getting Euros

"randee" <randee@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:4311230A.302C90D9@zianet.com...
> I should note, that I date from the period in computer communication when
> you could only post, there was no such thing as top or bottom posting
> because you could not include the previous post in your response.

Absolute rubbish. Before newsreaders did the quoting
FOR you, it was always possible (and highly recommended)
to quote manually, fot the same reasons that people quote
today. This lame excuse has been used by webtvtards, aolamers,
and googlators, and it is totally without foundation. It has
ALWAYS been possible to quote in Usenet newsgroups. It is
absurd to claim otherwise.

I have no idea as I type this whether I am going to top post or bottom
post. Yahoo merely gives me a box to type in.

Where would I look for a v"vi" editor?

Thanks,

Gordon

On a Unix workstation. Operating systems like HPUX, IRIX, Solaris, AIX,
UNICOS. Don't worry about it, well off topic for r.t.e.

gordon wrote:
>
> I have no idea as I type this whether I am going to top post or bottom
> post. Yahoo merely gives me a box to type in.

Interesting.

>
> Where would I look for a v"vi" editor?
>


On a Unix workstation. Operating systems like HPUX, IRIX, Solaris, AIX,
UNICOS. Don't worry about it, well off topic for r.t.e.
--
wf.

You hit upon my main gripe with bottom posters; unless *they* learn how
to snip it becomes a *real* inconvenience to try and read them...

Thank God for the invention of the mouse scroll wheel and the
development of callous on my finger! Leastwise this group *would* be
unreadable.

Tim K

"Luca Logi" <llogi@dada.it> wrote in message
news:1h23kij.iru5hab72bpxN%llogi@dada.it...
>
> the real mess is when people does not edit the quote of the precedent
> message and leaves it in its integral state
>
> it is quite annoying having to scroll through pages and pages of
quoted
> messages just to arrive to a supposedly witty two lines reply
>
> very often, this is enough for me to ignore the poster, or the thread,
> or both
>
> --
> Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: llogi@dada.it

Martin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:10:42 -0600, randee <randee@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> But these were heady
> >days, disc drives had arrived and capability was approaching 1 Mb (they
> >were rather large disc drives).
>
> We had VDUs by the time disk drives had approached 300K.
> --
> Martin
We did and did not as I recall - the CDC's had teletypes on them for a
long time, The HP real time machines had video terminals rather early as
I recall (at least by '70 or so), even as they still used paper tape.
I recall using teletypes until the mid to late 70's. Perhaps because
early video displays were expensive and teletypes still worked fine
(although noisily). Heh, I just recently threw out all my old programs
on paper tape (since I have not seen a paper tape punch/reader in 20+
years).
However this belongs to a history group...............
Cheers.
--
wf.

We did a lot at 110 and 75 baud, used some sort of Texas Instruments
'thermal teletype'. Heh, even now I may not get 1200 baud at home when
it rains.
--
wf.

Icono Clast wrote:
>
> randee wrote:
> > it did not prevent you from quoting because you could always
> > type in part of the message to which you were responding.
>
> That's what I did, at 1200 baud (most still had 300baud).
>

"randee" <randee@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:4314C5D1.3221503D@zianet.com...
>
>
> Martin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:10:42 -0600, randee <randee@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>> But these were heady
>> >days, disc drives had arrived and capability was approaching 1 Mb (they
>> >were rather large disc drives).
>>
>> We had VDUs by the time disk drives had approached 300K.
>> --
>> Martin
> We did and did not as I recall - the CDC's had teletypes on them for a
> long time, The HP real time machines had video terminals rather early as
> I recall (at least by '70 or so), even as they still used paper tape.
> I recall using teletypes until the mid to late 70's.

Sounds right. In 1974 I was using a teletype terminal to run
structural analysis programs on a Control Data Cyber

As I recall we used to load the fortran code and then load the
data file via a paper tape we prepared off line to save computer
time as we were billed by the minute for time.

Keith

Keith W wrote:
>
> "randee" <randee@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:4314C5D1.3221503D@zianet.com...
> >
> >
> > Martin wrote:
>.
> >> --
> >> Martin
> > We did and did not as I recall - the CDC's had teletypes on them for a
> > long time, The HP real time machines had video terminals rather early as
> > I recall (at least by '70 or so), even as they still used paper tape.
> > I recall using teletypes until the mid to late 70's.
>
> Sounds right. In 1974 I was using a teletype terminal to run
> structural analysis programs on a Control Data Cyber
>
> As I recall we used to load the fortran code and then load the
> data file via a paper tape we prepared off line to save computer
> time as we were billed by the minute for time.
>
> Keith

Yes, I think that is how we did it, the CDC was a University machine and
indeed we were billed by the minute. We bought minicomputers, but
memory was so limited on our minicomputers though that we stored the
programs on paper tape.
--
wf.

Hatunen wrote:
>
>
> communication when you could only post, there was no such thing
> as top or bottom posting because you could not include the
> previous post in your response" so without Usenet (the topic
> here) just what was it you were posting TO?
>

If you asked 'who', the answer would be 'other physicists'. As to
'what', I don't recall that we even had a name for those early network
attempts, maybe the electrical guys did. A lot of the early work,
including projects like analog computers and masers, was supported in
the US by the Army Signal Corp. Seems like that work just sorta faded
away, but years later ARPA was formed and put money into what became the
arpanet; like the WWW, initially as a tool for physicists to
communicate. The first six or so arpanet nodes joined the computers at
the US national labs like Los Alamos, Argonne and Oak Ridge.
--
wf.

Hatunen wrote:
>
>
> Ah. Well, the subject of this thread was manner of posting to
> usenet; I'm not clear of the relevance of posting to other
> physicists. What kind of posting was it? BB?
>

No the subject of the thread is obtaining Euros. It devolved into a
discussion of the Uselessnet and predecessors. The earliest computer
communications were related to computational results and were sent
directly to other computers/teletypes, closest today might be ftp.
--
wf.