For "innocent bystanders", read "human shields". Terrorists position themselves among children in order to (i) discourage return fire, because unlike the terrorists, the Israelis don't actually targetnon-combatants, and (ii) misrepresent any return fire as being against "innocent bystanders".
The tube types used throughout the entire system include the 25L6, 6AN5, 7AK7, 6AU6, 6BE6, 6SN7, 6X5,
6AK7, 28D7, 807, 829B, 2050, 5545, 5651, 5687, 6AL5,
6AK5, 6AH6, 5V4, 5R4, 4D32, 3C23, 8008. The system
includes the computer, power supply, supervisory
control, printer and 8 Uniservos.
Approximately 50% of the tube complement are 25L6's.
No, not another patent flamefest. Just that I wanted more details than the articles provide, but I can't seem to find the application. Anyone else wanna try?
'... the best thing for IBM to do would be to print out every single version as requested and send the resultant 20 tonnes or so of paper to SCO.'
IBM thought that way, until about 30 years ago.
At the time, IBM was the big bully of the computer industry. When victims sued, a standard IBM tactic was to flood the plaintiff with documents: a great indiscriminate memo dump from one of the world's biggest bureaucracies. Finding anything relevant would be like finding a particular needle in a needle factory.
When Control Data produced the CDC 6600, IBM responded by announcing a supercomputer of its own, hurting sales of the 6600 as potential customers waited for IBM. IBM didn't actually have any such machine in the works. Eventually CDC sued IBM, and, as usual, IBM sent documents by the trainload.
But IBM's lawyers forgot about progress and CDC's freakin' big computers. Cray hired an army of typists and began building a database of memos' dates, subjects, authors, and recipients. (Later, CDC spun off this group; it still exists.)
When IBM found out, it didn't even pause to change its collective underwear before settling the suit, on condition that the database be destroyed (warning very long document; only click if you really care).
I once bought a Microvax from an place where a co-worker had been a decade or two earlier. I ran crack on/etc/passwd. Interestingly, only a handful of the hundreds of accounts had guessable passwords. But guess who still used the same one?
Re:CAPS LOCK EXISTED BEFORE COMPUTERS
on
Is Caps Lock Dead?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, they had shift lock. Caps lock would be a mechanical nightmare. Shift lock is MORE $#*%&! USEFUL anyway.
(And no, I don't want to know what that means in Perl.)
Do you have a source for the claim that the Z3 was Turing-complete? I think this statement is due to a misinterpretation of Raúl Rojas' work; he showed that the Z3 was equivalent to a Turing machine with finite tape, which is computationally equivalent to a finite state machine, not a universal Turing machine.
Today's typical desktop is half-inch particle board, so I'd guess a CDC 1604 would be maybe 3 to 8 times as powerful. What did you want to do^H^H pile on it?
I've been thinking recently about how to build a proper Turing-equivalent computer out of Lego. It appears fairly straightforward to do so using gears - copying values and addition/subtraction being simple - but gears don't really seem Legologically Correct, in that a gear computer made of Lego is not really much cooler than one made of brass. I think bistables using mini-wheel sets might be the way to go, but the mechanics seem to get awkward quickly unless one 'cheats' using gears again. In any case I doubt I could afford the time and parts to build a complete machine....
Re:This was much how the RCA 1802 worked.
on
Clockless Computing
·
· Score: 1
The 1802 was/is a conventional synchronous processor.
However, it was purely static, so there was no lower limit on the clock rate;
in fact you could supply the "clock" signal with a toggle switch -- handy for debugging.
Actually, CLOCKS_PER_SEC is only useful for scaling the result of the clock() function,
and the standard says that clock() can return -1 if the "processor time used is not available
or its value cannot be represented." [ISO/IEX 9899:1999]
But that's only for toasters; on a general-purpose machine,
most likely the OS would consult an independent real time clock,
just like on any current conventional processor that doesn't maintain a cycle count.
Slashdot Mirror
For "innocent bystanders", read "human shields". Terrorists position themselves among children in order to (i) discourage return fire, because unlike the terrorists, the Israelis don't actually target non-combatants, and (ii) misrepresent any return fire as being against "innocent bystanders".
You, sir, are almost as much of an asshole as your idols.
For now we see through a scanner, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Pop up to here and you'll find more information and photos (best tape drives ever).
Eleven digits (BCD) plus sign.
No, not another patent flamefest. Just that I wanted more details than the articles provide, but I can't seem to find the application. Anyone else wanna try?
This is liquid cooled.
IBM thought that way, until about 30 years ago.
At the time, IBM was the big bully of the computer industry. When victims sued, a standard IBM tactic was to flood the plaintiff with documents: a great indiscriminate memo dump from one of the world's biggest bureaucracies. Finding anything relevant would be like finding a particular needle in a needle factory.
When Control Data produced the CDC 6600, IBM responded by announcing a supercomputer of its own, hurting sales of the 6600 as potential customers waited for IBM. IBM didn't actually have any such machine in the works. Eventually CDC sued IBM, and, as usual, IBM sent documents by the trainload.
But IBM's lawyers forgot about progress and CDC's freakin' big computers. Cray hired an army of typists and began building a database of memos' dates, subjects, authors, and recipients. (Later, CDC spun off this group; it still exists.) When IBM found out, it didn't even pause to change its collective underwear before settling the suit, on condition that the database be destroyed (warning very long document; only click if you really care).
I once bought a Microvax from an place where a co-worker had been a decade or two earlier. I ran crack on /etc/passwd. Interestingly, only a handful of the hundreds of accounts had guessable passwords. But guess who still used the same one?
Templates? Doesn't anyone program in C anymore?
Actually, they had shift lock. Caps lock would be a mechanical nightmare. Shift lock is MORE $#*%&! USEFUL anyway. (And no, I don't want to know what that means in Perl.)
Do you have a source for the claim that the Z3 was Turing-complete? I think this statement is due to a misinterpretation of Raúl Rojas' work; he showed that the Z3 was equivalent to a Turing machine with finite tape, which is computationally equivalent to a finite state machine, not a universal Turing machine.
I would guess that this was the part of Siemens that was once Ferranti, maker of the first commercially available computer.
Current events, put into terms that /. readers will be comfortable with: The Ultimate War Sim
Maybe he remembers being in school.
Today's typical desktop is half-inch particle board, so I'd guess a CDC 1604 would be maybe 3 to 8 times as powerful. What did you want to do^H^H pile on it?
A now-defunct minicomputer company? Yup, that sure narrows it down.
"Most 64-bit processors provide a 32-bit mode for compatibility"
One free mod point for the first correct answer: Name a 64-bit processor with a 60-bit mode for compatibility.
I've been thinking recently about how to build a proper Turing-equivalent computer out of Lego.
It appears fairly straightforward to do so using gears - copying values and addition/subtraction being simple - but gears don't really seem Legologically Correct, in that a gear computer made of Lego is not really much cooler than one made of brass. I think bistables using mini-wheel sets might be the way to go, but the mechanics seem to get awkward quickly unless one 'cheats' using gears again. In any case I doubt I could afford the time and parts to build a complete machine....
Here, joe is a symbolic link to ed: they want simple, they get simple.
And pico is a symlink to teco; it's safe to assume they just misheard the name of the one true editor.
Crop cylinders
Actually the first PDP-10 models used the PDP-6-like asynchronous KA-10 CPU, but the later ones (KI, KL, KS) were indeed synchronous.
By the way, PDP-6 schematics are available on line.
Some people disagree that asynchronous processors are harder to debug; see for example http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Do7wt1.BxH%40 thinkage.on.ca
The 1802 was/is a conventional synchronous processor. However, it was purely static, so there was no lower limit on the clock rate; in fact you could supply the "clock" signal with a toggle switch -- handy for debugging.
Actually, CLOCKS_PER_SEC is only useful for scaling the result of the clock() function, and the standard says that clock() can return -1 if the "processor time used is not available or its value cannot be represented." [ISO/IEX 9899:1999]
But that's only for toasters; on a general-purpose machine, most likely the OS would consult an independent real time clock, just like on any current conventional processor that doesn't maintain a cycle count.