[cctalk] Re: OFF TOPIC: Doctor Who

On 4/24/24 15:32, ben via cctalk wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJeu3LCo-6A > Dr who ads for prime. I think old Dr. Who shows are also on Pluto TV. --Chuck (not a fan)

[cctalk] Re: OFF TOPIC: Doctor Who

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJeu3LCo-6A Dr who ads for prime.

[cctalk] OFF TOPIC: Doctor Who (was: Z80 vs other microprocessors of the time.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024, ben via cctalk wrote: This would be great, but I live on the other side of the pond and BBC anything is hard to find, let alone Micro's. Where is my "Dr. Who". Ben. I was able, quite easily, to order DVDs from Amazon.co.uk. That got me "Shada" (Doctor who written by

[cctalk] Re: Slightly off topic --Places to go in Huntsville

On 8/5/2022 4:39 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: Next week I will be in the Huntsville, Al, USA area for an entire day with no commitments. Does anyone have recommendations on how to spend my day? I have been to the space and rocket museum several times. Any computer museums or displays,

[cctalk] Slightly off topic --Places to go in Huntsville

Next week I will be in the Huntsville, Al, USA area for an entire day with no commitments. Does anyone have recommendations on how to spend my day? I have been to the space and rocket museum several times. Any computer museums or displays, especially of space-related equipment? Any good surplus

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On 6/25/21 3:31 AM, Kelly Fergason via cctalk wrote: >> On Jun 25, 2021, at 4:54 AM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> http://www.6502.org/source/interpreters/sweet16.htm#When_is_an_RTS_really_a_JSR_ >> >> I initialiy used this "trick" in my own little bytecode VM but it's somewhat

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

> On Jun 25, 2021, at 4:54 AM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk > wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jun 2021, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:36 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >>> Typical FORTH implementations are neat in that respect, since they >>> use a threaded code

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote: On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:36 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Typical FORTH implementations are neat in that respect, since they use a threaded code encoding that allows for fast and efficient switching between threaded code (subroutine

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

> On Jun 24, 2021, at 1:02 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > On 2021-06-23 6:48 p.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> Somewhat related to the point of compiling and executing mixed together is a >> very strange hack I saw in the Electrologica assembler for the X8 (the >> company issue one, not

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On 2021-06-23 6:48 p.m., Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Somewhat related to the point of compiling and executing mixed together is a very strange hack I saw in the Electrologica assembler for the X8 (the company issue one, not one of the various ones built at various labs for that machine). It

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 20:48 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > In other words, you can assemble some code, execute it, then go back > to assembling the rest of the source text. Cute. Suppose you want > to do something too hard for macros; just assemble its input data, > followed by some code

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

Somewhat related to the point of compiling and executing mixed together is a very strange hack I saw in the Electrologica assembler for the X8 (the company issue one, not one of the various ones built at various labs for that machine). It is essentially a "load and go" assembler, so the code

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On 6/23/21 2:18 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > I meant "reduce to machine language" (give or take threaded code or library > function calls). It really doesn't seem to be any particular problem. > There's nothing about compilers that prevents them from being invoked in the > middle of an

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

uld be ). Dwight From: cctalk on behalf of Van Snyder via cctalk Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 11:42 AM To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject) On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:36 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > T

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

> On Jun 23, 2021, at 5:02 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On 6/23/21 1:14 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> I don't remember the details at this point, but I assume the "execute TECO >> macro" operation in the Stevens PDP-10 TECO compiler is done in that way. >> And of course these could keep the

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:42:22AM -0700, Van Snyder via cctalk wrote: [...] > I have a vague recollection of a story about a FORTH processor that put > the addresses of the functions to be executed on the return-address stack > (68000?) and then executed a RETURN instruction. I was initially

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On 6/23/21 1:14 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > I don't remember the details at this point, but I assume the "execute TECO > macro" operation in the Stevens PDP-10 TECO compiler is done in that way. > And of course these could keep the compiled code around to reuse if the > source string hasn't

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

> On Jun 23, 2021, at 2:44 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > There are the languages that are otherwise nearly impossible to compile. > > Consider SNOBOL4 (although there is a compiled version called SPITBOL, > but without several hard-to-implement features). One can construct >

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

There are the languages that are otherwise nearly impossible to compile. Consider SNOBOL4 (although there is a compiled version called SPITBOL, but without several hard-to-implement features). One can construct statements at run time and execute them. A bit unusual back then, but not so much

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:36 -0400, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > Typical FORTH implementations are neat in that respect, since they > use a threaded code encoding that allows for fast and efficient > switching between threaded code (subroutine calls) and straight > machine code. I have a vague

Re: On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

> On Jun 23, 2021, at 1:22 PM, Stan Sieler via cctalk > wrote: > > Paul K got it right: > "Any language can be interpreted or compiled. For some languages, like > LISP and TECO, interpreting is a rather natural implementation techniques, > while for others (C, ALGOL) compilation is the

On compiling. (Was a way off topic subject)

Paul K got it right: "Any language can be interpreted or compiled. For some languages, like LISP and TECO, interpreting is a rather natural implementation techniques, while for others (C, ALGOL) compilation is the obvious answer. But either is possible." A few quick notes... Back around 1973,

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 19:27, Angel M Alganza via cctalk wrote: > Most of them, yes. Then there is K-9 mail for Android, > which almost makes me to not miss Mutt, when using the phone. Which is what I proposed in the first reply, complete with links. -- Liam Proven – Profile:

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

On November 11, 2020 8:42:09 AM PST, Todd Goodman via cctalk wrote: >On 11/11/2020 11:23 AM, Ali via cctalk wrote: >>> If you want to write/reply to old-style plain-text email from a >>> fondleslab, then use K9Mail. It is the only mobile client I know of >>> that can handle bottom-posting,

RE: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

> > FWIW, I used to use K9 mail and liked it but it was crashing with a > large number of folders and emails in folders. > > I switched to Blue mail and it's worked well Funny you say this; I just finished setting up K9 for my CCtalk email as a test case. Your message was the first one to

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

On 11/11/2020 11:23 AM, Ali via cctalk wrote: If you want to write/reply to old-style plain-text email from a fondleslab, then use K9Mail. It is the only mobile client I know of that can handle bottom-posting, trimming quotes etc. Well K9 is getting a number of recs here so I will take a

RE: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

> If you want to write/reply to old-style plain-text email from a > fondleslab, then use K9Mail. It is the only mobile client I know of > that can handle bottom-posting, trimming quotes etc. Well K9 is getting a number of recs here so I will take a second look at it. I looked at it initially

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

Hello, On 11/10/20 3:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > Proper old-fashioned internet-standard email > is totally unknown to the authors of modern email clients, > such as for phones etc. Most of them, yes. Then there is K-9 mail for Android, which almost makes me to not miss Mutt, when

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

On 11/10/20 3:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: Proper old-fashioned internet-standard email is totally unknown to the authors of modern email clients, such as for phones etc. Hell, even Gmail borked the display of plain text emails a while back. I started getting questions like, "What

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 11:31, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk wrote: > > That is like asking how do you fix Windows/10 MAIL app. It’s the default, it > sends and receives mail. If you want something that works better and gives > you control then you switch to a supported app. > There is also Outlook

RE: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of Ali via cctalk > Sent: 10 November 2020 00:28 > To: 'Liam Proven' ; 'General Discussion: On-Topic and > Off-Topic Posts' > Subject: RE: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android > Mail Client >

RE: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

Fred, > A WILD guess as to PART of what's causing it, . . . > It may be defaulting to HTML. > Is there a setting for HTML/plain-text? (if so, it might still not > process plain-text properly; many "developers" consider it to be > beneath > them to include real plain-text support) It does not.

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020, Ali via cctalk wrote: I am wondering if anyone else has tried using an Android Phone (a Note 10 in my case) with the default Samsung email client to post to this list? Whenever I post, even though the message is correctly formatted on my device, all the CR/LF are removed from

RE: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

> > Any > > ideas/suggestions? TIA! > > https://k9mail.app/ > > https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fsck.k9=en=US > I should have been more clear: any ideas on how can I fix the default email client (as it works very well for me aside from this one issue). :D Thanks. -Ali

Re: Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 00:44, Ali via cctalk wrote: > Any > ideas/suggestions? TIA! https://k9mail.app/ https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fsck.k9=en=US -- Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lpro...@gmail.com

Way off topic: posting to the list using default Samsung Android Mail Client

I am wondering if anyone else has tried using an Android Phone (a Note 10 in my case) with the default Samsung email client to post to this list? Whenever I post, even though the message is correctly formatted on my device, all the CR/LF are removed from my messages. See below for an example:

Amiga Roots, TRIPOS - Off Topic, was Re: Exploring early GUIs

Forking this thread as we are now way off the original and very cogent topic, which I would like to see continued. (Very valid to ask about good emulations of early GUI systems like Apollo, LispMs, PERQ, Xerox D* etc) Peter’s mentions of TRIPOS (which was used on a Sage IV for Amiga Lorraine

Re: Off topic ?

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 8:32 PM, Chris Elmquist wrote: > > On Tuesday (08/25/2020 at 04:36PM -0400), Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> Not sure if this is off topic, but anyway.. >> >> There was also one with "tree" in its name, don't remember its ful

Re: Off topic ?

On Tuesday (08/25/2020 at 04:36PM -0400), Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > Not sure if this is off topic, but anyway.. > > There was also one with "tree" in its name, don't remember its full name and > I think they shut down. Smalltree? They are some former SGI guys here

Re: Off topic ?

Not sure if this is off topic, but anyway.. I used Atto years ago, haven't in a long time. Don't remember GlobalSAN. There was also one with "tree" in its name, don't remember its full name and I think they shut down. The odd thing is that Apple doesn't have one of its own. Way b

Off topic ?

I have a Mac mini os-x 10.15/16 11. I’m Really trying to find a working Iscsi Initiator Software. Yeah looked at atto 200 bucks GlobalSan broken. Who is using their Mac with an iScsi drive Attached storage ? Help appreciated. K.

Off topic- precision tooling

I have a sizable quantity or tooling for sale or trade including : circular blades, mostly Levin, 1 1/4 d, 1/4 arbor from .008 to 03 and probably others. drill bits- Levin. 13mm, .0028" etc.and 15 tubes only some labeled, B & D, Cleveland decimal sets, Precision twist and other companies sizes

off topic- Hitachi V-1950F(R) and Nicolet 3091storage scope available

Both have manuals, and pics are available. Possibly a few Tek scopes also.. Please contact me off list with any questions or offers. Thanks, Paul

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

n 05, 2019 at 06:36:56PM +, Dr Iain Maoileoin via cctalk > wrote: > > Off topic, but looking for help and/or wisdom. > > > > If you visit https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/saratov > > <https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/saratov>/ <https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

, 2019 at 06:36:56PM +, Dr Iain Maoileoin via cctalk wrote: > Off topic, but looking for help and/or wisdom. > > If you visit https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/saratov > <https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/saratov>/ <https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/> > you will see some ph

Re: so far off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8?

On 01/07/2019 07:51 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: I still want to make a stretched 8, PDP8 ISA with 16 bits and faster. No good reason save for it wold be fun. Umm, I think that is called a Data General Nova! Jon

Re: so far off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8?

On 01/07/2019 07:25 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 1/7/2019 8:20 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > snip... >> made though more likely 74F, AS, or LS variant and of course CMOS 74ACT >> (and cmos friends) as I just bought a bunch.  Dip is getting harder to >> get but >> the various SMT packages are

Re: so far off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8?

On 1/7/2019 8:20 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: snip... made though more likely 74F, AS, or LS variant and of course CMOS 74ACT (and cmos friends) as I just bought a bunch.  Dip is getting harder to get but the various SMT packages are easy.  Prices for 10 or more of a part are cheap to cheaper

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

On 01/06/2019 11:24 PM, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote: I am also pretty sure that prior to S/360 the term "character" was generally used for non 8-bit character machines. I am not familiar with the IBM 70xx series machines The IBM 7070 (business machine) was a word-addressed machine, but all

Re: so far off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8?

On 01/07/2019 09:51 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 02:54:08PM -0700, ben via cctalk wrote: >> On 1/6/2019 12:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >>> The small beauty of being there...   FYI back then (1972) a 7400 was about >>> 25 cents and 7483 adder was maybe $1.25. 

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:51 AM Peter Corlett via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Thanks to inflation, $0.25 in 1972 is worth $1.51 now. Likewise, $1.25 has > inflated to $7.54. So they're cheaper in real terms than they used to be. > > However, it's still not entirely comparable, as I

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 02:54:08PM -0700, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 1/6/2019 12:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> The small beauty of being there...   FYI back then (1972) a 7400 was about >> 25 cents and 7483 adder was maybe $1.25.  Least that's what I paid. > Checks my favorite supplier. >

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

> On Jan 7, 2019, at 12:24 AM, Dave Wade via cctalk > wrote: > > ... > I am also pretty sure that prior to S/360 the term "character" was generally > used for non 8-bit character machines. I am not familiar with the IBM 70xx > series machines but certainly on the 1401 and 1620 the term

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

> From: Dave Wade > The only machine I know where a "byte" is not eight bits is the > Honeywell L6000 and its siblings I'm not sure why I bother to post to this list, since apparently people don't bother to read my messages. >From the "pdp10 reference handbook", 1970, section 2.3,

RE: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of William Donzelli > via cctalk > Sent: 06 January 2019 23:21 > To: Bob Smith ; General Discussion: On-Topic and > Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8 > > >

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

> On Jan 6, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk > wrote: > > On 01/06/2019 01:29 PM, Bob Smith via cctalk wrote: >> Sorry, thanks for playing but >> Actually half of a WORD is a BYTE, whatever the numerical length is. >> Ready for this,half of a BYTE is a NIBBLE. > Well, no. On 32-bit

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

On 01/06/2019 01:29 PM, Bob Smith via cctalk wrote: Sorry, thanks for playing but Actually half of a WORD is a BYTE, whatever the numerical length is. Ready for this,half of a BYTE is a NIBBLE. Well, no. On 32-bit machines such as IBM 360, VAX, etc. half a 32-bit word is a halfword, the

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

> With the advent of wide spread introduction of 16 bit machines the > definition of a byte as an 8 bit unit was accepted because ASCII > supported character sets for multiple languages, before the 8bit > standard there were 6 bit, 7 bit variations of he character sets. > Gee, what were teletypes,

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

> - some marketing person made it up You believed them? Have your head examined. > - they were only counting things that were general-purpose (i.e. came with > mass storage and compilers) Conditions, conditions. > - they didn't consider micros as "computers" (many were used in things like >

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

> From: William Donzelli >> in 1980, there were more PDP-11's, world-wide, than any other kind of >> computer. > I bet the guys at Zilog might have something to talk to you about. I was quoting my memory of a DEC ad in the WSJ, which now that I go check, says the -11 was "the

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On 1/6/2019 12:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: The small beauty of being there...   FYI back then (1972) a 7400 was about 25 cents and 7483 adder was maybe $1.25.  Least that's what I paid. Checks my favorite supplier. $1.25 for 7400 and $4.00 for a 7483. It has gone up in price. Allison

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

> On Jan 6, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Bob Smith via cctalk > wrote: > > With the advent of wide spread introduction of 16 bit machines the > definition of a byte as an 8 bit unit was accepted because ASCII > supported character sets for multiple languages, before the 8bit > standard there were 6

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On 01/06/2019 01:54 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: >> And then the PDP-11 put the nail in that coffin (and in 1980, there were more >> PDP-11's, world-wide, than any other kind of computer). > I bet the guys at Zilog might have something to talk to you about. > > -- > Will And Intel!  8008

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

6, 2019 at 1:48 PM Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > > > Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8 > > > > Nothing has changed as regards the number of

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On 01/06/2019 02:08 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > On 1/6/19 11:25 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote: >> I think it’s also telling that the IETF uses the term octet in all of >> the specifications to refer to 8-bit sized data.  As “byte” (from >> older machines) could be anything and is

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

Overflow https://stackoverflow.com/questions/.../whats-the-difference-between-a-word-and-byte Feedback About this result On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 1:48 PM Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > > Re: off top

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On 01/06/2019 01:19 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Grant Taylor > > > Is "byte" the correct term for 6-bits? I thought a "byte" had always > > been 8-bits. > > I don't claim wide familiary with architectural jargon from the early days, > but the PDP-10 at least (I don't

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On 1/6/19 11:25 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote: I think it’s also telling that the IETF uses the term octet in all of the specifications to refer to 8-bit sized data. As “byte” (from older machines) could be anything and is thus somewhat ambiguous. It *may* have been the IBM 360 that

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

> And then the PDP-11 put the nail in that coffin (and in 1980, there were more > PDP-11's, world-wide, than any other kind of computer). I bet the guys at Zilog might have something to talk to you about. -- Will

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8

On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8 Nothing has changed as regards the number of bits in a byte, a nybble is 4 bits, 8 to the byte, and x to the word - this last varies widely depending on architect

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

> From: Guy Sotomayor Jr > I think it's also telling that the IETF uses the term octet in all of > the specifications to refer to 8-bit sized data. Yes; at the time the TCP/IP specs were done, PDP-10's were still probably the most numerous machines on the 'net, so we were careful to

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

I think it’s also telling that the IETF uses the term octet in all of the specifications to refer to 8-bit sized data. As “byte” (from older machines) could be anything and is thus somewhat ambiguous. It *may* have been the IBM 360 that started the trend of Byte == 8-bits as the 360’s memory

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

> From: Grant Taylor > Is "byte" the correct term for 6-bits? I thought a "byte" had always > been 8-bits. I don't claim wide familiary with architectural jargon from the early days, but the PDP-10 at least (I don't know about other prominent 36-bit machines such as the IBM

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

On 1/6/19 7:08 AM, Bob Smith via cctalk wrote: What is called the 8 is really based on the 5, used 6-bit bytes, 12 bit words, and was Octal based Is "byte" the correct term for 6-bits? I thought a "byte" had always been 8-bits. But I started paying attention in the '90s, so I missed a lot.

Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

- memory was the most expensive part of the system at least through the early 70s, and thus 12 bit words for double precision, 24bits, was a reasonable approach for a scientific computer. bb On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 1:37 PM Dr Iain Maoileoin via cctalk wrote: > > Off topic, but looking fo

off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP

Off topic, but looking for help and/or wisdom. If you visit https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/saratov <https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/saratov>/ <https://www.scotnet.co.uk/iain/> you will see some photos and wire-lists of work that I have started on the front panel of a Capatob 2. I

General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

Pdp 8 tapes... I have a bid i for these. Was planning to duplicate - not for profit - and stick em up on a we-site for others to view/download Is there a repository for such tapes?? Bitsaver?? Sent from my HUAWEI P10 on Three

Re: Off-Topic : RE: 3D printer $179.99 (Was: 8-Update

Also what drone did you buy? -Bob > On Dec 19, 2018, at 10:58 AM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk > wrote: > >> On 2018-12-19 11:35, Jay West via cctalk wrote: >> >> The 3d printer I got was the creality ender 3 that is mentioned above. >> First, you will not find a bad review for it, all the

Re: Off-Topic : RE: 3D printer $179.99 (Was: 8-Update

On 2018-12-19 11:35, Jay West via cctalk wrote: > The 3d printer I got was the creality ender 3 that is mentioned above. First, > you will not find a bad review for it, all the reviews are glowing. Most > reviews also say it's print quality and print-features are on-par with $1000+ > printers.

Off-Topic : RE: 3D printer $179.99 (Was: 8-Update

Fred wrote >> If you are seriously considering getting one, consider: >> https://www.woot.com/category/computers?ref=w_gh_cp_5 >> That offer is for 24 hours! I've had dual time-sinks the past year, a 3d printer and a high end drone :) The 3d printer I got was the creality ender 3 that is

Re: a bit off topic - looking for someone w/7 track 1/2" analog

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 03/13/2018 09:39 PM, Pete Lancashire via cctalk wrote: > > comp for 1 - 7/8 IPS like to get all tracks digitized > > > > https://photos.app.goo.gl/IMcgjxugzKMuIvKv2 > > > > will put on open file server

Re: a bit off topic - looking for someone w/7 track 1/2" analog

On 03/13/2018 09:39 PM, Pete Lancashire via cctalk wrote: > comp for 1 - 7/8 IPS like to get all tracks digitized > > https://photos.app.goo.gl/IMcgjxugzKMuIvKv2 > > will put on open file server then sell the tape > So, someone with an old Ampex PR-500 deck? I saw one for sale on eBay a few

a bit off topic - looking for someone w/7 track 1/2" analog

comp for 1 - 7/8 IPS like to get all tracks digitized https://photos.app.goo.gl/IMcgjxugzKMuIvKv2 will put on open file server then sell the tape -pete

Re: Off Topic Any customs brokers on the list?

Paul, I used my business incorporation (EIN) to get items through from Canada to the USA by car, through customs I contacted the FedEx Trade Network and purchased a single transaction bond premium from them. I declared the computer items as "display exhibit props" avoiding computers so as not to

Off Topic Any customs brokers on the list?

Are there any customs brokers out that could help me out with some questions? Thanks In Advance, Paul

Re: way off topic- EXOGEN bone stimulator

Does anyone here know how to reprogram an Exogen bone simulator? I had one of those things from when I broke my leg in a segway accident. Don't remember the brand. My guess was they were IR configured. They won't ever reprogram them or reuse them since it's a cheap to produce medical device

way off topic- EXOGEN bone stimulator

Does anyone here know how to reprogram an Exogen bone simulator?

Re: very good news [SPAM discussion, off topic, ignore if not interested]

When I read the headers, for some reason this was passed despite being relayed thru an open relay server IP and this: Yes, score=10.7 required=5.0 in the spam-o-meter. Just playing around over the 4th, and trying to track down how this got thru. However, since the ezwind spam setting was

Re: uVAX system (mostly) that Ian King was interested in (Off Topic)

> On 6 Oct. 2016, at 07:24, jim stephens wrote: > > > > On 10/5/2016 12:34 PM, jim stephens wrote: >> >> Congratulations to Blue Origins on today's test >> >> http://gizmodo.com/blue-origin-shocks-everyone-even-itself-by-landing-ro-1787443961 >> >> >> I'm thinking that

Re: uVAX system (mostly) that Ian King was interested in (Off Topic)

On 10/5/2016 12:34 PM, jim stephens wrote: On 10/4/2016 7:47 AM, Ian S. King wrote: Jon > >Sorry for the delay in responding, Jon - I'm launching a spaceship this week.:-) (Seewww.blueorigin.com.) I'll reply privately. -- Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate The Information School

(off topic) Re: PDP-11/45 restoration running console emulator

On 06/24/2016 01:08 PM, william degnan wrote: BTW - What kind of guitar is that? (in your profile photo). Looks like a Fender It was an 80's Japanese Fender p-bass, sadly no longer with me -- was stolen from my car some time back :-( --FritzM.

Interesting Material - BOTH on topic and off topic

I expect that everyone on this list knows about most of the tools to communicate. Many also use these tools and understand how much easier communication has become as a result.

OFF TOPIC!!! Any alumni of NYU here?

If so, can you please contact me off list? Thanks, Paul

Cameras- way off topic...

I have a friend with a Contax RTSII and accessories for sale if there are any other Zeiss people out there. More info on request. The following list is from another person trying to settle an estate. Over 175 cameras! The prices are from collectiblend.com. I've never heard of it but and he knows

Re: Off topic- shipping companies

probably as they were sending the palletized stuff as padded. I have had ties I needed some padded and there was still a min. amount of poundage open so I put palletized stuff on with the wrapped but that was because it would have cost the same for the padded without the

Re: Off topic- shipping companies

ok and added item there is min size for the min price too... so if you can fit it in the footprint same charge probably as they were sending the palletized stuff as padded. I have had ties I needed some padded and there was still a min. amount of poundage open so I

Re: Off topic- shipping companies

On 7/15/15 5:26 PM, Paul Anderson wrote: I've used move it (CTS) since the 70s for padded van service and some freight. I need some pallets moved and they quoted me today what I thought was a rather high price. I've seen here and talked with people who talked of other freight forwarders and

Off topic- shipping companies

I've used move it (CTS) since the 70s for padded van service and some freight. I need some pallets moved and they quoted me today what I thought was a rather high price. I've seen here and talked with people who talked of other freight forwarders and shipping companies but can't find them now.