HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Subject: Re: ISO date format
Reply-To: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:41:25 GMT


In article <1992Aug26.030918.2527@mdcbbs.com>, gavin@mdcbbs.com (Gavin
Matthews) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug25.163109.907@nrao.edu> cflatter@nrao.edu writes:
|> >I seem to remember a lengthy thread on date formats here during which it
|> >transpired that there was an ISO standard format (YYYY-MM-DD).  What
|> >was the standard number?
|> 
|> ISO 2014-1976 All numeric date format

And then there's ISO 8601:1988, Data elements and interchange formats
- representation of dates and times.

However, this is taken from the references section of ISO/IEC
8824:1990, ASN.1 (which just happened to be on my desk), which
presumes (somewhat rashly imho) to limit dates to modulo 100.  Since
that clause doesn't make explicit reference to ISO 8601, and since I
can't think of anywhere else in the standard that would, I don't
really know that this of any use whatever...
--
Robin (dump Brian Kay) Fairbairns                    rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
[Finally back in work - what a relief!]
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: bob@kc2wz.bubble.org (Bob Billson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Summary: ENOUGH...ENOUGH...ENOUGH...!!
Keywords: ARRGHH!!
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:40:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: na
Organization: Color Computer 3: Tandy's 'game' machine

lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) says:
>>Say, why don't we all switch to Turing machines, to get this discussion
>>over with? Turing machine code is the most portable there is, and I'll
>>bet Mr. Lasner has truckloads of paper tape in his back room, so
>>computing resources should be abundant...
>
>It's inappropriate posts such as this one that make a mockery of this 
>discussion.  Between all of the non-responsive and foolhardy ones, the
>bandwidth ratio of non-useful to useful is approaching infinity.

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP!!!!!!!!

This thread, which started out being interesting and quickly got boring is
now getting really annoying.

cjl is never going to admit he is wrong and keeps repeating the same arguments
over and over and over and... would someone kick the record player and get
the needle unstuck and let this thread die QUIETLY and QUICKLY!!!

> You can
>also include posts such as this followup pointing it out brought on by the
>necessity of a response.  There's an old and very "adult" adage to follow:

>If you have nothing useful to say, say nothing.

You admonish others, yet fail to follow your own advice. Actually this seems
have been the case for the past few weeks with the repeats of arguments.
GIVE IT UP!!

Sorry for the flame, all.  I'm just getting sick of having to skip over all
the cjl vs. "the world" articles for the past few weeks with little else 
interesting left to read.
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13734 comp.unix.misc:3567
From: dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com (Don Nichols (DoN.))
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re:  The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:33:20 GMT
Organization: D & D Data

In article <O12JTJJ@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

	[ ... ]]

>All the same instruction set, all the same operating system, and to provide
>that ability IBM and other companies have had to make heroic efforts that have
>still proven inadequate to keep up with the industry.
>
>Precisely similar to the 8086/DOS situation...

	Is *that* why IBM chose the Intel processor line and DOS? :-)

-- 
Donald Nichols (DoN.)     | Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
D&D Data                  |  Email: <dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
I said it - no one else   |         <nichols@nvl.army.mil>
	--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: GUIs Considered Harmful
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:20:50 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In <ALANB.92Sep9124903@swordfish.sdl.mdcbbs.com> alanb@sdl.mdcbbs.com (Alan Braggins) writes:
>I've used a Xerox optical mouse that worked whichever way around the mouse
>pad was, and would also work of a photocopy of the original pad, so you could
>choose your own dot pitch.

These mice also used what would now be described as an optical-sensor
neural net, and they would work acceptably on almost any surface
that had some kind of graininess to it. You could run them on a
printed page, or on a wood-grain desktop (although the scale factor
for movement would be different along the grain vs across it). The
design is about 10 years old now and can probably be added to the
long list of things Xerox would have owned the market in if only...

paul
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: sarr@sinshan.citi.umich.edu (Sarr J. Blumson)
Subject: Re: Undocumented (mis-)operation codes
Organization: University of Michigan, CITI
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:52:55 GMT

In article <jcmorris.716474103@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
>One can argue about the wisdom of using nonstandard intermodule call
>protocols, but the choice of assembler for the nucleus was reasonable.
>Remember that the price of memory in the 60s wasn't high, it was HIGH.
>...
>The use of high-level languages
>in traditional assembler-based applications was growing (FORTRAN H
>was written in itself, and FORTRAN G was written using a high-level
>macro language via assembler).
This compiler was actually written around 1960 by a company called
Digitek (which died and was reincarnated as Ryan-McFarland, I believe)
in which the op codes for a hypothetical stack machine were
interpreted, for portability and so the thing could squeeze into a 4k
SDS 910.  It was ported to a variety of machines, including the 360
where the opcodes were expanded as macros because memory was so cheap!
A "G-level" machine was 54k, I think.

I had the pleasure of hacking on the port to the PDP-10 (F40).  It was
still awful, poorly documented assembler code, just for a different
machine. 


(Sarr Blumson)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.lang.c
From: parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tom J Parry)
Subject: Re: bogosort revisited (with source)
Originator: parry@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:40:31 GMT

Rob Carriere (rob@guinness.eng.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> 
> I don't understand.  This sort can take forever[1].  Therefore, the worst case
> bound is O(\infty).  How much worse can you do than that?  :-)
> 

Yes, but most discussion here has been about BEST case complexity not
worst. Believe it or not, some algorithms have been posted with o(n^2!)
best case complexities (or something like that).

Also, just doing an infinite loop and waiting for bit rot is a little
suspect. I do believe we are talking about an algorithm, one that does
something, with an intention to sort - even if that intention is very
deeply hidden.

-- 
Tom J Parry.
Your reality is a figment of my imagination.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: zcookbruc@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: "GOTO-less" BASIC
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:20:20 GMT

In article <Bu0C1r.JLD@world.std.com>, dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:

[interesting comment about the way people "mouth" concepts without
understanding them]

It reminds me of a program we wrote a few years back, while working
in BASIC-PLUS2 on an '11. We decided a bit of structure was needed
so wrote a pre-processor named "BASIC-MINUS4" which implimented all
sorts of wonderfull loop statments, c-like structures etc.

...BRU
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.dcom.modems
From: jlaiho@ichaos.nullnet.fi (Juha Laiho)
Subject: Re: Disconnect Phantom
Organization: NullNet r.y.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:27:48 GMT
Keywords: Knock it off!!

In article <rdippold.715761461@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>Good lord - it looks like we have actually found a terminal program
>that's stupid enough to think "NO CARRIER" really means the connection
>has ended.  It's been talked about here, but nobody thought anyone was
>still using one.

Reminds me of a friend's bbs.. the software had to see the 'CONNECT xxxx'
message to believe there was a connection. Unfortunately, the only way
the BBS sw answered the call was to send 'S0=1' somewhere in the init string.
And the modem *DID NOT* give any connect messages when in this auto-answer-
state. So the first thig one had to write when logging in the system was the
appropiate connect message..

..Wolf
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Computer Speed (was Re: Renumbering BASIC programs )
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:01:48 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) writes:
>It did.  And also the MBASIC for MS/PC DOS used the same tokenizing as
>the MBASIC for CP/M - I was able to move several tokenized programs over 
>from my IMSAI to my XT using a serial connection and two comm programs.
>Funny - they ran slower on the 6mhz XT than on the 4mhz Z80.

Well, not really so funny - the 8086 is a cycle pig.  It uses way, way
too many clock cycles to perform even the simplest functions.  That's
one of the reasons why a 1 MHz C-64 or Apple // (or other 65/68 types)
could often outperform a 4.7 MHz PC.

Consider the branching instructions like JZ - that's 4 or 16 clock
cycles on the 8086, depending on whether the branch is taken!  BEQ on
the 6502 is, I believe, 2 cycles for the compare and 1 extra cycle if
the branch is taken (1 more extra if the branch crosses a page
boundary).  Decrement a memory location is 15 cycles plus the address
decoding time.  That's horrible.

Another major factor, of course, was the @#$!! horrible video design
of the PC.
-- 
Laugh, and the world ignores you.  Crying doesn't help either.
From: marques@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:35:02 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Library Automation Team

In article <1992Aug31.162630.23913@news.columbia.edu>, lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.222616.2251@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com> lezz@merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com (Lezz Giles) writes:
[Stuff deleted]
> 
> This is patently wrong.  I write for the 8086/8088 model as do most people.
> It runs on 8088, 8086, 80186, 80188, 80286, 80386SX, 80386DX, 80486SX,
> 80486DX, 80486DX2, and about 20 non-Intel clones from AMD, NEC, ULSI, TI,
> and a few other cpu clone maker's cpu's.  I can choose to exclude the 8088
> and 8086 with a simple assembler directive, which merely enables extensions
> available in the '286 and up, or I can us the larger models and write for
> protect-mode on either 286 and up or 386 and up as I choose.  There is
> hardly any difference between 386 and 486 save speed and a few instructions
> (very few) that were added to the '486.  There is virtually no software
> significence to the 486 over the 386, and for all indications, as posted on
> this newsgroup, the '586 won't change this either.
>
 
If this is the case then how come Kermit 2.32/A won't run on fast 486s?
(Could it be the wonderful self configuring timing loops that could not
be written in a HLL that you described in a previous post :-)).

>
[Stuff deleted]
> cjl
-- 
Jose Marques, Systems Programmer
 %INCLUDE STDDIS; /* Standard Disclaimer */
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: IUPUI
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 14:59:15 EST

In article <id.S53T.ULJ@ferranti.com>
peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
 
>Why is that relevant? If IBM had chosen any other operating system for the
>PC the software and hardware for that system would be as cheap as DOS stuff
>is now... and I wouldn't have to tell people "sorry, you can't do that under
>DOS". An enormous amount of time and money has gone into repairing the
>deficiencies of DOS, and the result is still a mess.
 
Hence my previous statements about IBM attempting to use people who used
to write code and didn't care about how it ran on the machine as the
sales people could always sell a bigger piece of iron.  Since they haven't
drastically changed their software philosophy, they cannot attain
their software goals.
 
As a college friend of mine said many years ago:  "The power is in the
algebra."  We're only going to make hardware run so fast, then it'll
be up to the quality of the software and the ability to exploit
the hardware.
From: 01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: "GOTO-less" BASIC
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:53:32 GMT

In article <samw.715627675@bucket>, samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) writes:
> dpbsmith@world.std.com (Daniel P. B. Smith) writes:
> 
>>He was deprecating the use of statements like
>>    IF <condition> THEN GOTO 210
>>and recommending their replacement by statements like
>>    IF <condition> THEN 210
> 
> Maybe he was thinking of "eliminating GOTOs" in the one and
> only meaningful sense: when your boss greps your collected works
> for the dreaded string itself (this, along with a wc, being 
> the sum total of `performance review').  8-)  8-)  8-)
> 
> (Please note: I am NOT suggesting that professional coding is
> done in line-numbered BASIC.  On the other hand, from some of
> the management I've seen....)  8-)  8-)  8-) 
> -- 
>  
> samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) -- and not a mere Device.
>  
	Actually, he was probably thinking of saving space in the final version
of the program.

	I don't know about professional programs written in BASIC.  I have some
programs that are very useful (a file monitor, even a program that makes signs,
and even a reasonably easy database) and a host of other programs I wrote for my
own amusement (like a tabloid generator or something else.)

		You know, I am sick of language superiority.  It is ALMOST as
silly as computer superiority.  I.E.  My computer is better than yours, so die!


		Kyle
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: elf@ee.ryerson.ca (luis fernandes)
Subject: Whence comest "keyboard"
Summary: When and with which computer, was the term keyboard first used
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:40:32 GMT

Having recently read Michael Crichton's _Terminal_Man_ (c.1971), I
found it puzzling that the word "keyboard" is never (to the best of
my recollection) used to describe the data-input device. The words:
"...punched buttons on the console...", are used instead.

The computer is an IBM 360 that sits in the hospital's basement
along with the associated magnetic tape drives. This room also
contains a "...printout [typewriter]-- that sprayed letters with a
nozzle rather than typed them out mechanically." There are terminals
present on (at least one) floor of the hospital.

So, does anyone know when and with which computer, the term keyboard
was first used to?  (I can only assume that the syllable "key" is
originally from the keys on the typewriter; but why were the
*things* on typewriters also called keys, i.e. most people know keys
as being devices used to open locks. ) Where's the connection ?

BTW, he also gives a good description of the two hackers employed by
the hospital, although they are not specified as such:

	"They worked long but erratic hours, frequently beginning
	in the late afternoon, quitting at dawn. They rarely
	showed up for group conferences and formal meetings, much
	to M--'s annoyance. But they were undeniably good."

zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx
Luis Fernandes  <elf@ee.ryerson.ca>
-Friendly Neighbourhood X Wizard's Apprentice
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: The need for an assembler (was: Favorite CPU)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:16:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.093152.15699@news.columbia.edu> lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
> would believe the mess of existent problems there are.  I suspect that
> most readers on this group have insufficent "broad" experience to appreciate
> just how bad this problem can be, especially with a program such as Kermit
> that reaches into so many "corners" of a system all at once.

What? Kermit doesn't reach into so many corners of a system. It talks on
precisely two I/O streams, both of which are handled by the O/S. It's a
*simple* program compared to most of the stuff I use. Even on DOS I've
written a more complex terminal emulator (handled 2 ports concurrently
on seperate scrolling windows on an 8088, in 64K total, in 99% C: I had
to do some assembly for the interrupt handlers).

CKermit isn't that well designed a program, but even so out of 185 conditionals
126 of them are in the terminal I/O code. Most files have just a single #ifdef
for old compilers that didn't define NULL! I don't see how you can say it's
"mostly" conditional.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                               `-_-'
Ferranti Intl. Ctls. Corp.                                    'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012
+1 713 274 5180                                   Har du kramat din varg idag?
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13846 misc.wanted:8310 comp.os.os9:1221 comp.misc:3642 comp.os.cpm:1141 comp.arch:9341 misc.misc:3288
From: rfd@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard F. Drushel)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,misc.wanted,comp.os.os9,comp.misc,comp.os.cpm,comp.arch,misc.misc
Subject: Wanted:  Motorola M68701EVM Evaluation Module
Date: 10 Sep 1992 19:44:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: rfd@po.CWRU.Edu (Richard F. Drushel)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


	The title says it all.  This board is used to program 68701
microcontrollers (internal EPROM) and can also read 6801s (internal
mask ROM).  Yes, Motorola still sells them new, but I would like to
try for a used board first, hopefully at substantially less than
$498.00 :)  If you have one lying about unused, or know of one, please
reply by E-mail.  Many thanks!
-- 
Rich Drushel ** rfd@po.CWRU.edu *** Biology Ph.D. Student ** Cleveland FreeNet
Co-Sysop, Coleco ADAM Forum --- Assistant Sysop, Science Fiction & Fantasy SIG
"Solda pung apfashat ro des-marno, / Marn ladir o armag noth yeni arno. / Hell
miryat it, / Jambo iat it, / Os lasse wei ticip kati baldo." / Old Ennish poem
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: jeremy@sw.oz.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge)
Subject: Re: Renumbering BASIC programs (was Re: Branching in HLL vs. Assembler)
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: 14 Sep 92 06:15:45 GMT

In <4078251@zl2tnm.gen.nz> don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes) writes:

>jeremy@sw.oz.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge) writes:
>> Ob brain twitch:  how can
>> 1000 LET N=1000+A*1000
>> be made to use less memory on a ZX Spectrum?
>
>1000 LET N=VAL("1000*A*1000")
>
>(Numeric constants were stored in _both_ binary and text formats in memory,
>so putting it in a string saves five or six bytes per constant, at the
>expense of execution time...)

Well, yeah, almost, but as other people have mentioned:
1000 LET N=VAL("1000+A*1000") ->
                    ^
1000 LET N=VAL("(1+A)*1000")

Also, there were the more grotty tricks for specific constants, like
NOT PI for 0.

	J

--
jeremy@sw.oz.au ph:+61 2 698 2322-x122 fax:+61 2 699 9174
The pumpkin.  The sheep.  My brother's wife.
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:13695 comp.dcom.modems:13059
From: dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com (Don Nichols (DoN.))
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Disconnect Phantom
Keywords: Knock it off!!
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:10:10 GMT
Organization: D & D Data

In article <rdippold.715761461@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>gsroka@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gregory Sroka) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep4.091759.4300@nntp.hut.fi> tsand@vipunen.hut.fi (Tapio Sand) writes:

	[ ... ]

	The following line has been expanded in the hopes of preventing more
outrages. :-)

>>>N-O C-A-R-R-I-E-R
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Keep this crap out of your posts!!
>
>>For those not dialing in on modems - it makes my modem think the session
>>has ended. When I reconnect - I find that the session is still active.
>>Has this caused anyone else any problems, like disconnecting without properly
>>logging out and closing the session? 

	It looks as though the system you are calling is not properly
configured, or the modem is not, since a loss of carrier should drop CD, and
cause a SIGHUP to your processes on that port.  Perhaps the modem is set to
always assert CD, or the CD pin is not wired to the computer?  If properly
set up (at least on unix, though I have seen those which would not), it
should flush your session as soon as CD goes false.

	[ ... ]

>Good lord - it looks like we have actually found a terminal program
>that's stupid enough to think "NO CARRIER" really means the connection
>has ended.  It's been talked about here, but nobody thought anyone was
>still using one.

	What modem program is this that is so easily duped? (So we can avoid
it if possible.)
-- 
Donald Nichols (DoN.)     | Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
D&D Data                  |  Email: <dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
I said it - no one else   |         <nichols@nvl.army.mil>
	--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: GOTOs
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:47:52 GMT

In article <6065@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mark-r@spec0.ee.man.ac.uk (Mark Robinson (JO PhD)) writes:
>Hold on, if I remember rightly, isn't the order that the conditions
>are evaluated, and whether they are evaluated at all, entirely at the
>whim of the compiler?
Not in C. On the contrary. Short circuit evaluation is a guaranteed
property.

>So in the above code there's no guarantee that init_rs232() will
>be executed first, or even if it is and it turns out to be false,
>the program may still attempt to evaluate any or all of the other
>conditions before dropping out.
Not in C.

>This is a classic C gotcha, not sure about other languages.
You're totally wrong on this.

From K+RII:
"Expressions connected by && and || are evaluated left to right,
and it is guaranteed that evaluation will stop as
soon as the truth or falsehood is known."

None of this is to say that the code will WORK, but your description
of C's behavior is wrong.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                       I will hack Unix for food.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.misc