David Brooks is rarely right and this case is no exception. If it was anyone else, it might be worth discussing, but it's not. If Brooks says X is true, odds are ~X is true.
Somehow I doubt that many of the people that would be running such old computers such as ones from before 1970 would be reading Slashdot. What an elitist statement. FYI, modern mainframes are generally backward compatible all the way to the IBM 360s of the 1960s. And they're also able to run Linux and java as well as any number of modern software using the Linux and java APIs, such as might be discussed on slashdot. Personally, I read slashdot all the time and I can assure you our company still runs code written in the early seventies.
And if you think about it, people conceptulized computers differently back then. Really? How so? You mean like they used to conceptualize computers as tools for getting things done but now they're conceptually toys?
I doubt it. You might and maybe a couple hundred others might, but not enough would to make more than the scrap value, especially counting the labor cost of cutting it up in slices people would want to buy.
I'm sure somebody figured out it's worth a lot more to sell for scrap (plus there's the advantage of reclaiming the disused real estate) than any possible sentimental value it may have.
No and no. This is (was) not an enrichment device. It is a research device. You might be thinking of a calutron, which was a primitive enrichment device.
I just find it really cool that enterprising people can go in and look at ORIGINAL documents,
How do you know these "ORIGINAL" documents are all original or IOW authentic? I'm sure the Bushies find it really cool that people are going to root through all the administrivia about Saddam's paranoia and find planted "evidence" that he supported 99% of world-wide terror.
"But it's open source, right? And open source is good, right? So it must be true."
Slashdot Mirror
David Brooks is rarely right and this case is no exception. If it was anyone else, it might be worth discussing, but it's not. If Brooks says X is true, odds are ~X is true.
I doubt it. You might and maybe a couple hundred others might, but not enough would to make more than the scrap value, especially counting the labor cost of cutting it up in slices people would want to buy.
I'm sure somebody figured out it's worth a lot more to sell for scrap (plus there's the advantage of reclaiming the disused real estate) than any possible sentimental value it may have.
No and no. This is (was) not an enrichment device. It is a research device. You might be thinking of a calutron, which was a primitive enrichment device.