websites were pretty awful with dialup now though.
--
Clark G
* take away the em's to reply
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317143 is a reply to message #317137] |
Thu, 28 April 2016 19:14 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Clark G wrote:
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in
> news:hvo8vc-fa1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name:
>
>> In article <55eeb5c2-7043-4cf4-b0e7-c8d156e33843@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I've used acoustic coupling at 300 baud, but when I used the Internet
>>> over dial-up, though I managed even at 14.4 kilobaud, even at the
>>> maximum of 56k today's web sites would mostly not work.
>>>
>>> For a while, in addition to conventional dial-up, I also used a local
>>> freenet which one used a terminal emulation program to talk to, which
>>> allowed browsing the web with Lynx and so on. That service, though, is
>>> no longer available in my locality.
>>>
>>> So I'm a bit surprised you have anything to communicate _with_ using
>>> an acoustic coupler (or even a telephone modem card) in this day and
>>> age.
>>
>> There are still lots of modem banks operational. I even saw some
>> Livingston Portmaster gear the other day, still in pristine condition
>> and operational, 20 years after they were made. Very well kept by the
>> operator.
>>
>> These are 300/1200/2400/4800/9600/14400/28800/33600/56000 bps modems
>> run electronically on 10-modem cards, and connect with the phone
>> network with up to 2 ISDN PRIs (30+30 channels in rightopondia, 24+24
>> on the other side of the pond). 3 modem card slots, for up to 30 modem
>> calls. The remaining channels could be used for isdn, with a number of
>> protocols supported. All for IP and/or uucp.
>>
>> It can also bond channels, up to 12, for a total capacity of 64000x12,
>> or 56000x12 in leftopondia. 3/4 of a megabit, over ISDN. You'd better
>> have a good calling plan for that.
>>
>> Yes, the usage over the POTS network is decreasing, but it has almost
>> stopped declining at around 5% of the top rate ca 2001.
>>
>> One other thing about 28k++ modems is that they have a lot of built-
>> in latency. 300 ms is quite normal, when compression etc has been
>> enabled.
>>
>> -- mrr
>
> My ISP Telus still includes 10 hours of dialup in their DSL service. It
> still worked when I tried it 3 months ago with my trusty 56K external USR
> modem.
>
> If the DSL went down and the dialup still worked, I could at least get
> email. Most websites were pretty awful with dialup now though.
>
I post from the Ottawa Freenet, just using their Usenet server these days,
and give an annual donation accordingly.
But, if I was really stuck, I could hook up a modem, configure Linux to
use it (I just never bothered after I got DSL) and run a phone cable to a
jack on a lower floor, then I could dial the Ottawa Freenet by a long
distance call, and get access that way. Cumbersome, but that six month
period from November of 2005 through May of 1006 when I didn't have an ISP
(my previous one sold out to a larger non-profit, I refused to go along
since they made the change before we actually voted on it), I actually did
phone Ottawa a few times to check a few things.
The ISP that I went to ten years ago at one point rearranged the phone
lines, so I think they either combined with some other ISPs, or something.
It required a different login from the login to the ISP, and they said
something about phone lines being available out of town. I was feeling
like the only dialup user by the time I finally went to DSL, but I guess
not.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317158 is a reply to message #317083] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 01:25 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> The small rectangle flat card-swipe, point-of-sale terminals were an
> emulated pc/xt and could be heard with the funny modem connection noise
> for dial-up transactions (low-volume merchants that had separate dial-up
> for every transactions, now lots are moving to internet). Last decade
> there was some look at moving to 56kbit dialup, but with an
> avg. transaction size of 60bytes, the 56kbit modem protocol connect
> negotiation took longer than slow-speed negotiation & transmission of
> 60bytes.
CP67 was delivered to the university last week jan1968 with 1052 & 2741
terminal support ... that including automatic terminal recognition using
controller SAD ccw to switch line/port scanner type. The university had
some number of TTY/ascii ... so I added TTY/ascii terminal support
.... also able to do automatic terminal recognition and using SAD ccw to
switch between three different kinds of line/port scanner.
I then wanted to have single dial-in number for all terminal types for
single pool ("hunt group") of ports. This almost, but not quite worked.
While IBM terminal controller allowed switch line/port scanner type ...
they hardwired baud rate/speed for each line. Automatic terminal type
recognition work for leased lines (hardware terminal to specific port)
.... but wouldn't support single "hunt group" (needed two different pools
differentiated by baud rate/speed).
This somewhat prompted the univ to start clone controller effort, using
Interdata/3 ... built channel interface board for the Interdata/3,
programmed Interdata/3 to emulate IBM mainframe terminal controller
.... but also programmed to dynamical determine terminal baud rate/speed.
Later the implementation was upgraded to Interdata/4 handling channel
interface and pool of Interdata/3s handling port interfaces.
four of us get written up responsibility for (some part of) clone
controller busines.
Later Perkin-Elmer buys Interdata and markets the box under the
Perkin-Elmer logo. some past posts
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm
Around the turn of the century I visited a financial east coast
datacenter that had one of the PE boxes handling majority of dialup
point-of-sale terminal traffic in the eastern part of the US.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317162 is a reply to message #317124] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 08:18 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2016 12:06:24 GMT
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> > J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>> >
>>>> >> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de
>>>> >> says...
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist
>>>> >>> > claims he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never
>>>> >>> > will. Your description is of an agnostic.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> >>> between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>>> >> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>>> >> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with
>>>> >> certainty takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>> >
>>>> > You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But
>>>> > what do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about
>>>> > not being a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money
>>>> > on it. :-)
>>>>
>>>> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the
>>>> hypothesis.
>>>
>>> Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
>>> that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all,
>>> implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>>
>> That's the brute force method but still doesn't disprove the existence
>> if none are found. AFter all, there might have been one where you just
>> looked.
>
> You have to collect *every* object of the right size (or tag them)
> it only works if you survey them all.
Which is impossible because you don't know when you've found them all.
That's why designing an experiment to disporve the hypothesis is useful.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317164 is a reply to message #317162] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 08:39 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 29 Apr 2016 12:18:19 GMT
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2016 12:06:24 GMT
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> > > J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de
>>>> > >> says...
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist
>>>> > >>> > claims he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never
>>>> > >>> > will. Your description is of an agnostic.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> > >>> between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest
>>>> > >> statement I would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism
>>>> > >> by which there could be such a teapot. But to state that you
>>>> > >> know this with certainty takes you into the realm of knowing by
>>>> > >> revelation.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty.
>>>> > > But what do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain
>>>> > > about not being a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum
>>>> > > of money on it. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the
>>>> > hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
>>>> that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all,
>>>> implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>>>
>>> That's the brute force method but still doesn't disprove the existence
>>> if none are found. AFter all, there might have been one where you just
>>> looked.
>>
>> You have to collect *every* object of the right size (or tag them)
>> it only works if you survey them all.
>
> Which is impossible because you don't know when you've found them all.
> That's why designing an experiment to disporve the hypothesis is useful.
It's not impossible, just very difficult for example place
yourself a few AUs out of the ecliptic and take a suitably high resolution
hologram - then spend the next few centuries examining it.
Alternatively go out there and collect them in a big net keep
collecting until the guy with the really good telescope (sitting where you
took that hologram) tells you there's nothing there big enough.
--
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/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317166 is a reply to message #317162] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 09:19 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <PM0005319E8AC4CF08@aca416fa.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2016 12:06:24 GMT
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> > > J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de
>>>> > >> says...
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist
>>>> > >>> > claims he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never
>>>> > >>> > will. Your description is of an agnostic.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> > >>> between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>>> > >> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>>> > >> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with
>>>> > >> certainty takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But
>>>> > > what do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about
>>>> > > not being a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money
>>>> > > on it. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the
>>>> > hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
>>>> that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all,
>>>> implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>>>
>>> That's the brute force method but still doesn't disprove the existence
>>> if none are found. AFter all, there might have been one where you just
>>> looked.
>>
>> You have to collect *every* object of the right size (or tag them)
>> it only works if you survey them all.
>
> Which is impossible because you don't know when you've found them all.
> That's why designing an experiment to disporve the hypothesis is useful.
Prove-disprove status of almost every hypothesis are not absolute; they
are graded in confidence intervals.
So would an extensive search of teapots be. After umteen years of searching
for everything bigger than 5cm you could say with pretty good confidence that
you are n+3 sigma sure that you have found them all.
And none looked like a teapot.
And I reject the assertion that observation is not part of a real experiment.
It is the most essential part. The rest of the stuff could actually just be
taxonomy. Like it is almost always done in the dismal science, and was done
in biology pre the mathification of that field ca 1990.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317171 is a reply to message #317168] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 13:51 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <MbKUy.3556$dr1.2670@fx41.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>> In article <PM0005319E8AC4CF08@aca416fa.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So would an extensive search of teapots be. After umteen years of searching
>> for everything bigger than 5cm you could say with pretty good confidence that
>> you are n+3 sigma sure that you have found them all.
>>
>
> Unless teapots appear spontaneously from a different
> Universe. c.f. _Ghost Ship_ by Lee & Miller.
Or the Earth has been exporting some. We have made some rather
spectacular blasts in the 1945-1975 range, more than one
thousand have had the theoretical ability to export a solid
teapot to some quite far location.
Mutilated beyond recognition, probably.
But it is still perfectly possible that such a thing has
happened. We DO have a manhole cover as the fastest thing
we have made, after all.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317176 is a reply to message #317047] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 17:14 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1604262231001.5412@darkstar.example.org...
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
>
> Someone in the Apple II newsgroup was asking last week about BBSs they
> could still call with a 300baud modem. But I'm not sure it was an
> acoustic modem. I gather some places with modems have locked out the
> slower speed modems, but I have no actual experience with that.
>
> I was using dial up until October of 2012, some people are still using
> them. It was a 56K modem, and certainly not acoustic coupled (I've never
> had one of those, or rather, my Radio Shack Model 100 laptop could be
> acoustically coupled but I never had the optional coupler, so I had to
> plug it into the phone jack). But I was using pulse dialing, since I'd
> never paid the premium for touchtone. When they installed the DSL that
> month, They yanked out the extension to the top floor (which ran from the
> pole to the window) claiming "it was a mess", so I no longer can use a
> modem without running phone line to the floor below.
>
Back in the late 1970s, I had an old acoustic modem that I used with a dumb
terminal that my father borrowed from his work. The acoustic modem was old
then, and it would do 75, 150, and 300 baud. The rubber "cups" that held
the phone receiver were old and the rubber had hardened. So if you did
*not* cradle the phone receiver carefully, the sounds of the room would
"leak" in and you would get dropped! Another hazard of acoustic modems
that has *not* been mention before here...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317177 is a reply to message #317081] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 17:23 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1604271416100.6589@darkstar.example.org...
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
>
> But in hobby circles, the acoustic modems may have hung on a bit longer,
> since one didn't need a DAA or approval of the whole modem. Steve Ciarcia
> certainly described an acoustic modem in the early eighties, I want to say
> 1984 but I don't know.
>
> Lee Felsenstein's Pennywhistle modem was acoustic, in 1976. There was an
> early internal modem for the Apple II that was acoustic. But once the
> more unified modems took over, ie the ones that were controlled via the
> serial port, I think those were all direct connect.
>
> As I mentioned in another post, the Radio Shack Model 100 laptop, which
> came out in 1983, that was direct connect, but had a jack to plug in an
> acoustic coupler (which was just the speaker and microphone that the
> handset fit into). Those might have gotten some use, since the laptop was
> popular with journalists, and they needed to transfer to the newspaper,
> the acoustic coupler made it easier to find a phone to use it with.
>
> That's another factor, did any acoustic modem come out for speeds faster
> than 300baud? I don't remember any, I thought there were limitations that
> sidelined acoustic modems for faster speeds.
>
Don't forget the TI Silent 700. It had a thermal printing mechanism, bubble
memory to retain local files, and an acoustic coupled modem built on the
back. The idea is... as a salesman, you go around taking orders and typing
the orders into the Silent 700. Then at the end of the day, you call up
your company's mainframe and download the contents of the bubble memory via
the acoustic modem. There are probably many other variations on this, but
the Silent 700 was built in the 70s and 80s.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317178 is a reply to message #317089] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 17:30 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:nfr4bo11ne7@news6.newsguy.com...
> On 2016-04-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> That's another factor, did any acoustic modem come out for speeds faster
>> than 300baud? I don't remember any, I thought there were limitations
>> that
>> sidelined acoustic modems for faster speeds.
>
> Judging by the speed of screen repaints, I'd say that the acoustic modem
> in the movie "War Games" was doing 9600 bps. Too bad it was only a
> movie -
> I'd have loved to have had one of them.
>
On occasion in the past at a PPoE, I have used a VT220 connected to the
network through a termserver. The VT-200 had a wimpy 8-bit processor
controlling things. At 19200, if you listed a file with many long lines,
the terminal just could *not* keep up! Of course, I disliked the VT-220 for
many reasons. I may be mis-remembering... perhaps it was 9,600 baud where
the long lines slowed down the terminal.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317179 is a reply to message #317077] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 17:33 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
news:nfqqqp1l2k@news7.newsguy.com...
> On 2016-04-27, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, Nirvana is the state of becoming devoid of all emotion or desire.
>>
>> (Like waking up after a night on the town.?)
>
> Dunno about you, but when I wake up after a night on the town I'm
> in anything but nirvana. I'm certainly far from being devoid of
> all emotion or desire. The emotion I feel at that point is one
> of misery over the state I'm in, and it's accompanied by a desire
> to never do it again. (Until next time, at least.)
>
Charlie, that's because there are two different people living inside you.
The "Mr. Live It Up" says: have all the fun you want and damn the
consequences!!! And "Mr. Pay for It in the Morning" is the one that has to
take all those consequences! These two people do *not* communicate.
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317180 is a reply to message #317090] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 17:41 |
Charles Richmond
Messages: 2754
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:55eeb5c2-7043-4cf4-b0e7-c8d156e33843@googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip...] [snip...]
> [snip...]
>
> So I'm a bit surprised you have anything to communicate _with_ using an
> acoustic coupler (or even a telephone modem card) in this day and age.
>
Mr. Quadibloc, you do *not* understand what is happening here. "We do not
live in this world alone, but in a thousand other worlds." BAH lives in a
world where people still listen to AM radio, still watch the transmit and
receive lights on the front of the modem, where things go wrong that *never*
seem to go wrong for most of the other people. Many strange things happen
in this world that one would *never* expect to see "in this day and age"!!!
;-)
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317182 is a reply to message #317178] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 19:30 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nfr4bo11ne7@news6.newsguy.com...
>> On 2016-04-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> That's another factor, did any acoustic modem come out for speeds faster
>>> than 300baud? I don't remember any, I thought there were limitations
>>> that
>>> sidelined acoustic modems for faster speeds.
>>
>> Judging by the speed of screen repaints, I'd say that the acoustic modem
>> in the movie "War Games" was doing 9600 bps. Too bad it was only a
>> movie -
>> I'd have loved to have had one of them.
>>
>
> On occasion in the past at a PPoE, I have used a VT220 connected to the
> network through a termserver. The VT-200 had a wimpy 8-bit processor
> controlling things. At 19200, if you listed a file with many long lines,
> the terminal just could *not* keep up! Of course, I disliked the VT-220 for
> many reasons. I may be mis-remembering... perhaps it was 9,600 baud where
> the long lines slowed down the terminal.
>
The 220 could handle XON and XOFF, so it was up to the program on the other
end to control the flow of data.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317183 is a reply to message #317180] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 19:30 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:55eeb5c2-7043-4cf4-b0e7-c8d156e33843@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> [snip...] [snip...]
>> [snip...]
>>
>> So I'm a bit surprised you have anything to communicate _with_ using an
>> acoustic coupler (or even a telephone modem card) in this day and age.
>>
>
> Mr. Quadibloc, you do *not* understand what is happening here. "We do not
> live in this world alone, but in a thousand other worlds." BAH lives in a
> world where people still listen to AM radio, still watch the transmit and
> receive lights on the front of the modem, where things go wrong that *never*
> seem to go wrong for most of the other people. Many strange things happen
> in this world that one would *never* expect to see "in this day and age"!!!
> ;-)
>
Just like alternate universes - hers seems to impinge on ours only in
certain places and at certain times.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317184 is a reply to message #317180] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 20:20 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:41:46 PM UTC-6, Charles Richmond wrote:
> BAH lives in a
> world where people still listen to AM radio,
AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some people who
are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in the noisy
environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is wasted.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317186 is a reply to message #317183] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 22:05 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> news:55eeb5c2-7043-4cf4-b0e7-c8d156e33843@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...]
>>> [snip...]
>>>
>>> So I'm a bit surprised you have anything to communicate _with_ using an
>>> acoustic coupler (or even a telephone modem card) in this day and age.
>>>
>>
>> Mr. Quadibloc, you do *not* understand what is happening here. "We do not
>> live in this world alone, but in a thousand other worlds." BAH lives in a
>> world where people still listen to AM radio, still watch the transmit and
>> receive lights on the front of the modem, where things go wrong that *never*
>> seem to go wrong for most of the other people. Many strange things happen
>> in this world that one would *never* expect to see "in this day and age"!!!
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Just like alternate universes - hers seems to impinge on ours only in
> certain places and at certain times.
Cite?
:)
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317190 is a reply to message #317162] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 23:46 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0005319E8AC4CF08@aca416fa.ipt.aol.com...
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2016 12:06:24 GMT
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> > > J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de
>>>> > >> says...
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist
>>>> > >>> > claims he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never
>>>> > >>> > will. Your description is of an agnostic.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> > >>> between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement
>>>> > >> I
>>>> > >> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which
>>>> > >> there
>>>> > >> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with
>>>> > >> certainty takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But
>>>> > > what do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about
>>>> > > not being a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of
>>>> > > money
>>>> > > on it. :-)
>>>> >
>>>> > But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the
>>>> > hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
>>>> that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all,
>>>> implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>>>
>>> That's the brute force method but still doesn't disprove the existence
>>> if none are found. AFter all, there might have been one where you just
>>> looked.
>>
>> You have to collect *every* object of the right size (or tag them)
>> it only works if you survey them all.
>
> Which is impossible because you don't know when you've found them all.
> That's why designing an experiment to disporve the hypothesis is useful.
But isnt possible with a hell of a lot of science.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317191 is a reply to message #317166] |
Fri, 29 April 2016 23:54 |
Rod Speed
Messages: 3507
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
news:fk3cvc-345.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <PM0005319E8AC4CF08@aca416fa.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On 28 Apr 2016 12:06:24 GMT
>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> > On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
>>>> > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Andreas Eder wrote:
>>>> >> > J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de
>>>> >> >> says...
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist
>>>> >> >>> > claims he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never
>>>> >> >>> > will. Your description is of an agnostic.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> >> >>> between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest
>>>> >> >> statement I
>>>> >> >> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which
>>>> >> >> there
>>>> >> >> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with
>>>> >> >> certainty takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty.
>>>> >> > But
>>>> >> > what do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about
>>>> >> > not being a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of
>>>> >> > money
>>>> >> > on it. :-)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the
>>>> >> hypothesis.
>>>> >
>>>> > Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
>>>> > that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all,
>>>> > implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>>> >
>>>> That's the brute force method but still doesn't disprove the existence
>>>> if none are found. AFter all, there might have been one where you just
>>>> looked.
>>>
>>> You have to collect *every* object of the right size (or tag them)
>>> it only works if you survey them all.
>>
>> Which is impossible because you don't know when you've found them all.
>> That's why designing an experiment to disporve the hypothesis is useful.
>
> Prove-disprove status of almost every hypothesis are not absolute; they
> are graded in confidence intervals.
>
> So would an extensive search of teapots be. After umteen years of
> searching
> for everything bigger than 5cm you could say with pretty good confidence
> that
> you are n+3 sigma sure that you have found them all.
>
> And none looked like a teapot.
>
> And I reject the assertion that observation is not part of a real
> experiment.
No one ever said that. JUST that there is a difference
between observation and an experiment.
For example, when deciding whether the big bang happened,
no experiment is possible, ALL you can do is observe and see
if the observations match what should be seen if the big bang
actually happened.
> It is the most essential part.
Yes, but sometimes ONLY observation is
possible, no experimentation is possible.
> The rest of the stuff could actually just be taxonomy.
> Like it is almost always done in the dismal science, and was
> done in biology pre the mathification of that field ca 1990.
With evolution, it is certainly possible to experiment, most obviously
with insecticide immunity and with antibiotic immunity. But with
humans, only observation is possible. Same with the question of
whether smoking causes lung cancer and other medical problems.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317194 is a reply to message #317171] |
Sat, 30 April 2016 01:28 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 19:51:36 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> But it is still perfectly possible that such a thing has
> happened. We DO have a manhole cover as the fastest thing
> we have made, after all.
The man who did the sums doesn't think so:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Brownlee.html
One part puzzles me - OK he didn't do a proper job of working out
what happened to the cover but the data he had is still presumably
available (perhaps with suitable clearance) and modeling is much better now
so whay hasn't anybody done a proper job of working out how fast it pinged
off at and published the result ?
--
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/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317196 is a reply to message #317184] |
Sat, 30 April 2016 03:10 |
Stan Barr
Messages: 598
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:20:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:41:46 PM UTC-6, Charles Richmond wrote:
>> BAH lives in a
>> world where people still listen to AM radio,
>
> AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some people
> who
> are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in the noisy
> environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is wasted.
>
> John Savard
MW AM radio is still very much alive. At night in the UK the band is full
from end-to-end with thousnands of stations and I can regularly hear
stations from as far away as Russia and North Africa and from time to time
the US.
--
Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317197 is a reply to message #317196] |
Sat, 30 April 2016 04:44 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:10:06 AM UTC-6, Stan Barr wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:20:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:41:46 PM UTC-6, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> BAH lives in a
>>> world where people still listen to AM radio,
>> AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some people
>> who
>> are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in the noisy
>> environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is wasted.
> MW AM radio is still very much alive. At night in the UK the band is full
> from end-to-end with thousnands of stations and I can regularly hear
> stations from as far away as Russia and North Africa and from time to time
> the US.
And since AM radio signals travel further than the line-of-sight signals used
for TV - or FM radio - AM radio is still being listened to, not in a parallel
universe, but by people who live in rural areas.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317200 is a reply to message #317197] |
Sat, 30 April 2016 06:25 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:10:06 AM UTC-6, Stan Barr wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:20:37 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:41:46 PM UTC-6, Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>>>> BAH lives in a
>>>> world where people still listen to AM radio,
>
>>> AFAIK, AM radio is still being broadcast, and so there must be some people
>>> who
>>> are listening to it. At least in their cars, since, after all, in the noisy
>>> environment of traffic, the extra sound quality of FM radio is wasted.
>
>> MW AM radio is still very much alive. At night in the UK the band is full
>> from end-to-end with thousnands of stations and I can regularly hear
>> stations from as far away as Russia and North Africa and from time to time
>> the US.
>
> And since AM radio signals travel further than the line-of-sight signals used
> for TV - or FM radio - AM radio is still being listened to, not in a parallel
> universe, but by people who live in rural areas.
Same thing, in'nit?
>
> John Savard
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
