Discussion:
it i good to see may growing into her job as agent cob is sadly shrinking into his
(too old to reply)
abelard
2018-03-14 13:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour


--
www.abelard.org
waste-of-time
2018-04-07 10:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:

> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour

abelard can program "in binary"
that's incredible
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-07 12:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
waste-of-time wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>
>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>
> abelard can program "in binary"
> that's incredible
>

Is this to do with genders? :-)
abelard
2018-04-12 10:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
wrote:

>waste-of-time wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>
>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>
>> abelard can program "in binary"
>> that's incredible

>Is this to do with genders? :-)

with that poster, anything is possible

he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
that could be instigated by a single bit...
among other methods

--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 10:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
abelard wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> wrote:
>
>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>
>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>> that's incredible
>
>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>
> with that poster, anything is possible
>
> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
> that could be instigated by a single bit...
> among other methods
>

I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
that sort of thing?
abelard
2018-04-12 11:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>
>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>> that's incredible
>>
>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>
>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>
>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>> among other methods
>>
>
>I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>that sort of thing?


i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably

i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!

i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers
because they were misperforming...

i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum


--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 11:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>
>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>> that's incredible
>>>
>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>
>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>
>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>> among other methods
>>>
>>
>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>> that sort of thing?
>
>
> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>
> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>

I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
instructions in more than 64.

> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers
> because they were misperforming...
>

Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague. I've
repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I
can find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.

> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>

I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic
has gone, I think.
abelard
2018-04-12 11:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:16:34 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
wrote:

>abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>
>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>>> that's incredible
>>>>
>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>
>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>
>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>>> among other methods
>>>>
>>>
>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>> that sort of thing?

>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>
>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!

>I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
>instructions in more than 64.

i've also programmed floating point routines!
again binary level work...

>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers
>> because they were misperforming...

>Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague.

no, the engineers had got the definitions and thereby the
wiring incorrect

but i know nothing of soldering irons and the likes...i was
entirely on the logic side

the computers were too slow....so hardware was built to
do complex operations

> I've
>repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I
>can find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.

i go back so far you wouldn't believe...the first computers i was
in the shadow of were valves!

i was a part of a computer that was run on electro-mechanical
machines as the processes were being transferred to
valves...fed with plug boards like telephone exchanges :-)

>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum

>I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic
>has gone, I think.

there's still basic work going on at the likes of the chip makers,
security and new devices

in the bad old days no-one even knew what 'programmer' meant...
now it's taught in schools

there used to be bluff artists termed 'systems analysts' telling
programmers what to do when they couldn't understand it
themselves

--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 11:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:16:34 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>>>> that's incredible
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>
>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>>>> among other methods
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>>> that sort of thing?
>
>>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>>
>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>
>> I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
>> instructions in more than 64.
>
> i've also programmed floating point routines!
> again binary level work...
>
>>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers
>>> because they were misperforming...
>
>> Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague.
>
> no, the engineers had got the definitions and thereby the
> wiring incorrect
>
> but i know nothing of soldering irons and the likes...i was
> entirely on the logic side
>

Well, I liked electronics, too; but I was never very good at the theory.
I had a mate who was a real circuit designer, and I was very impressed
with that. I just liked to try and build things from the magazines in
the days when things were too expensive for the likes of me to buy.

> the computers were too slow....so hardware was built to
> do complex operations
>
>> I've
>> repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I
>> can find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>
> i go back so far you wouldn't believe...the first computers i was
> in the shadow of were valves!
>
> i was a part of a computer that was run on electro-mechanical
> machines as the processes were being transferred to
> valves...fed with plug boards like telephone exchanges :-)
>

You sound like a Mechanical Turk :-)

>>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>
>> I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic
>> has gone, I think.
>
> there's still basic work going on at the likes of the chip makers,
> security and new devices
>
> in the bad old days no-one even knew what 'programmer' meant...
> now it's taught in schools
>
> there used to be bluff artists termed 'systems analysts' telling
> programmers what to do when they couldn't understand it
> themselves
>

I've an uncle who was a 'systems analyst'. Made a fortune in Saudi. He
was lucky enough to get in at the beginning, but I was never convinced
he really knew anything about computers.
Incubus
2018-04-12 12:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-12, abelard <***@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:16:34 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> wrote:
>
>>abelard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>>>> that's incredible
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>
>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>>>> among other methods
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>>> that sort of thing?
>
>>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>>
>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>
>>I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
>>instructions in more than 64.
>
> i've also programmed floating point routines!
> again binary level work...
>
>>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers
>>> because they were misperforming...
>
>>Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague.
>
> no, the engineers had got the definitions and thereby the
> wiring incorrect
>
> but i know nothing of soldering irons and the likes...i was
> entirely on the logic side
>
> the computers were too slow....so hardware was built to
> do complex operations
>
>> I've
>>repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I
>>can find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>
> i go back so far you wouldn't believe...the first computers i was
> in the shadow of were valves!
>
> i was a part of a computer that was run on electro-mechanical
> machines as the processes were being transferred to
> valves...fed with plug boards like telephone exchanges :-)
>
>>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>
>>I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic
>>has gone, I think.
>
> there's still basic work going on at the likes of the chip makers,
> security and new devices
>
> in the bad old days no-one even knew what 'programmer' meant...
> now it's taught in schools
>
> there used to be bluff artists termed 'systems analysts' telling
> programmers what to do when they couldn't understand it
> themselves

We call them 'Software Architects' these days.
abelard
2018-04-12 12:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:11:32 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2018-04-12, abelard <***@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:16:34 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>abelard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>>>>> that's incredible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>>>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>>>>> among other methods
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>>>> that sort of thing?
>>
>>>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>>>
>>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>>
>>>I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
>>>instructions in more than 64.
>>
>> i've also programmed floating point routines!
>> again binary level work...
>>
>>>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers
>>>> because they were misperforming...
>>
>>>Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague.
>>
>> no, the engineers had got the definitions and thereby the
>> wiring incorrect
>>
>> but i know nothing of soldering irons and the likes...i was
>> entirely on the logic side
>>
>> the computers were too slow....so hardware was built to
>> do complex operations
>>
>>> I've
>>>repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I
>>>can find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>>
>> i go back so far you wouldn't believe...the first computers i was
>> in the shadow of were valves!
>>
>> i was a part of a computer that was run on electro-mechanical
>> machines as the processes were being transferred to
>> valves...fed with plug boards like telephone exchanges :-)
>>
>>>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>>
>>>I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic
>>>has gone, I think.
>>
>> there's still basic work going on at the likes of the chip makers,
>> security and new devices
>>
>> in the bad old days no-one even knew what 'programmer' meant...
>> now it's taught in schools
>>
>> there used to be bluff artists termed 'systems analysts' telling
>> programmers what to do when they couldn't understand it
>> themselves
>
>We call them 'Software Architects' these days.

i'll bet you do...

thanx for keeping me a breast of the latest euphemisms for 'idiots'
and con artists :-)


--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2018-04-12 12:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-12, Dan S. MacAbre <***@way.com> wrote:
> abelard wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very clear
>>>>>>> what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>
>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary" that's incredible
>>>>
>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>
>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>
>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations that could be
>>>> instigated by a single bit... among other methods
>>>>
>>>
>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other things,
>>> like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean that sort of
>>> thing?
>>
>>
>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>
>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>>
>
> I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
> instructions in more than 64.
>
>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers because they were
>> misperforming...
>>
>
> Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague. I've repaired
> a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I can find.
> Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>
>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>>
>
> I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic has
> gone, I think.

The magic now is solving dependency hell with the help of C++ name mangling.

Or you can use a dependency injection framework such as Spring where any
dependencies you have missed are buried deep in a stack trace where the
exception that gets thrown isn't remotely useful in finding what is missing.
Or - even better - some packages pull in their own dependencies that conflict
with ones that you have set.

I suppose there's always C#, if you want to be bored for the rest of your life.

On the other hand, web developers are in a much better position these days with
frameworks like React.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 12:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Incubus wrote:
> On 2018-04-12, Dan S. MacAbre <***@way.com> wrote:
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very clear
>>>>>>>> what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary" that's incredible
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>
>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations that could be
>>>>> instigated by a single bit... among other methods
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other things,
>>>> like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean that sort of
>>>> thing?
>>>
>>>
>>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>>
>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>>>
>>
>> I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
>> instructions in more than 64.
>>
>>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers because they were
>>> misperforming...
>>>
>>
>> Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague. I've repaired
>> a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I can find.
>> Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>>
>>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic has
>> gone, I think.
>
> The magic now is solving dependency hell with the help of C++ name mangling.
>
> Or you can use a dependency injection framework such as Spring where any
> dependencies you have missed are buried deep in a stack trace where the
> exception that gets thrown isn't remotely useful in finding what is missing.
> Or - even better - some packages pull in their own dependencies that conflict
> with ones that you have set.
>
> I suppose there's always C#, if you want to be bored for the rest of your life.
>
> On the other hand, web developers are in a much better position these days with
> frameworks like React.
>

I think that doing it for a job has taken most of the fun out of it, for
me (and maybe you're right - maybe it's C#'s fault); and a feeling that
it's all so abstracted now. With the old Speccy, for example, there was
actually a feeling that you could pretty much know everything there was
to know about it. I got a book that contained the entire ROM
disassembly, which was more useful than you might imagine. I had an
EPROM programmer, and was almost at the point of replacing the ROM, and
getting rid of a few known bugs, but ultimately, I could never force
myself to go through with it.

I have a sort of problem where if I don't understand something, I can't
become interested in it. I don't know why. But it is something of a
surprise for me to find myself losing interest in computers when they
once used to be something of an obsession.
Incubus
2018-04-12 13:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-04-12, Dan S. MacAbre <***@way.com> wrote:
> Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-04-12, Dan S. MacAbre <***@way.com> wrote:
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very clear
>>>>>>>>> what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary" that's incredible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations that could
>>>>>> be instigated by a single bit... among other methods
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>>>> that sort of thing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>>>
>>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
>>> instructions in more than 64.
>>>
>>>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers because they were
>>>> misperforming...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague. I've
>>> repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I can
>>> find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>>>
>>>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic has
>>> gone, I think.
>>
>> The magic now is solving dependency hell with the help of C++ name mangling.
>>
>> Or you can use a dependency injection framework such as Spring where any
>> dependencies you have missed are buried deep in a stack trace where the
>> exception that gets thrown isn't remotely useful in finding what is missing.
>> Or - even better - some packages pull in their own dependencies that
>> conflict with ones that you have set.
>>
>> I suppose there's always C#, if you want to be bored for the rest of your
>> life.
>>
>> On the other hand, web developers are in a much better position these days
>> with frameworks like React.
>>
>
> I think that doing it for a job has taken most of the fun out of it, for me
> (and maybe you're right - maybe it's C#'s fault); and a feeling that it's all
> so abstracted now. With the old Speccy, for example, there was actually a
> feeling that you could pretty much know everything there was to know about
> it. I got a book that contained the entire ROM disassembly, which was more
> useful than you might imagine. I had an EPROM programmer, and was almost at
> the point of replacing the ROM, and getting rid of a few known bugs, but
> ultimately, I could never force myself to go through with it.

I do like C#; the problem seems to be that most uses of it are rather boring
because companies that prefer Microsoft tend to be dull and unimaginative. I
have used the Mono implementation a lot and one thing I like about C# is that
it enables extremely quick development of a prototype or mock server. For any
serious work, however, there is Java and C++.

> I have a sort of problem where if I don't understand something, I can't
> become interested in it. I don't know why. But it is something of a
> surprise for me to find myself losing interest in computers when they once
> used to be something of an obsession.

I enjoy computers still; the problems for me are when I am working for a
company that is bad in some ways. Not valuing staff and the establishment of a
trusted clique are the things that tend to put me off, but they are very human
problems.

The difference might be that before, you were satisfying your curiosity whereas
now you have objectives set by others. I have learned to be careful of where I
work lest I become bored.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 13:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Incubus wrote:
> On 2018-04-12, Dan S. MacAbre <***@way.com> wrote:
>> Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-12, Dan S. MacAbre <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very clear
>>>>>>>>>> what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary" that's incredible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations that could
>>>>>>> be instigated by a single bit... among other methods
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>>>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>>>>> that sort of thing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
>>>>>
>>>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
>>>> instructions in more than 64.
>>>>
>>>>> i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers because they were
>>>>> misperforming...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague. I've
>>>> repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I can
>>>> find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>>>>
>>>>> i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic has
>>>> gone, I think.
>>>
>>> The magic now is solving dependency hell with the help of C++ name mangling.
>>>
>>> Or you can use a dependency injection framework such as Spring where any
>>> dependencies you have missed are buried deep in a stack trace where the
>>> exception that gets thrown isn't remotely useful in finding what is missing.
>>> Or - even better - some packages pull in their own dependencies that
>>> conflict with ones that you have set.
>>>
>>> I suppose there's always C#, if you want to be bored for the rest of your
>>> life.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, web developers are in a much better position these days
>>> with frameworks like React.
>>>
>>
>> I think that doing it for a job has taken most of the fun out of it, for me
>> (and maybe you're right - maybe it's C#'s fault); and a feeling that it's all
>> so abstracted now. With the old Speccy, for example, there was actually a
>> feeling that you could pretty much know everything there was to know about
>> it. I got a book that contained the entire ROM disassembly, which was more
>> useful than you might imagine. I had an EPROM programmer, and was almost at
>> the point of replacing the ROM, and getting rid of a few known bugs, but
>> ultimately, I could never force myself to go through with it.
>
> I do like C#; the problem seems to be that most uses of it are rather boring
> because companies that prefer Microsoft tend to be dull and unimaginative. I
> have used the Mono implementation a lot and one thing I like about C# is that
> it enables extremely quick development of a prototype or mock server. For any
> serious work, however, there is Java and C++.
>
>> I have a sort of problem where if I don't understand something, I can't
>> become interested in it. I don't know why. But it is something of a
>> surprise for me to find myself losing interest in computers when they once
>> used to be something of an obsession.
>
> I enjoy computers still; the problems for me are when I am working for a
> company that is bad in some ways. Not valuing staff and the establishment of a
> trusted clique are the things that tend to put me off, but they are very human
> problems.
>
> The difference might be that before, you were satisfying your curiosity whereas
> now you have objectives set by others. I have learned to be careful of where I
> work lest I become bored.
>

Well, they let me set my own objectives, but I can only think of dull
and unimaginative ones. And I do feel valued - I wanted to leave, but I
got such a sob story that I decided to stay. But I can't complain
really - I can walk to work in 25 minutes, and I've managed to whittle
the hours down to four a day. I'm not sure what else I can ask for from
a job :-)
True Blue
2018-04-16 07:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 12:16:37 PM UTC+1, Dan S. MacAbre wrote:
> abelard wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 11:57:24 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> abelard wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> waste-of-time wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
> >>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
> >>>>>
> >>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
> >>>>> that's incredible
> >>>
> >>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
> >>>
> >>> with that poster, anything is possible
> >>>
> >>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
> >>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
> >>> among other methods
> >>>
> >>
> >> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
> >> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
> >> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
> >> that sort of thing?
> >
> >
> > i haven't experience of sinclair...but probably
> >
> > i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
> >
>
> I know some numbers are represented in 80 bits, but I've never seen
> instructions in more than 64.
>
> > i've had to get engineers to resolder stuff in computers
> > because they were misperforming...
> >
>
> Good old 'dry joints', possibly :-) Or the capacitor plague. I've
> repaired a couple of mainboards by replacing any swollen capacitors I
> can find. Sometimes stops them rebooting for no otherwise apparent reason.
>
> > i am a historic artifact...i should be in a museum
> >
>
> I'm sure that computers were more fun in the old days. All the magic
> has gone, I think.

Low level programming - the nuts and bolts of software. Most of my electronic training became redundant within a few years.
Andy Walker
2018-04-14 00:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/04/18 12:02, abelard wrote:
> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!

Hm. Wiki records no computers with 80-bit instructions; the
nearest fit seems to be the Autonetics Recomp, which had a 40-bit word,
*80-bit floating point* and 20-bit instructions. The CDC 6600 had
60-bit words, but only 15- or 30-bit instructions; there are several
machines with 48- or 64-bit instructions [eg, Atlas, Illiac IV]. So
you could perhaps add to general human knowledge by editing the Wiki
pages?

If "your" computer was the Autonetics, or any other computer
of similar vintage, then you actually worked on a computing machine;
"computer" meant a human who did computations. By the time I got
seriously into computing [either sense!], young people mostly used
"computer" the modern way, but most older people were still quite
pernickety about the distinction, and it was a little disconcerting
when I started at Manchester [1965] to be introduced to a lady who
was "our computer".

[DanM:]
>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum

Music was very definitely frowned upon. I got into enough
trouble by using Atlas to write poetry. Luckily, the other things
I got up to were never [officially] discovered.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Joe
2018-04-14 07:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:34:21 +0100
Andy Walker <***@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

> On 12/04/18 12:02, abelard wrote:
> > i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>
> Hm. Wiki records no computers with 80-bit instructions; the
> nearest fit seems to be the Autonetics Recomp, which had a 40-bit
> word, *80-bit floating point* and 20-bit instructions. The CDC 6600
> had 60-bit words, but only 15- or 30-bit instructions; there are
> several machines with 48- or 64-bit instructions [eg, Atlas, Illiac
> IV]. So you could perhaps add to general human knowledge by editing
> the Wiki pages?
>

Related datum: when DG stopped making the Nova, a 16-bit mini, there was
a company using an embedded Nova board in a product. In order to
continue its production, a 15" x 15" PCB was made using AMD 2901
bit-slice processors, and the microcode size chosen was 80 bits.

So, not an 80-bit computer, but it could have become an 80-bit RISC
machine by removing the ROM and letting the user write in microcode,
basically what Acorn did with the ARM.

--
Joe
abelard
2018-04-14 08:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:34:21 +0100, Andy Walker <***@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 12/04/18 12:02, abelard wrote:
>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>
> Hm. Wiki records no computers with 80-bit instructions; the
>nearest fit seems to be the Autonetics Recomp, which had a 40-bit word,
>*80-bit floating point* and 20-bit instructions. The CDC 6600 had
>60-bit words, but only 15- or 30-bit instructions; there are several
>machines with 48- or 64-bit instructions [eg, Atlas, Illiac IV]. So
>you could perhaps add to general human knowledge by editing the Wiki
>pages?

i didn't say 80 bit words...that was you

> If "your" computer was the Autonetics, or any other computer
>of similar vintage, then you actually worked on a computing machine;
>"computer" meant a human who did computations. By the time I got
>seriously into computing [either sense!], young people mostly used
>"computer" the modern way, but most older people were still quite
>pernickety about the distinction, and it was a little disconcerting
>when I started at Manchester [1965] to be introduced to a lady who
>was "our computer".
>
>[DanM:]
>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum
>
> Music was very definitely frowned upon. I got into enough
>trouble by using Atlas to write poetry. Luckily, the other things
>I got up to were never [officially] discovered.

--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2018-04-14 14:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/04/18 09:33, abelard wrote:
>> On 12/04/18 12:02, abelard wrote:
>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>> Hm. Wiki records no computers with 80-bit instructions; the
>> nearest fit seems to be the Autonetics Recomp, which had a 40-bit word,
>> *80-bit floating point* and 20-bit instructions. The CDC 6600 had
>> 60-bit words, but only 15- or 30-bit instructions; there are several
>> machines with 48- or 64-bit instructions [eg, Atlas, Illiac IV]. So
>> you could perhaps add to general human knowledge by editing the Wiki
>> pages?
> i didn't say 80 bit words...that was you

??? I didn't say 80-bit words either. There is no computer known
to Wiki with 80-bit *instructions* [though I note Joe's "related datum"].
So you can help us by telling more [or that it's a military secret, or
whatever]. Alternatively, I thought it at least possible that there was
a typo or a thinko in your claim, and so offered some near misses.

An 80-bit instruction is actually going it a bit. Atlas got to
48 as a 10-bit instruction code, two 7-bit register numbers and a 24-bit
address, all of which were overkill, even for the most powerful machine
in the world at the time.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Joe
2018-04-14 15:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 15:01:04 +0100
Andy Walker <***@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:


>
> ??? I didn't say 80-bit words either. There is no computer
> known to Wiki with 80-bit *instructions* [though I note Joe's
> "related datum"]. So you can help us by telling more [or that it's a
> military secret, or whatever]. Alternatively, I thought it at least
> possible that there was a typo or a thinko in your claim, and so
> offered some near misses.
>
> An 80-bit instruction is actually going it a bit. Atlas got
> to 48 as a 10-bit instruction code, two 7-bit register numbers and a
> 24-bit address, all of which were overkill, even for the most
> powerful machine in the world at the time.
>

Not if there's no intermediate microcode, if your 80 bits are directly
driving a range of hardware, particularly as in this case, if that
includes eight 2-bit ALUs, a number of registers and hardware memory
indirection.

Yes, it was probably more than this application needed, but then again,
with different instruction translation ROMs, this board could emulate
many other types of CPU, and it was probably designed with a more
efficient native instruction set in mind. Used a hell of a lot of
power, though, the 5V rail needed a thirty amp fuse at a clock speed
of about 30MHz.

--
Joe
abelard
2018-04-14 16:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 16:33:32 +0100, Joe <***@jretrading.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 15:01:04 +0100
>Andy Walker <***@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> ??? I didn't say 80-bit words either. There is no computer
>> known to Wiki with 80-bit *instructions* [though I note Joe's
>> "related datum"]. So you can help us by telling more [or that it's a
>> military secret, or whatever]. Alternatively, I thought it at least
>> possible that there was a typo or a thinko in your claim, and so
>> offered some near misses.
>>
>> An 80-bit instruction is actually going it a bit. Atlas got
>> to 48 as a 10-bit instruction code, two 7-bit register numbers and a
>> 24-bit address, all of which were overkill, even for the most
>> powerful machine in the world at the time.
>>
>
>Not if there's no intermediate microcode, if your 80 bits are directly
>driving a range of hardware, particularly as in this case, if that
>includes eight 2-bit ALUs, a number of registers and hardware memory
>indirection.
>
>Yes, it was probably more than this application needed, but then again,
>with different instruction translation ROMs, this board could emulate
>many other types of CPU, and it was probably designed with a more
>efficient native instruction set in mind. Used a hell of a lot of
>power, though, the 5V rail needed a thirty amp fuse at a clock speed
>of about 30MHz.

speed was the great problem


--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2018-04-14 16:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 15:01:04 +0100, Andy Walker <***@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 14/04/18 09:33, abelard wrote:
>>> On 12/04/18 12:02, abelard wrote:
>>>> i worked on computers with 80 bit instructions!!
>>> Hm. Wiki records no computers with 80-bit instructions; the
>>> nearest fit seems to be the Autonetics Recomp, which had a 40-bit word,
>>> *80-bit floating point* and 20-bit instructions. The CDC 6600 had
>>> 60-bit words, but only 15- or 30-bit instructions; there are several
>>> machines with 48- or 64-bit instructions [eg, Atlas, Illiac IV]. So
>>> you could perhaps add to general human knowledge by editing the Wiki
>>> pages?
>> i didn't say 80 bit words...that was you
>
> ??? I didn't say 80-bit words either. There is no computer known
>to Wiki

well, there you have it!!

>with 80-bit *instructions* [though I note Joe's "related datum"].
>So you can help us by telling more [or that it's a military secret, or
>whatever]. Alternatively, I thought it at least possible that there was
>a typo or a thinko in your claim, and so offered some near misses.
>
> An 80-bit instruction is actually going it a bit. Atlas got to
>48 as a 10-bit instruction code, two 7-bit register numbers and a 24-bit
>address, all of which were overkill, even for the most powerful machine
>in the world at the time.

you're guessing in the right area...

the floating point routines i writ were indeed 48 bit..ie, double
length...
24 bit instruction codes were effectively 3 address...the details have
faded in declining memory
i worked on (doughnut) core memories or 4k! made by girls on a wooden
former with dips and then threaded in three directions with
copper wire...

as i said...i'm an museum artifact from long ago...



--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2018-04-15 00:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 14/04/18 17:41, abelard wrote:
[...]
>> There is no computer known
>> to Wiki
> well, there you have it!!

Yes, but Wiki is "us". If it's wrong or incomplete, you have the
right, and perhaps the duty, to correct it.

[...]>> An 80-bit instruction is actually going it a bit. Atlas got to
>> 48 as a 10-bit instruction code, two 7-bit register numbers and a 24-bit
>> address, all of which were overkill, even for the most powerful machine
>> in the world at the time.> you're guessing in the right area...
> the floating point routines i writ were indeed 48 bit..ie, double
> length...

"Call that double length?" [Copyright C, Dundee] Double length
on Atlas was, of course, 96 bits. OK, that's slightly unfair, as some of
the bits weren't really used. Single length used an 8-bit signed octal
exponent and a 40-bit signed mantissa. Double length was two words, but
the exponent and sign of the less-significant word were ignored, so
effectively it was an 8-bit exponent and a 79-bit signed mantissa. This
reflected the accumulator, which was the same plus guard digits. Writing
the double-length floating-point extracodes would have been somewhat of a
doddle; the 12 functions occupied an average of less than 10 instructions
each.

[...]> i worked on (doughnut) core memories or 4k! made by girls on a wooden
> former with dips and then threaded in three directions with
> copper wire...

A friend had some from the Manchester Atlas somewhere, though he
may by now have donated his "museum" to TNMoC or Bletchley. I still have
a circuit board, though sadly from London rather than the M/cr Atlas that
I actually used.

> as i said...i'm an museum artifact from long ago...

Join the club.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2018-04-15 12:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 01:17:15 +0100, Andy Walker <***@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 14/04/18 17:41, abelard wrote:
>[...]
>>> There is no computer known
>>> to Wiki
>> well, there you have it!!
>
> Yes, but Wiki is "us". If it's wrong or incomplete, you have the
>right, and perhaps the duty, to correct it.

first
i perceive no such duty...

wikipedia is heavily edited by people with an obvious agenda

second
my interests is in communication logic...while i have plentiful
experience of working computers on many levels...i have
no interest in being a computer mechanic or even a historian.
a computer is just a tool to me just as a car is just a tool(to me)
i may admire it's shiny bonnet or its place in the development
of transport...but my prime concern is 'does it help me to
get from 'a' to 'b'...

my serious interest is in those far more complex and advanced
computers in human heads

>[...]>> An 80-bit instruction is actually going it a bit. Atlas got to
>>> 48 as a 10-bit instruction code, two 7-bit register numbers and a 24-bit
>>> address, all of which were overkill, even for the most powerful machine
>>> in the world at the time.> you're guessing in the right area...

>> the floating point routines i writ were indeed 48 bit..ie, double
>> length...
>
> "Call that double length?" [Copyright C, Dundee] Double length
>on Atlas was, of course, 96 bits. OK, that's slightly unfair, as some of
>the bits weren't really used. Single length used an 8-bit signed octal
>exponent and a 40-bit signed mantissa. Double length was two words, but
>the exponent and sign of the less-significant word were ignored, so
>effectively it was an 8-bit exponent and a 79-bit signed mantissa. This
>reflected the accumulator, which was the same plus guard digits. Writing
>the double-length floating-point extracodes would have been somewhat of a
>doddle; the 12 functions occupied an average of less than 10 instructions
>each.

doubtless you are correct...and doubtless you can feed wikipedia if
that be your karma

>[...]> i worked on (doughnut) core memories or 4k! made by girls on a wooden
>> former with dips and then threaded in three directions with
>> copper wire...
>
> A friend had some from the Manchester Atlas somewhere, though he
>may by now have donated his "museum" to TNMoC or Bletchley. I still have
>a circuit board, though sadly from London rather than the M/cr Atlas that
>I actually used.
>
>> as i said...i'm an museum artifact from long ago...
>
> Join the club.

what are the subscription and the benefits?

as a museum artifact i go back even further...as earlier stated...
i started as a component of computers...
about 20 friden electro mechanical calculators, each run by 2
operators!
these operations were in process of being switched to plug boards
and thence to a valve driven computer...
the first hard disc i was acquainted with was as big as a big drum
in a modern pop band and took about 40 minutes to expand to
working conditions...i've even seen with my very own eyes
some klutz drop a very large pile of hollerith cards after they'd
been through several machine passes....
i've even worked with millions of cards that were sorted by hand
using knitting needles!

in view of this...will i get cut rates from you club or is it only for
people who own a soldering iron? a criterion on which i come
up very short

--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2018-04-15 23:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 15/04/18 13:05, abelard wrote:
>> Yes, but Wiki is "us". If it's wrong or incomplete, you have the
>> right, and perhaps the duty, to correct it.
> first
> i perceive no such duty...

If you don't bother to correct it, then it's rather unfair to
criticise it for being wrong.

> wikipedia is heavily edited by people with an obvious agenda

Yes, on some topics -- the most obvious being politics, religion
and recent history. But on most of the things that interest me, I find
it decently reliable, not least because of the cross-referencing. There
is a lot of unevenness -- a lot of the maths entries are written for PhD
students rather than for those wanting for find out what things mean,
but other maths/physics/computing entries are accurate and interesting.

[...]
> my serious interest is in those far more complex and advanced
> computers in human heads

Make the most of it, because I think we're not too far away now
from computers becoming more complex [tho' a long way away from "more
advanced" -- luckily].

[...]
>>> as i said...i'm an museum artifact from long ago...
>> Join the club.
> what are the subscription and the benefits?

Free, and none. There is the usual elderly person's duty to
reminisce on all possible occasions, esp when unsuitable.

> as a museum artifact i go back even further...as earlier stated...
> i started as a component of computers...
> about 20 friden electro mechanical calculators, each run by 2
> operators!

We had one. It had a fault when set to divide by zero [which
I hope was an accident], in that instead of ringing a bell and halting
it chugged away, and away, and away. If you switched it off, it
remembered the calculation it was doing, and started chugging again
when switched back on. Eventually, smoke poured out, and it stopped.

We had a load of Brunsviga hand calculators. I snaffled one
for my office when they were replaced by electr[oni]c calculators,
and when no-one wanted it snaffled it again for home when I retired.
It makes a good, tho' v heavy, conversation piece, and I sometimes demo
it to the kiddy-winks.

> [...] i've even seen with my very own eyes
> some klutz drop a very large pile of hollerith cards after they'd
> been through several machine passes....

Both M/cr and Nott'm were primarily paper-tape installations.
Tape doesn't get out of order, but it does get twisted, and the centre
drops out of reels. You needed a good stairwell so that you could
dangle it down, let it untwist under its own weight, and spool it back
in. Took an hour or so for a big program, and you had to be careful
not to let go. Editing could only be done by splicing, which often
had to be done using a hand-punch. It was a matter of pride to have
a big reel with hundreds of bits of sticky tape holding it together.

> i've even worked with millions of cards that were sorted by hand
> using knitting needles!

Done that too, tho' with hundreds rather than millions. I did
it when I was rating chess results, sorting alternately by name and by
club. 40-odd years later, the person then doing the job still had my
old records, and was intrigued to know why the cards had not only the
results and calculations, but also holes and grooves along the edge.

> in view of this...will i get cut rates from you club or is it only for
> people who own a soldering iron? a criterion on which i come
> up very short

We'll let you in half-price if you're over 70, or BOGOF for
the over 60s.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
johnny-knowall
2018-04-12 11:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
(in article <pane2l$hvd$***@dont-email.me>):

> abelard wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > waste-of-time wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
> > > > > clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
> > > >
> > > > abelard can program "in binary"
> > > > that's incredible
> >
> > > Is this to do with genders? :-)
> >
> > with that poster, anything is possible
> >
> > he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
> > that could be instigated by a single bit...
> > among other methods
>
> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
> that sort of thing?

Yes those were the days.

Programs printed in monthly magazines and saved onto tape.

Hours of typing in code as carefully as possible, only to find that the
program did not work. Re-typing again with even more care; and still the
program did not run, or crashed after one second.

And repeat....

Only to discover a few months later that there was a printing error in the
magazine original and it would have never worked without the correction.

Yes those were the days - NOT.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 11:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
johnny-knowall wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
> (in article <pane2l$hvd$***@dont-email.me>):
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>
>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>> that's incredible
>>>
>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>
>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>
>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>> among other methods
>>
>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>> that sort of thing?
>
> Yes those were the days.
>
> Programs printed in monthly magazines and saved onto tape.
>
> Hours of typing in code as carefully as possible, only to find that the
> program did not work. Re-typing again with even more care; and still the
> program did not run, or crashed after one second.
>
> And repeat....
>
> Only to discover a few months later that there was a printing error in the
> magazine original and it would have never worked without the correction.
>
> Yes those were the days - NOT.
>

I did a few of those all-day typing things. Not one was worth it in the
end, even if they did work. The games were undeniably shite, although a
small few remain memorable; but I do think it was more interesting then.
The only enjoyment I got from most games was working out how to change
them so you got infinite lives, or never even got killed at all. But
even once I'd spent maybe a month doing that, I'd then never play the
game. The fun, for me, was trying to get into them, when they'd made it
as difficult as they could. A bit of an obsession, you might say. I
had a few cheats published in the magazines, and that gave me my fifteen
minutes of fame :-)
johnny-knowall
2018-04-12 11:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
(in article <panfkk$ruu$***@dont-email.me>):

> johnny-knowall wrote:
> > On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
> > (in article <pane2l$hvd$***@dont-email.me>):
> >
> > > abelard wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > waste-of-time wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
> > > > > > > clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
> > > > > >
> > > > > > abelard can program "in binary"
> > > > > > that's incredible
> > > >
> > > > > Is this to do with genders? :-)
> > > >
> > > > with that poster, anything is possible
> > > >
> > > > he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
> > > > that could be instigated by a single bit...
> > > > among other methods
> > >
> > > I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
> > > bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
> > > things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
> > > that sort of thing?
> >
> > Yes those were the days.
> >
> > Programs printed in monthly magazines and saved onto tape.
> >
> > Hours of typing in code as carefully as possible, only to find that the
> > program did not work. Re-typing again with even more care; and still the
> > program did not run, or crashed after one second.
> >
> > And repeat....
> >
> > Only to discover a few months later that there was a printing error in the
> > magazine original and it would have never worked without the correction.
> >
> > Yes those were the days - NOT.
>
> I did a few of those all-day typing things. Not one was worth it in the
> end, even if they did work. The games were undeniably shite, although a
> small few remain memorable; but I do think it was more interesting then.
> The only enjoyment I got from most games was working out how to change
> them so you got infinite lives, or never even got killed at all. But
> even once I'd spent maybe a month doing that, I'd then never play the
> game. The fun, for me, was trying to get into them, when they'd made it
> as difficult as they could. A bit of an obsession, you might say. I
> had a few cheats published in the magazines, and that gave me my fifteen
> minutes of fame :-)

I managed to get one to work, and it was a Death Star which hid behind a
planet.

The object of the game was to fire shots at it as it slowly appeared from out
of the planet’s shadows and eventually released a barrage of missiles.

I never managed to destroy it.

Sadly, I was not a competent enough machine code programmer to be able to
change the program effectively. I did try and learn it, but advances were so
rapid that higher level programmes became more sophisticated very quickly,
and the amount of machine code became relatively immense in some programs.

Someone gave me a very early Norton Utilities floppy disk, which had the
facility to show the high level program and machine code side-by-side. I
loved this because any alterations to one side would also appear on the other
after a few seconds.

It was a very powerful tool, but messing up a complex subroutine was easy if
you did not know what you were doing.

I don’t play computer games much now, as they are far too complicated to
understand, and I have hand/eye co-ordination problems with them.

In fact I had problems with the original Asteroids programs from 35 years
ago, due to their inbuilt Newtons Laws of Motion, which I found difficult to
predict with regard to the action/reaction part coupled with conservation of
momentum.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 12:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
johnny-knowall wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
> (in article <panfkk$ruu$***@dont-email.me>):
>
>> johnny-knowall wrote:
>>> On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
>>> (in article <pane2l$hvd$***@dont-email.me>):
>>>
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>>>> that's incredible
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>
>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>>>> among other methods
>>>>
>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>>> that sort of thing?
>>>
>>> Yes those were the days.
>>>
>>> Programs printed in monthly magazines and saved onto tape.
>>>
>>> Hours of typing in code as carefully as possible, only to find that the
>>> program did not work. Re-typing again with even more care; and still the
>>> program did not run, or crashed after one second.
>>>
>>> And repeat....
>>>
>>> Only to discover a few months later that there was a printing error in the
>>> magazine original and it would have never worked without the correction.
>>>
>>> Yes those were the days - NOT.
>>
>> I did a few of those all-day typing things. Not one was worth it in the
>> end, even if they did work. The games were undeniably shite, although a
>> small few remain memorable; but I do think it was more interesting then.
>> The only enjoyment I got from most games was working out how to change
>> them so you got infinite lives, or never even got killed at all. But
>> even once I'd spent maybe a month doing that, I'd then never play the
>> game. The fun, for me, was trying to get into them, when they'd made it
>> as difficult as they could. A bit of an obsession, you might say. I
>> had a few cheats published in the magazines, and that gave me my fifteen
>> minutes of fame :-)
>
> I managed to get one to work, and it was a Death Star which hid behind a
> planet.
>
> The object of the game was to fire shots at it as it slowly appeared from out
> of the planet’s shadows and eventually released a barrage of missiles.
>
> I never managed to destroy it.
>
> Sadly, I was not a competent enough machine code programmer to be able to
> change the program effectively. I did try and learn it, but advances were so
> rapid that higher level programmes became more sophisticated very quickly,
> and the amount of machine code became relatively immense in some programs.
>

I spent years of my life writing an assembly language 3D rendering thing
for the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. Ages spent tweaking it and
optimising it to make it anything like useful. Something of an
obsession; and, in retrospect, probably time wasted. OTOH, I don't know
what else I'd have done with my time :-)

> Someone gave me a very early Norton Utilities floppy disk, which had the
> facility to show the high level program and machine code side-by-side. I
> loved this because any alterations to one side would also appear on the other
> after a few seconds.
>
> It was a very powerful tool, but messing up a complex subroutine was easy if
> you did not know what you were doing.
>

Aye - you're bypassing any sanity checks that might be in place.

> I don’t play computer games much now, as they are far too complicated to
> understand, and I have hand/eye co-ordination problems with them.
>
> In fact I had problems with the original Asteroids programs from 35 years
> ago, due to their inbuilt Newtons Laws of Motion, which I found difficult to
> predict with regard to the action/reaction part coupled with conservation of
> momentum.
>

Our lad is obsessed with computer games now, but at least he's finding
his way round a keyboard, and I can't think of a better way to make
computers interesting at his age. I got him a thing called Universe
Sandbox that allows him to create solar systems and crash planets
together and change them to try to terraform them. It is really
amazing, but then I still can't be bothered to play with it. Now he can
talk about planets and exoplanets and other things all day, so it has
certainly been educational. And there is Sim City - now he is getting a
very basic idea of how town planning works. He also had an obsession
with battleships, so I got him some games that simulated 20th century
naval battles. It seems like there is a game for everything now.

And at least he doesn't have to load them from a cassette tape praying
that it doesn't crash or lock up when the tape finishes.
johnny-knowall
2018-04-12 13:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
(in article <panhtd$aab$***@dont-email.me>):

> johnny-knowall wrote:
> > On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
> > (in article <panfkk$ruu$***@dont-email.me>):
> >
> > > johnny-knowall wrote:
> > > > On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
> > > > (in article <pane2l$hvd$***@dont-email.me>):
> > > >
> > > > > abelard wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > waste-of-time wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
> > > > > > > > > clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > abelard can program "in binary"
> > > > > > > > that's incredible
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this to do with genders? :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > with that poster, anything is possible
> > > > > >
> > > > > > he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
> > > > > > that could be instigated by a single bit...
> > > > > > among other methods
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
> > > > > bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
> > > > > things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
> > > > > that sort of thing?
> > > >
> > > > Yes those were the days.
> > > >
> > > > Programs printed in monthly magazines and saved onto tape.
> > > >
> > > > Hours of typing in code as carefully as possible, only to find that the
> > > > program did not work. Re-typing again with even more care; and still the
> > > > program did not run, or crashed after one second.
> > > >
> > > > And repeat....
> > > >
> > > > Only to discover a few months later that there was a printing error in the
> > > > magazine original and it would have never worked without the correction.
> > > >
> > > > Yes those were the days - NOT.
> > >
> > > I did a few of those all-day typing things. Not one was worth it in the
> > > end, even if they did work. The games were undeniably shite, although a
> > > small few remain memorable; but I do think it was more interesting then.
> > > The only enjoyment I got from most games was working out how to change
> > > them so you got infinite lives, or never even got killed at all. But
> > > even once I'd spent maybe a month doing that, I'd then never play the
> > > game. The fun, for me, was trying to get into them, when they'd made it
> > > as difficult as they could. A bit of an obsession, you might say. I
> > > had a few cheats published in the magazines, and that gave me my fifteen
> > > minutes of fame :-)
> >
> > I managed to get one to work, and it was a Death Star which hid behind a
> > planet.
> >
> > The object of the game was to fire shots at it as it slowly appeared from
> > out
> > of the planet’s shadows and eventually released a barrage of missiles.
> >
> > I never managed to destroy it.
> >
> > Sadly, I was not a competent enough machine code programmer to be able to
> > change the program effectively. I did try and learn it, but advances were so
> > rapid that higher level programmes became more sophisticated very quickly,
> > and the amount of machine code became relatively immense in some programs.
>
> I spent years of my life writing an assembly language 3D rendering thing
> for the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. Ages spent tweaking it and
> optimising it to make it anything like useful. Something of an
> obsession; and, in retrospect, probably time wasted. OTOH, I don't know
> what else I'd have done with my time :-)
>
> > Someone gave me a very early Norton Utilities floppy disk, which had the
> > facility to show the high level program and machine code side-by-side. I
> > loved this because any alterations to one side would also appear on the
> > other
> > after a few seconds.
> >
> > It was a very powerful tool, but messing up a complex subroutine was easy if
> > you did not know what you were doing.
>
> Aye - you're bypassing any sanity checks that might be in place.
>
> > I don’t play computer games much now, as they are far too complicated to
> > understand, and I have hand/eye co-ordination problems with them.
> >
> > In fact I had problems with the original Asteroids programs from 35 years
> > ago, due to their inbuilt Newtons Laws of Motion, which I found difficult to
> > predict with regard to the action/reaction part coupled with conservation of
> > momentum.
>
> Our lad is obsessed with computer games now, but at least he's finding
> his way round a keyboard, and I can't think of a better way to make
> computers interesting at his age. I got him a thing called Universe
> Sandbox that allows him to create solar systems and crash planets
> together and change them to try to terraform them. It is really
> amazing, but then I still can't be bothered to play with it. Now he can
> talk about planets and exoplanets and other things all day, so it has
> certainly been educational. And there is Sim City -

I have played those, but I hate the inbuilt bias of the programmers which try
to dictate how a city should expand.

I try a green version with few roads, but lots of cycle paths and rail
stations - but the industry only really gets going if I have five-lane
highways and car parks bigger than Wales for each shopping mall.

Plus, there seem to be too many natural disasters for my liking; and I had to
pause the game every time I went out the room in fear of a tornado
demolishing all my new buildings by the time I came back.

It is the same with The Sims series. If I play the game how I want it to be
played and not how they want me to play, I get nowhere.

So now in Sims 4, I don’t bother with all that going to work/promotion
bullshit. I just create my Sims to be flirty and incurable romantics; decide
which family own the biggest house; visit the bar as often as possible; flirt
with those having the right surnames until one reciprocates, and then it is
just full scale romance until the “elope” option appears. A quick
wedding, then move into the spouse’s home and eject all the family I
don’t want.

Result: massive house and lots of cash.
Dan S. MacAbre
2018-04-12 13:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
johnny-knowall wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
> (in article <panhtd$aab$***@dont-email.me>):
>
>> johnny-knowall wrote:
>>> On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
>>> (in article <panfkk$ruu$***@dont-email.me>):
>>>
>>>> johnny-knowall wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote
>>>>> (in article <pane2l$hvd$***@dont-email.me>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:03:12 +0100, "Dan S. MacAbre" <***@way.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> waste-of-time wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 14:53:29 +0100, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but it is gratifying to see so many labour mps making it very
>>>>>>>>>> clear what they think of agent cob's disgraceful behaviour
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> abelard can program "in binary"
>>>>>>>>> that's incredible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this to do with genders? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with that poster, anything is possible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> he seems not to realise that early computers had operations
>>>>>>> that could be instigated by a single bit...
>>>>>>> among other methods
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember you could make 'music' with the Sinclair Spectrum by XORing a
>>>>>> bit in a byte in a hardware-mapped memory location. And many other
>>>>>> things, like reading from/writing to tape cassette storage. You mean
>>>>>> that sort of thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes those were the days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Programs printed in monthly magazines and saved onto tape.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hours of typing in code as carefully as possible, only to find that the
>>>>> program did not work. Re-typing again with even more care; and still the
>>>>> program did not run, or crashed after one second.
>>>>>
>>>>> And repeat....
>>>>>
>>>>> Only to discover a few months later that there was a printing error in the
>>>>> magazine original and it would have never worked without the correction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes those were the days - NOT.
>>>>
>>>> I did a few of those all-day typing things. Not one was worth it in the
>>>> end, even if they did work. The games were undeniably shite, although a
>>>> small few remain memorable; but I do think it was more interesting then.
>>>> The only enjoyment I got from most games was working out how to change
>>>> them so you got infinite lives, or never even got killed at all. But
>>>> even once I'd spent maybe a month doing that, I'd then never play the
>>>> game. The fun, for me, was trying to get into them, when they'd made it
>>>> as difficult as they could. A bit of an obsession, you might say. I
>>>> had a few cheats published in the magazines, and that gave me my fifteen
>>>> minutes of fame :-)
>>>
>>> I managed to get one to work, and it was a Death Star which hid behind a
>>> planet.
>>>
>>> The object of the game was to fire shots at it as it slowly appeared from
>>> out
>>> of the planet’s shadows and eventually released a barrage of missiles.
>>>
>>> I never managed to destroy it.
>>>
>>> Sadly, I was not a competent enough machine code programmer to be able to
>>> change the program effectively. I did try and learn it, but advances were so
>>> rapid that higher level programmes became more sophisticated very quickly,
>>> and the amount of machine code became relatively immense in some programs.
>>
>> I spent years of my life writing an assembly language 3D rendering thing
>> for the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. Ages spent tweaking it and
>> optimising it to make it anything like useful. Something of an
>> obsession; and, in retrospect, probably time wasted. OTOH, I don't know
>> what else I'd have done with my time :-)
>>
>>> Someone gave me a very early Norton Utilities floppy disk, which had the
>>> facility to show the high level program and machine code side-by-side. I
>>> loved this because any alterations to one side would also appear on the
>>> other
>>> after a few seconds.
>>>
>>> It was a very powerful tool, but messing up a complex subroutine was easy if
>>> you did not know what you were doing.
>>
>> Aye - you're bypassing any sanity checks that might be in place.
>>
>>> I don’t play computer games much now, as they are far too complicated to
>>> understand, and I have hand/eye co-ordination problems with them.
>>>
>>> In fact I had problems with the original Asteroids programs from 35 years
>>> ago, due to their inbuilt Newtons Laws of Motion, which I found difficult to
>>> predict with regard to the action/reaction part coupled with conservation of
>>> momentum.
>>
>> Our lad is obsessed with computer games now, but at least he's finding
>> his way round a keyboard, and I can't think of a better way to make
>> computers interesting at his age. I got him a thing called Universe
>> Sandbox that allows him to create solar systems and crash planets
>> together and change them to try to terraform them. It is really
>> amazing, but then I still can't be bothered to play with it. Now he can
>> talk about planets and exoplanets and other things all day, so it has
>> certainly been educational. And there is Sim City -
>
> I have played those, but I hate the inbuilt bias of the programmers which try
> to dictate how a city should expand.
>
> I try a green version with few roads, but lots of cycle paths and rail
> stations - but the industry only really gets going if I have five-lane
> highways and car parks bigger than Wales for each shopping mall.
>
> Plus, there seem to be too many natural disasters for my liking; and I had to
> pause the game every time I went out the room in fear of a tornado
> demolishing all my new buildings by the time I came back.
>

The natural disasters are our lad's favourite bit. He'll spend hours
trying to get a city to grow, with all the alarms satisified, only to
destroy it with meteors, or have Godzilla trample all over it. And they
try to tell us that boys and girls are basically the same :-)

> It is the same with The Sims series. If I play the game how I want it to be
> played and not how they want me to play, I get nowhere.
>
> So now in Sims 4, I don’t bother with all that going to work/promotion
> bullshit. I just create my Sims to be flirty and incurable romantics; decide
> which family own the biggest house; visit the bar as often as possible; flirt
> with those having the right surnames until one reciprocates, and then it is
> just full scale romance until the “elope” option appears. A quick
> wedding, then move into the spouse’s home and eject all the family I
> don’t want.
>
> Result: massive house and lots of cash.
>

I never tried The Sims, but it does sound like fun.
abelard
2018-04-12 17:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 14:23:06 +0100, johnny-knowall <***@bungay.com>
wrote:

>On 12 Apr 2018, Dan S. MacAbre wrote

>> Our lad is obsessed with computer games now, but at least he's finding
>> his way round a keyboard, and I can't think of a better way to make
>> computers interesting at his age. I got him a thing called Universe
>> Sandbox that allows him to create solar systems and crash planets
>> together and change them to try to terraform them. It is really
>> amazing, but then I still can't be bothered to play with it. Now he can
>> talk about planets and exoplanets and other things all day, so it has
>> certainly been educational. And there is Sim City -
>
>I have played those, but I hate the inbuilt bias of the programmers which try
>to dictate how a city should expand.
>
>I try a green version with few roads, but lots of cycle paths and rail
>stations - but the industry only really gets going if I have five-lane
>highways and car parks bigger than Wales for each shopping mall.
>
>Plus, there seem to be too many natural disasters for my liking; and I had to
>pause the game every time I went out the room in fear of a tornado
>demolishing all my new buildings by the time I came back.
>
>It is the same with The Sims series. If I play the game how I want it to be
>played and not how they want me to play, I get nowhere.
>
>So now in Sims 4, I don’t bother with all that going to work/promotion
>bullshit. I just create my Sims to be flirty and incurable romantics; decide
>which family own the biggest house; visit the bar as often as possible; flirt
>with those having the right surnames until one reciprocates, and then it is
>just full scale romance until the “elope” option appears. A quick
>wedding, then move into the spouse’s home and eject all the family I
>don’t want.
>
>Result: massive house and lots of cash.

what's against you two getting together and producing
games you do like?

--
www.abelard.org
Loading...