Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
General Mills computer
184 views
Skip to first unread message
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 14, 2012, 10:59:29 AM9/14/12
to
bitsavers has a brochure describing their computer, apparently which G/
M was building to sell.
It seems to be a well designed compact machine.
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1961.pdf
The company's website today is a splash of color of their numerous
consumer products and brands. I didn't see any mention of the
computer in their history.
Today they could probably include the CPU horsepower of that 1961
machine as a toy insert in a cereal box.
M was building to sell.
It seems to be a well designed compact machine.
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1961.pdf
The company's website today is a splash of color of their numerous
consumer products and brands. I didn't see any mention of the
computer in their history.
Today they could probably include the CPU horsepower of that 1961
machine as a toy insert in a cereal box.
Patrick Scheible
Sep 14, 2012, 11:40:43 AM9/14/12
to
maker.
The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
Thanks for the link.
-- Patrick
Jim Haynes
Sep 14, 2012, 12:39:47 PM9/14/12
to
On 2012-09-14, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
> storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
> wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
Means it was microprogrammed.
> The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
> storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
> wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
According to the "Third Survey of Domestic Electronic Digital Computing
Systems" by Martin Weik, there were two computers in the General Mills
product line in 1961. One called the AD/ECS is the one featured in the
brochure. The other was APSAC, described as a "General purpose computer
used in on-line automatic survey system." This one had more transistors
and diodes than the other, but only 512 words of core memory and slower
arithmetic. It says the AD/ECS had two produced to-date and one in
current production. The APSAC had only one produced, then in field test.
These were made by the "Mechanical Divison" of General Mills, which is
presumably the part of the company that designs and builds all the
machinery for making their consumer products.
Message has been deleted
John Levine
Sep 14, 2012, 12:46:18 PM9/14/12
to
>> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1961.pdf
Wow.
>The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
>storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
>wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
Instruction set. It's a clever idea in a sort of horrible way, each
instruction is decoded to a card slot, and the card in that slot
executes the instruction. I wouldn't want to be the guy who did
software maintenance, though.
As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Wow.
>The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
>storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
>wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
instruction is decoded to a card slot, and the card in that slot
executes the instruction. I wouldn't want to be the guy who did
software maintenance, though.
As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
R's,
John
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 14, 2012, 1:23:00 PM9/14/12
to
On Sep 14, 12:46 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
> the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
> subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
With the baby boom in full swing, I suspect G/M was making a great
> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
> the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
> subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
deal of money selling cereal to all those kids, as well as flour for
mothers to bake with. They were big enough as is.
I wonder if this computer was a by-product of company internal
research. That is, I wonder if the computer was originally developed
to aid in production control of their manufacturing.
At Rohm & Haas chemical plant, they had a giant panel with lights,
dials, meters, etc to control their cooking kettles to make polymers.
What was interesting was that it was a large plant that made only an
intermediate product--they sold their output (raw forms of plastic) to
other manufacturers for final processing, for example, paint
additives.
.
John Levine
Sep 14, 2012, 6:08:24 PM9/14/12
to
>> The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
>> storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
>> wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>
>Means it was microprogrammed.
Are you sure? The blurb sure looked like it was decoding instructions
>> storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
>> wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>
>Means it was microprogrammed.
to slots, and I've never heard of a commercial microprogrammed computer
before S/360.
Peter Flass
Sep 14, 2012, 8:05:43 PM9/14/12
to
On 9/14/2012 11:40 AM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> bitsavers has a brochure describing their computer, apparently which G/
>> M was building to sell.
>>
>> It seems to be a well designed compact machine.
>>
>> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1961.pdf
>>
>> The company's website today is a splash of color of their numerous
>> consumer products and brands. I didn't see any mention of the
>> computer in their history.
>>
>> Today they could probably include the CPU horsepower of that 1961
>> machine as a toy insert in a cereal box.
>
> Amazing that they thought they could make money as a "me too" computer
> maker.
Everybody and his brother wanted to get into making computers in them
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>> bitsavers has a brochure describing their computer, apparently which G/
>> M was building to sell.
>>
>> It seems to be a well designed compact machine.
>>
>> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1961.pdf
>>
>> The company's website today is a splash of color of their numerous
>> consumer products and brands. I didn't see any mention of the
>> computer in their history.
>>
>> Today they could probably include the CPU horsepower of that 1961
>> machine as a toy insert in a cereal box.
>
> Amazing that they thought they could make money as a "me too" computer
> maker.
days. It may not have been so "me too" when they started the project,
but new stuff was constantly being introduced.
In any case it wasn't clear to people that just building a box wasn't
enough. You needed a sales force and, more importantly, the ability to
support your customers.
>
> The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
> storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
> wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Sep 14, 2012, 8:07:35 PM9/14/12
to
On 9/14/2012 12:39 PM, Jim Haynes wrote:
>
> These were made by the "Mechanical Divison" of General Mills, which is
> presumably the part of the company that designs and builds all the
> machinery for making their consumer products.
>
Look at Sea-Land Systems, a non-computer company who built a 3270
>
> These were made by the "Mechanical Divison" of General Mills, which is
> presumably the part of the company that designs and builds all the
> machinery for making their consumer products.
>
protocol converter for their own use and, I think, made a lot of money
selling it to others.
--
Pete
Jim Haynes
Sep 14, 2012, 11:54:29 PM9/14/12
to
On 2012-09-14, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>>
>>Means it was microprogrammed.
>
> Are you sure? The blurb sure looked like it was decoding instructions
> to slots, and I've never heard of a commercial microprogrammed computer
> before S/360.
Well you know the idea of microprogramming goes back to Maurice Wilkes.
>>
>>Means it was microprogrammed.
>
> Are you sure? The blurb sure looked like it was decoding instructions
> to slots, and I've never heard of a commercial microprogrammed computer
> before S/360.
Some early microprogrammed machines were the Packard-Bell 440 and the
Collins C-8400 and the AN/UYK-1. Unlike S/360 these had the microprograms
in writable memory, so the customer really could change the instruction
set.
The specific language in the book I cited is "Instructions are not
permanently deisgned into the machine, but are constructed from
microprogrammed "instructions" by means of placing appropriate diode
logic on a special circuit card called an "instruction card". Many
specialized orders can be constructed using this technique."
Jim Haynes
Sep 15, 2012, 12:04:12 AM9/15/12
to
> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
> the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
> subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
>
Could be, but could also be that General Mills decided a computer would
> the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
> subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
>
be a good thing to control processes in their factories, and that they
could build one in-house cheaper than buying one outside. Having built
one or two, they decided to feel out the market among other companies
with processes to control.
You notice they advertise the machine does not require air conditioning
and is capable of operating under extremes of temperature and humidity,
temperatures between 32F and 125F. And they stress the real-time nature
of the machine, and the possibility of attaching "analog devices" and
"control systems" and "displays". That sounds like factory-floor stuff.
Ben Pfaff
Sep 15, 2012, 12:40:15 AM9/15/12
to
John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> writes:
> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
...because they thought bit-cereal processors were the way to go?
> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
Quadibloc
Sep 15, 2012, 3:24:26 PM9/15/12
to
On Sep 14, 4:08 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >> The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
> >> storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
> >> wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>
> >Means it was microprogrammed.
>
> Are you sure? The blurb sure looked like it was decoding instructions
> to slots, and I've never heard of a commercial microprogrammed computer
> before S/360.
The Packard-Bell PB 440 was a discrete transistor machine that was
> >> The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
> >> storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
> >> wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>
> >Means it was microprogrammed.
>
> Are you sure? The blurb sure looked like it was decoding instructions
> to slots, and I've never heard of a commercial microprogrammed computer
> before S/360.
user microprogrammable. But indeed this one wasn't - the brochure
explained that the logic to control each instruction was placed on a
separate circuit board, so that one could give the computer new
instructions by plugging in new boards.
John Savard
Peter Flass
Sep 15, 2012, 7:01:20 PM9/15/12
to
--
Pete
Rod Speed
Sep 15, 2012, 8:40:02 PM9/15/12
to
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote
> Quadibloc wrote
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/packardBell/PB-440/SP-149A_PB-440_microprogramming_May63.pdf
> Quadibloc wrote
>> John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote
>> The Packard-Bell PB 440 was a discrete transistor machine that was
>> user microprogrammable. But indeed this one wasn't - the brochure
>> explained that the logic to control each instruction was placed on a
>> separate circuit board, so that one could give the computer new
>> instructions by plugging in new boards.
> Wow! Either lots of boards or darn few instructions.
Lots of instructions possible in fact.
>> The Packard-Bell PB 440 was a discrete transistor machine that was
>> user microprogrammable. But indeed this one wasn't - the brochure
>> explained that the logic to control each instruction was placed on a
>> separate circuit board, so that one could give the computer new
>> instructions by plugging in new boards.
> Wow! Either lots of boards or darn few instructions.
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/packardBell/PB-440/SP-149A_PB-440_microprogramming_May63.pdf
Walter Bushell
Sep 15, 2012, 8:48:35 PM9/15/12
to
In article <k330vs$v1f$2...@dont-email.me>,
Hey, you only need one instruction.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Walter Banks
Sep 15, 2012, 10:44:16 PM9/15/12
to
John Levine wrote:
> >> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1961.pdf
>
> Wow.
>
> >The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
> >storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
> >wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>
> Instruction set. It's a clever idea in a sort of horrible way, each
> instruction is decoded to a card slot, and the card in that slot
> executes the instruction. I wouldn't want to be the guy who did
> software maintenance, though.
>
> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
> the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
> subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
the computer for specific applications or small application areas.
Notes to operator: Load the following instruction cards in the
following order . . . .
One of the customers was NASA I can see lots of trig or a
polynomial instruction for example.
One note was precision - 36 bits (plus sign) Does
this imply a 37 bit word or 36 bit plus effectively a carry bit
or overflow bit?
w..
Shmuel Metz
Sep 15, 2012, 8:21:25 PM9/15/12
to
In <877grv7...@blp.benpfaff.org>, on 09/14/2012
Is memory what the Cheerios were for?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
at 09:40 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> said:
>John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> writes:
>> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
>....because they thought bit-cereal processors were the way to go?
>John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> writes:
>> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
Is memory what the Cheerios were for?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel Metz
Sep 15, 2012, 7:59:57 PM9/15/12
to
In <k309sn$1cau$1...@leila.iecc.com>, on 09/14/2012
certainly was.
at 10:08 PM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> said:
>Are you sure? The blurb sure looked like it was decoding
>instructions to slots, and I've never heard of a commercial
>microprogrammed computer before S/360.
You might argue that the RCA CDP wasn't commercial, but the RCA 601
>Are you sure? The blurb sure looked like it was decoding
>instructions to slots, and I've never heard of a commercial
>microprogrammed computer before S/360.
certainly was.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 15, 2012, 11:42:44 PM9/15/12
to
On Sep 14, 7:58 pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Everybody and his brother wanted to get into making computers in them
> days. It may not have been so "me too" when they started the project,
> but new stuff was constantly being introduced.
Yes, building a CPU was in fashion in industry in the late 1950s. I
> Everybody and his brother wanted to get into making computers in them
> days. It may not have been so "me too" when they started the project,
> but new stuff was constantly being introduced.
suspect a company as large as General Mills had an electronics group
for industrial processes, so going a step further and building a basic
CPU wasn't that hard. I suspect peripheral equipment was purchased
from another company.
The last page of the .pdf shows an announcement that NASA bought one
of the machines.
> In any case it wasn't clear to people that just building a box wasn't
> enough. You needed a sales force and, more importantly, the ability to
> support your customers.
about competition from established electronics firms like RCA. But
IBM had its established support force from its punched card equipment
business which it retrained to handle electronic computers. The basic
principles of information management stayed the same regardless if it
was a 407 or an electronic CPU at the end of the line doing the
processing. Indeed, IBM extensively utilized its punched card
machines for offline pre- and post- processing of computer work as
well as direct I/O devices. IBM provided software libraries,
including basic stuff like assemblers/compilers and I/O subroutines as
well as application programs. I suspect a purchaser of the General
Mills computer (and others of the time) had to "roll their own".
I also find it interesting how the machine's specs were prominently
described in terms of instruction timings, which was the style back
then. I guess it wasn't until the 1980s that 'throughput' performance
or 'wall clock' processing time was stated. As an executive, the
number of individual 'add' instructions is utterly meaningless--an
executive wants to know how long it will take to get out the payroll.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 15, 2012, 11:48:20 PM9/15/12
to
They should've held a contest for kids to design. This way they
could've gotten free labor to develop core planes ("submitted designs
become property of General Mills"), plus promote consumption among
girls.
Nick Spalding
Sep 16, 2012, 3:53:43 AM9/16/12
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote, in
<b0bab6a9-b36d-4ae2...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:42:44 -0700 (PDT):
> On Sep 14, 7:58�pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Everybody and his brother wanted to get into making computers in them
> > days. �It may not have been so "me too" when they started the project,
> > but new stuff was constantly being introduced.
>
> Yes, building a CPU was in fashion in industry in the late 1950s. I
> suspect a company as large as General Mills had an electronics group
> for industrial processes, so going a step further and building a basic
> CPU wasn't that hard. I suspect peripheral equipment was purchased
> from another company.
Lyons in the UK made quite a success of it in the commercial field with
Leo.
--
Nick Spalding
<b0bab6a9-b36d-4ae2...@h4g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
on Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:42:44 -0700 (PDT):
> On Sep 14, 7:58�pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Everybody and his brother wanted to get into making computers in them
> > days. �It may not have been so "me too" when they started the project,
> > but new stuff was constantly being introduced.
>
> Yes, building a CPU was in fashion in industry in the late 1950s. I
> suspect a company as large as General Mills had an electronics group
> for industrial processes, so going a step further and building a basic
> CPU wasn't that hard. I suspect peripheral equipment was purchased
> from another company.
Leo.
--
Nick Spalding
jmfbahciv
Sep 16, 2012, 10:08:22 AM9/16/12
to
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Sep 16, 2012, 10:08:27 AM9/16/12
to
Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> John Levine wrote:
>
>> >> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1
a run with the CPU paused.
/BAH
>
>
> John Levine wrote:
>
>> >> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/generalMills/GeneralMillsComputerBrochure_1
961.pdf
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> >The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
>> >storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
>> >wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>>
>> Instruction set. It's a clever idea in a sort of horrible way, each
>> instruction is decoded to a card slot, and the card in that slot
>> executes the instruction. I wouldn't want to be the guy who did
>> software maintenance, though.
>>
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> >The last page says "The Central Computer can be altered easily in
>> >storage capacity, operational registers, and even order structure." I
>> >wonder what they meant by "order structure" in that sentence.
>>
>> Instruction set. It's a clever idea in a sort of horrible way, each
>> instruction is decoded to a card slot, and the card in that slot
>> executes the instruction. I wouldn't want to be the guy who did
>> software maintenance, though.
>>
>> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
>> the era of conglomerates, companies with a whole bunch of unrelated
>> subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
>
> I think it would have allowed some interesting ways to configure
> the computer for specific applications or small application areas.
>
> Notes to operator: Load the following instruction cards in the
> following order . . . .
>
> One of the customers was NASA I can see lots of trig or a
> polynomial instruction for example.
>
> One note was precision - 36 bits (plus sign) Does
> this imply a 37 bit word or 36 bit plus effectively a carry bit
> or overflow bit?
>
It would indeed be powerful if the boards could be swapped during
>> subsidiaries, when ITT owned Wonder Bread.
>
> I think it would have allowed some interesting ways to configure
> the computer for specific applications or small application areas.
>
> Notes to operator: Load the following instruction cards in the
> following order . . . .
>
> One of the customers was NASA I can see lots of trig or a
> polynomial instruction for example.
>
> One note was precision - 36 bits (plus sign) Does
> this imply a 37 bit word or 36 bit plus effectively a carry bit
> or overflow bit?
>
a run with the CPU paused.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Sep 16, 2012, 10:08:32 AM9/16/12
to
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <877grv7...@blp.benpfaff.org>, on 09/14/2012
> at 09:40 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> said:
>
>>John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> writes:
>
> In <877grv7...@blp.benpfaff.org>, on 09/14/2012
> at 09:40 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> said:
>
>>John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> writes:
>
>>> As far as why General Mills would be in the computer business, it was
>>....because they thought bit-cereal processors were the way to go?
>
> Is memory what the Cheerios were for?
>
That memory would have too many bugs.
>
> Is memory what the Cheerios were for?
>
/BAH
Michael Black
Sep 16, 2012, 10:59:21 AM9/16/12
to
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:58 pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Everybody and his brother wanted to get into making computers in them
>> days. It may not have been so "me too" when they started the project,
>> but new stuff was constantly being introduced.
>
> Yes, building a CPU was in fashion in industry in the late 1950s. I
> suspect a company as large as General Mills had an electronics group
> for industrial processes, so going a step further and building a basic
> CPU wasn't that hard. I suspect peripheral equipment was purchased
> from another company.
>
> The last page of the .pdf shows an announcement that NASA bought one
> of the machines.
>
So they could make their own Tang?
> On Sep 14, 7:58 pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Everybody and his brother wanted to get into making computers in them
>> days. It may not have been so "me too" when they started the project,
>> but new stuff was constantly being introduced.
>
> Yes, building a CPU was in fashion in industry in the late 1950s. I
> suspect a company as large as General Mills had an electronics group
> for industrial processes, so going a step further and building a basic
> CPU wasn't that hard. I suspect peripheral equipment was purchased
> from another company.
>
> The last page of the .pdf shows an announcement that NASA bought one
> of the machines.
>
Michael
Freddy1X
Sep 16, 2012, 2:20:39 PM9/16/12
to
the memory and could not move around ).
Freddy,
seeing all zeroes and no ones.
--
Subject to credit and property approval.
/|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\|
/| I may be demented \|
/| but I'm not crazy! \|
/|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\|
* SPAyM trap: there is no X in my address *
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 16, 2012, 4:07:53 PM9/16/12
to
On Sep 16, 10:08 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Is memory what the Cheerios were for?
> That memory would have too many bugs.
Actually, a friend worked in a Cheerios factory. He said they were
> > Is memory what the Cheerios were for?
> That memory would have too many bugs.
scrupulously clean. Any spills were immediately picked up, as well as
regular thorough washings of everyhting.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Sep 16, 2012, 6:05:07 PM9/16/12
to
In article <pu0b58lcctgo6pro4...@4ax.com>, spal...@iol.ie
choice apart from building your own. The computers being built were
intended for scientific work not handling stock control and pay roles.
And off course once you are building computers for internal use it makes
sense to try to sell some of them to pay for development costs. It
helped that Lyons had little competition for it's main business that was
big enough to benefit so computer sales were to no competing companies.
Ken Young
(Nick Spalding) wrote:
> Lyons in the UK made quite a success of it in the commercial field
> with Leo.
When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer there was no
> Lyons in the UK made quite a success of it in the commercial field
> with Leo.
choice apart from building your own. The computers being built were
intended for scientific work not handling stock control and pay roles.
And off course once you are building computers for internal use it makes
sense to try to sell some of them to pay for development costs. It
helped that Lyons had little competition for it's main business that was
big enough to benefit so computer sales were to no competing companies.
Ken Young
Michael Black
Sep 16, 2012, 6:15:41 PM9/16/12
to
of the factory?
I'm not even sure they will work, the toroid shape of the Cheerios
provides self-shielding, but it provides no "magnification" of the
inductance, requiring at the least more turns. It's the ferrite or iron
material in the core that boosts inductance.
Then, for another cereal joke, the daughter of a friend once came up with
"Mice Krispies", which I guess could mean little computer mice shaped
kernels of rice.
Michael
Rod Speed
Sep 16, 2012, 8:10:16 PM9/16/12
to
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
> The computers being built were intended for scientific
> work not handling stock control and pay roles.
But they could be used for stock control and
pay roles and plenty were used for that.
> spal...@iol.ie (Nick Spalding) wrote
>> Lyons in the UK made quite a success of it in the commercial field with
>> Leo.
> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
> there was no choice apart from building your own.
That�s not correct.
>> Lyons in the UK made quite a success of it in the commercial field with
>> Leo.
> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
> there was no choice apart from building your own.
> The computers being built were intended for scientific
> work not handling stock control and pay roles.
pay roles and plenty were used for that.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 16, 2012, 10:12:58 PM9/16/12
to
On Sep 16, 6:15 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> I'm not even sure they will work, the toroid shape of the Cheerios
> provides self-shielding, but it provides no "magnification" of the
> inductance, requiring at the least more turns. It's the ferrite or iron
> material in the core that boosts inductance.
According to the box, a 28g (1 cup) serving contains 45% of the iron
> I'm not even sure they will work, the toroid shape of the Cheerios
> provides self-shielding, but it provides no "magnification" of the
> inductance, requiring at the least more turns. It's the ferrite or iron
> material in the core that boosts inductance.
daily value.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Sep 17, 2012, 4:56:56 AM9/17/12
to
In article <abn843...@mid.individual.net>, rod.sp...@gmail.com
Ken Young
(Rod Speed) wrote:
> But they could be used for stock control and
> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for business.
> But they could be used for stock control and
> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
Ken Young
Peter Flass
Sep 17, 2012, 7:46:09 AM9/17/12
to
Apparently it preceded the IBM 701 by a year, and appeared the same year
as the UNIVAC I (1951).
--
Pete
grey...@mail.com
Sep 17, 2012, 7:55:56 AM9/17/12
to
interests from baking to Films, joined up with Xerox.
--
maus
.
.
...
Stan Barr
Sep 17, 2012, 9:14:51 AM9/17/12
to
a computer was seen as part of that.
When Lyons sold a LEO they sold a complete package with application
software, support and training.
The first firm selling "Complete Computer Solutions" :-)
Leo's first job was collating bread orders for overnight baking and delivery
to the cafes.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com
The future was never like this!
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2012, 11:07:42 AM9/17/12
to
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
> rod.sp...@gmail.com (Rod Speed) wrote
> rod.sp...@gmail.com (Rod Speed) wrote
>> <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
>>> spal...@iol.ie (Nick Spalding) wrote
>>>> Lyons in the UK made quite a success
>>>> of it in the commercial field with Leo.
>>> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
>>> there was no choice apart from building your own.
>> That�s not correct.
>>> The computers being built were intended for scientific
>>> work not handling stock control and pay roles.
>>> spal...@iol.ie (Nick Spalding) wrote
>>>> Lyons in the UK made quite a success
>>>> of it in the commercial field with Leo.
>>> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
>>> there was no choice apart from building your own.
>> That�s not correct.
>>> The computers being built were intended for scientific
>>> work not handling stock control and pay roles.
>> But they could be used for stock control and
>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for business.
It isnt just british computers that matter on that.
>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for business.
Rod Speed
Sep 17, 2012, 11:13:27 AM9/17/12
to
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> The computers being built were intended for scientific
>>>> work not handling stock control and pay roles.
and there is a reason the first word that is part of its name was UNIVERSAL.
>>> <ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
>>>> spal...@iol.ie (Nick Spalding) wrote
>>>>> Lyons in the UK made quite a success
>>>>> of it in the commercial field with Leo.
>>>> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
>>>> there was no choice apart from building your own.
>>> That's not correct.
>>>> spal...@iol.ie (Nick Spalding) wrote
>>>>> Lyons in the UK made quite a success
>>>>> of it in the commercial field with Leo.
>>>> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
>>>> there was no choice apart from building your own.
>>>> The computers being built were intended for scientific
>>>> work not handling stock control and pay roles.
>>> But they could be used for stock control and
>>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
>> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for business.
> I had to look up the LEO, I didn't know anything but the name. Apparently
> it preceded the IBM 701 by a year, and appeared the same year as the
> UNIVAC I (1951).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_I
>>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
>> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for business.
> I had to look up the LEO, I didn't know anything but the name. Apparently
> it preceded the IBM 701 by a year, and appeared the same year as the
> UNIVAC I (1951).
and there is a reason the first word that is part of its name was UNIVERSAL.
Stan Barr
Sep 17, 2012, 11:18:13 AM9/17/12
to
jmfbahciv
Sep 18, 2012, 10:02:33 AM9/18/12
to
Stan Barr wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:46:09 -0400, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> On 9/17/2012 4:56 AM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> In article <abn843...@mid.individual.net>, rod.sp...@gmail.com
>>> (Rod Speed) wrote:
>>>
>>>> But they could be used for stock control and
>>>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
>>>
>>> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for business.
>>>
>>
>> I had to look up the LEO, I didn't know anything but the name.
>> Apparently it preceded the IBM 701 by a year, and appeared the same year
>> as the UNIVAC I (1951).
>>
>>
>
> Ran test programs Sept 1951 and took over bakery orders full-time in
November.
>
Two months to get all the kinks out....I wonder what their procedures
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:46:09 -0400, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> On 9/17/2012 4:56 AM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> In article <abn843...@mid.individual.net>, rod.sp...@gmail.com
>>> (Rod Speed) wrote:
>>>
>>>> But they could be used for stock control and
>>>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
>>>
>>> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for business.
>>>
>>
>> I had to look up the LEO, I didn't know anything but the name.
>> Apparently it preceded the IBM 701 by a year, and appeared the same year
>> as the UNIVAC I (1951).
>>
>>
>
> Ran test programs Sept 1951 and took over bakery orders full-time in
November.
>
to field test and ship were.
/BAH
Stan Barr
Sep 18, 2012, 1:08:45 PM9/18/12
to
There's loads of LEO info online, though - start here:
http://kzwp.com/lyons/leo.htm
http://www.leo-computers.org.uk/
Peter Flass
Sep 18, 2012, 1:17:32 PM9/18/12
to
--
Pete
Bill Marcum
Sep 18, 2012, 3:13:25 PM9/18/12
to
On 09/15/2012 08:40 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>> Quadibloc wrote
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/packardBell/PB-440/SP-149A_PB-440_microprogramming_May63.pdf
>
That's the Packard Bell. The General Mills computer, in the subject of
this thread, apparently had a board for each of its 64 instructions,
according to the brochure.
> Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>> Quadibloc wrote
>>> John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote
>
>>> The Packard-Bell PB 440 was a discrete transistor machine that was
>>> user microprogrammable. But indeed this one wasn't - the brochure
>>> explained that the logic to control each instruction was placed on a
>>> separate circuit board, so that one could give the computer new
>>> instructions by plugging in new boards.
>
>> Wow! Either lots of boards or darn few instructions.
>
> Lots of instructions possible in fact.
>
>>> The Packard-Bell PB 440 was a discrete transistor machine that was
>>> user microprogrammable. But indeed this one wasn't - the brochure
>>> explained that the logic to control each instruction was placed on a
>>> separate circuit board, so that one could give the computer new
>>> instructions by plugging in new boards.
>
>> Wow! Either lots of boards or darn few instructions.
>
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/packardBell/PB-440/SP-149A_PB-440_microprogramming_May63.pdf
>
That's the Packard Bell. The General Mills computer, in the subject of
this thread, apparently had a board for each of its 64 instructions,
according to the brochure.
Shmuel Metz
Sep 18, 2012, 7:52:26 PM9/18/12
to
In <DbydnWkZF9aO0MvN...@giganews.com>, on 09/16/2012
>The computers being built were intended for scientific work not
>handling stock control and pay roles.
In the 1940's, but not in the 1950's.
at 05:05 PM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk said:
>When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer there was no
>choice apart from building your own.
UNIVAC.
>When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer there was no
>choice apart from building your own.
>The computers being built were intended for scientific work not
>handling stock control and pay roles.
Shmuel Metz
Sep 18, 2012, 8:25:26 PM9/18/12
to
In <Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net>, on
09/16/2012
change when you add milk to the memory?
09/16/2012
at 06:15 PM, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:
>I'm not even sure they will work, the toroid shape of the Cheerios
>provides self-shielding, but it provides no "magnification" of the
>inductance, requiring at the least more turns. It's the ferrite
>or iron material in the core that boosts inductance.
I'm more concerned with the shape of the hysteresis loop. Does it
>I'm not even sure they will work, the toroid shape of the Cheerios
>provides self-shielding, but it provides no "magnification" of the
>inductance, requiring at the least more turns. It's the ferrite
>or iron material in the core that boosts inductance.
change when you add milk to the memory?
Rod Speed
Sep 18, 2012, 9:02:14 PM9/18/12
to
Bill Marcum <bi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote
Yeah, my brain fart there.
The story about a separate board for each instruction
doesn't surprise me, its one obvious way to do a design
that early and that would make it very easy to massage
the design to handle well whatever it turned out would
be a useful approach instruction wise.
The story about a separate board for each instruction
doesn't surprise me, its one obvious way to do a design
that early and that would make it very easy to massage
the design to handle well whatever it turned out would
be a useful approach instruction wise.
Stan Barr
Sep 19, 2012, 3:36:45 AM9/19/12
to
occasionally failed. Usually at Xmas or a public holiady apparently :-)
Still it was early days. Later LEO1 ran large payrolls for the likes
of Ford and Kodak - payrolls are important so reliablility must have
been OK.
About 70 LEOs af all type were sold eventually, I believe.
jmfbahciv
Sep 19, 2012, 8:36:39 AM9/19/12
to
Stan Barr wrote:
> On 18 Sep 2012 14:02:33 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>> Stan Barr wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:46:09 -0400, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2012 4:56 AM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> In article <abn843...@mid.individual.net>, rod.sp...@gmail.com
>>>>> (Rod Speed) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But they could be used for stock control and
>>>>>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for
business.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had to look up the LEO, I didn't know anything but the name.
>>>> Apparently it preceded the IBM 701 by a year, and appeared the same year
>>>> as the UNIVAC I (1951).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ran test programs Sept 1951 and took over bakery orders full-time in
>> November.
>>>
>> Two months to get all the kinks out....I wonder what their procedures
>> to field test and ship were.
>
> Dunno, I've not read anything on that aspect of the operation.
It's something that is never talked about. Learning about the daily
> On 18 Sep 2012 14:02:33 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>> Stan Barr wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 07:46:09 -0400, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2012 4:56 AM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> In article <abn843...@mid.individual.net>, rod.sp...@gmail.com
>>>>> (Rod Speed) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But they could be used for stock control and
>>>>>> pay roles and plenty were used for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name UK computers that were contemporary with Leo and used for
business.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had to look up the LEO, I didn't know anything but the name.
>>>> Apparently it preceded the IBM 701 by a year, and appeared the same year
>>>> as the UNIVAC I (1951).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ran test programs Sept 1951 and took over bakery orders full-time in
>> November.
>>>
>> Two months to get all the kinks out....I wonder what their procedures
>> to field test and ship were.
>
> Dunno, I've not read anything on that aspect of the operation.
details of a development group tells a lot about the product.
>
> There's loads of LEO info online, though - start here:
> http://kzwp.com/lyons/leo.htm
> http://www.leo-computers.org.uk/
>
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Sep 19, 2012, 8:36:40 AM9/19/12
to
invoke a rule: "three crashes, drop back" because the TOPS-10
development system was also Marlboro's production timesharing system.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Sep 19, 2012, 8:36:42 AM9/19/12
to
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.64.12...@darkstar.example.net>, on
> 09/16/2012
> at 06:15 PM, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:
>
>>I'm not even sure they will work, the toroid shape of the Cheerios
>>provides self-shielding, but it provides no "magnification" of the
>>inductance, requiring at the least more turns. It's the ferrite
>>or iron material in the core that boosts inductance.
>
> I'm more concerned with the shape of the hysteresis loop. Does it
> change when you add milk to the memory?
>
What happens when you add fruit--fruit loops?
> 09/16/2012
> at 06:15 PM, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> said:
>
>>I'm not even sure they will work, the toroid shape of the Cheerios
>>provides self-shielding, but it provides no "magnification" of the
>>inductance, requiring at the least more turns. It's the ferrite
>>or iron material in the core that boosts inductance.
>
> I'm more concerned with the shape of the hysteresis loop. Does it
> change when you add milk to the memory?
>
/BAH
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 19, 2012, 2:45:51 PM9/19/12
to
On Sep 18, 8:17 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
days. In any event, it took some effort to get the earliest Univacs
out the door and working at a customer site.
I believe GE bought one for its appliance unit in Louisville. I
wonder what applications they sought to use it for and how it worked
out in actual production service.
> >The computers being built were intended for scientific work not
> >handling stock control and pay roles.
>
> In the 1940's, but not in the 1950's.
There was very little available in the early 1950s and what there was
was extremely expensive; only a handful. It was still basically just
too expensive for the work accomplished.
Most business applications were run on tab machines in those days.
Indeed, IBM had its hands full just filling tab machine orders--their
new 1948 product line was very popular, and plenty of older machines
(like the 405) remained in service.
The very biggest organizations, like national insurance companies or
magazines, were running out of physical room to handle their punched
card records and sought for something more compact and faster to
handle their very high volume runs. Magnetic tape was getting
publicity and seen as a savior to card storage, but in the early 1950s
the tape medium itself and tape readers still needed considerable
development to be reliable enough for business use.
Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
effect it was spooled). I suppose a very large organization either
split its work into multiple data centers, or the data center simply
had multiple printers.
I wondered how a large employer, say a railroad with 200,000
employees, handled the payroll for all those people. Ironically, if
done manualluy by clerks there was some repetition in that many of the
workers were plain laborers at the same set of time, so a single
payroll calculation could be spread over a large group. Of course,
many other workers had very diverse payroll types.
<spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> >When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer there was no
> >choice apart from building your own.
>
> UNIVAC.
I don't know if the Univac was available for export in its earliest
> >When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer there was no
> >choice apart from building your own.
>
> UNIVAC.
days. In any event, it took some effort to get the earliest Univacs
out the door and working at a customer site.
I believe GE bought one for its appliance unit in Louisville. I
wonder what applications they sought to use it for and how it worked
out in actual production service.
> >The computers being built were intended for scientific work not
> >handling stock control and pay roles.
>
> In the 1940's, but not in the 1950's.
was extremely expensive; only a handful. It was still basically just
too expensive for the work accomplished.
Most business applications were run on tab machines in those days.
Indeed, IBM had its hands full just filling tab machine orders--their
new 1948 product line was very popular, and plenty of older machines
(like the 405) remained in service.
The very biggest organizations, like national insurance companies or
magazines, were running out of physical room to handle their punched
card records and sought for something more compact and faster to
handle their very high volume runs. Magnetic tape was getting
publicity and seen as a savior to card storage, but in the early 1950s
the tape medium itself and tape readers still needed considerable
development to be reliable enough for business use.
Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
effect it was spooled). I suppose a very large organization either
split its work into multiple data centers, or the data center simply
had multiple printers.
I wondered how a large employer, say a railroad with 200,000
employees, handled the payroll for all those people. Ironically, if
done manualluy by clerks there was some repetition in that many of the
workers were plain laborers at the same set of time, so a single
payroll calculation could be spread over a large group. Of course,
many other workers had very diverse payroll types.
Stan Barr
Sep 20, 2012, 4:42:39 AM9/20/12
to
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:45:51 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:17 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
><spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer there was no
>> >choice apart from building your own.
>>
>> UNIVAC.
>
> I don't know if the Univac was available for export in its earliest
> days. In any event, it took some effort to get the earliest Univacs
> out the door and working at a customer site.
>
As far as the UK was concerned the country was still *very* broke and
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:17 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
><spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer there was no
>> >choice apart from building your own.
>>
>> UNIVAC.
>
> I don't know if the Univac was available for export in its earliest
> days. In any event, it took some effort to get the earliest Univacs
> out the door and working at a customer site.
>
you would be unlikely to be allowed to import something that expensive
from the US.
Also LEO would sell customers a complete package, developing the
customer's software and doing training etc. I don't think Univac did
that. Remember you coudn't just go out and hire programmers that
easily in the 1950s.
Rod Speed
Sep 20, 2012, 5:28:26 AM9/20/12
to
Stan Barr <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote
> Also LEO would sell customers a complete package, developing the
> customer's software and doing training etc. I don't think Univac did
> that. Remember you coudn't just go out and hire programmers that
> easily in the 1950s.
The US computer industry did fine anyway.
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz<spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
>>>> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
>>>> there was no choice apart from building your own.
>>> UNIVAC.
>> I don't know if the Univac was available for export in its earliest
>> days. In any event, it took some effort to get the earliest Univacs
>> out the door and working at a customer site.
> As far as the UK was concerned the country was still *very* broke and
> you would be unlikely to be allowed to import something that expensive
> from the US.
There were never explicit 'allowed' controls on something like that then.
>>>> When Lyons made Leo if you wanted a business computer
>>>> there was no choice apart from building your own.
>>> UNIVAC.
>> I don't know if the Univac was available for export in its earliest
>> days. In any event, it took some effort to get the earliest Univacs
>> out the door and working at a customer site.
> As far as the UK was concerned the country was still *very* broke and
> you would be unlikely to be allowed to import something that expensive
> from the US.
> Also LEO would sell customers a complete package, developing the
> customer's software and doing training etc. I don't think Univac did
> that. Remember you coudn't just go out and hire programmers that
> easily in the 1950s.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Sep 20, 2012, 6:23:25 AM9/20/12
to
In article <5059093a$4$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid (Metz) wrote:
> UNIVAC.
Both computers were completed in the same year 1951. When Leo was
designed there was no business computer available. Leo was operational
in 1952 and used to run Lyon's business, which company and when was the
first to use Univac?
Ken Young
spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid (Metz) wrote:
> UNIVAC.
Both computers were completed in the same year 1951. When Leo was
designed there was no business computer available. Leo was operational
in 1952 and used to run Lyon's business, which company and when was the
first to use Univac?
Ken Young
Walter Bushell
Sep 20, 2012, 9:33:24 AM9/20/12
to
In article <slrnk5linm...@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>,
Some of that was organizational culture. Most business would not know
what to do with programmers. Even if they spent their time at you
facilities, better that they should be someone else's employees.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
what to do with programmers. Even if they spent their time at you
facilities, better that they should be someone else's employees.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
jmfbahciv
Sep 20, 2012, 9:47:37 AM9/20/12
to
where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
when the banks failed.
/BAH
Walter Bushell
Sep 20, 2012, 10:07:41 AM9/20/12
to
In article <PM0004CA2...@ac81d8c1.ipt.aol.com>,
country fails.
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
> when the banks failed.
>
> /BAH
Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail. Probable result, the
> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
> when the banks failed.
>
> /BAH
country fails.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 20, 2012, 10:17:44 AM9/20/12
to
On Sep 20, 9:48 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I wondered how a large employer, say a railroad with 200,000
> > employees, handled the payroll for all those people. Ironically, if
> > done manualluy by clerks there was some repetition in that many of the
> > workers were plain laborers at the same set of time, so a single
> > payroll calculation could be spread over a large group. Of course,
> > many other workers had very diverse payroll types.
>
> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
> when the banks failed.
None the less, calculations were still required for creating the gross
> > I wondered how a large employer, say a railroad with 200,000
> > employees, handled the payroll for all those people. Ironically, if
> > done manualluy by clerks there was some repetition in that many of the
> > workers were plain laborers at the same set of time, so a single
> > payroll calculation could be spread over a large group. Of course,
> > many other workers had very diverse payroll types.
>
> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
> when the banks failed.
pay and deducting social security, and perhaps local taxes. Many
workers were on "piecework", so their pay had to be calculated based
on units made. Social Security deductions had to be tracked and
submitted with a register to the government.
At a museum, the exhibted paystubs for a steel mill (5,000 people)
appeared (by the typeface) to have been calculated by a bookkeeping
machine. I suspect most payrolls and accounting in the early 1950s
were processed that way, the largest companies had IBM tabulating
machines.
I suspect the early electro-mechanical models of the IBM 'multiplier'
were a real work horse for industry. The experimental electronic 603
was snapped up, and the production 604 was extremely popular. To my
surprise, even the last models that were transistorized sold hundreds
of units in the late 1950s/early 1960s. On bitsavers there's a census
document with counts of machines in service in 1962.
Shmuel Metz
Sep 20, 2012, 10:37:01 AM9/20/12
to
In <t-ydneFfBewAc8fN...@giganews.com>, on 09/20/2012
at 05:23 AM, ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk said:
>Both computers were completed in the same year 1951. When Leo was
>designed there was no business computer available. Leo was
>operational in 1952 and used to run Lyon's business, which company
>and when was the first to use Univac?
Census?
>Both computers were completed in the same year 1951. When Leo was
>designed there was no business computer available. Leo was
>operational in 1952 and used to run Lyon's business, which company
>and when was the first to use Univac?
Shmuel Metz
Sep 20, 2012, 10:40:25 AM9/20/12
to
In <PM0004CA2...@ac81d8c1.ipt.aol.com>, on 09/20/2012
at 01:47 PM, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> said:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
>> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
>> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
>> minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
>> effect it was spooled).
Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
*online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
at 01:47 PM, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> said:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
>> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
>> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
>> minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
>> effect it was spooled).
*online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
Tom Sherren
Sep 20, 2012, 11:01:35 AM9/20/12
to
Univac I was delivered to the US Census Bureaa on March 31, 1951.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 20, 2012, 1:20:17 PM9/20/12
to
On Sep 20, 10:36 am, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
generic term.
For the 1950s computers, like the 705, IBM made something called a
"Data Synchronizer". This allowed unit record devices to connect to
tape drives independent of the CPU to send or receive output. It did
require a computer room to have a number of tape drives.
<spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> >> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
> >> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
> >> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
> >> minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
> >> effect it was spooled).
>
> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
> >> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
> >> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
> >> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
> >> minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
> >> effect it was spooled).
>
> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
generic term.
For the 1950s computers, like the 705, IBM made something called a
"Data Synchronizer". This allowed unit record devices to connect to
tape drives independent of the CPU to send or receive output. It did
require a computer room to have a number of tape drives.
Alfred Falk
Sep 20, 2012, 2:21:02 PM9/20/12
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in
news:6d3952ab-5feb-486f...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 20, 10:36�am, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
><spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business
>> >> dealt with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer
>> >> shops depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150
>> >> lines per minute. �(The 407 could work offline directly from a
>> >> tape drive, so
> it
>> >> effect it was spooled).
>>
>> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
>> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
>
> Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
> generic term.
Simultaneous Peripheral Operation On Line.
news:6d3952ab-5feb-486f...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 20, 10:36�am, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
><spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business
>> >> dealt with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer
>> >> shops depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150
>> >> lines per minute. �(The 407 could work offline directly from a
>> >> tape drive, so
> it
>> >> effect it was spooled).
>>
>> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
>> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
>
> Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
> generic term.
Scott Lurndal
Sep 20, 2012, 2:22:58 PM9/20/12
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>On Sep 20, 10:36=A0am, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
scott
>On Sep 20, 10:36=A0am, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
><spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
>> >> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
>> >> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
>> >> minute. =A0(The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so =
>
>> >> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
>> >> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
>> >> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
>it
>> >> effect it was spooled).
>>
>> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
>> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
>
>Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
>generic term.
Simultaneous Peripheral Output On-Line is what I remember.
>> >> effect it was spooled).
>>
>> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
>> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
>
>Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
>generic term.
scott
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Sep 20, 2012, 2:26:05 PM9/20/12
to
On Sep 20, 2:21 pm, Alfred Falk <f...@arc.REMOVE.ab.ca> wrote:
> > Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
> > generic term.
>
> Simultaneous Peripheral Operation On Line.-
> > Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
> > generic term.
>
Interesting. Thanks.
Rod Speed
Sep 20, 2012, 3:27:55 PM9/20/12
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
> Probable result, the country fails.
Modern first world countrys NEVER fail.
Its only the likes of Zimbabwe that get even close to that.
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed
>> out where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit;
>> I'd bet most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>> when the banks failed.
>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed
>> out where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit;
>> I'd bet most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>> when the banks failed.
> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail.
That�s just plain wrong. Hordes of banks have failed since 2008.
> Probable result, the country fails.
Its only the likes of Zimbabwe that get even close to that.
Message has been deleted
Shmuel Metz
Sep 20, 2012, 5:40:05 PM9/20/12
to
In <6aJ6s.144453$qL.9...@fed01.iad>, on 09/20/2012
at 06:22 PM, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) said:
>Simultaneous Peripheral Output On-Line is what I remember.
c 'Output' 'Operation'
>Simultaneous Peripheral Output On-Line is what I remember.
Message has been deleted
Peter Flass
Sep 20, 2012, 6:40:57 PM9/20/12
to
the FDIC is not to prop up banks, but to reimburse the depositors when
the bank goes under. Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost sight
of this. The system worked well until the most recent crisis, with the
glaring problem that the failed banks were sold off to supposedly
solvent larger banks, with the result that the big banks got bigger.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Sep 20, 2012, 6:43:05 PM9/20/12
to
On 9/20/2012 10:17 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sep 20, 9:48 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wondered how a large employer, say a railroad with 200,000
>>> employees, handled the payroll for all those people. Ironically, if
>>> done manualluy by clerks there was some repetition in that many of the
>>> workers were plain laborers at the same set of time, so a single
>>> payroll calculation could be spread over a large group. Of course,
>>> many other workers had very diverse payroll types.
>>
>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>> when the banks failed.
>
> None the less, calculations were still required for creating the gross
> pay and deducting social security, and perhaps local taxes. Many
> workers were on "piecework", so their pay had to be calculated based
> on units made. Social Security deductions had to be tracked and
> submitted with a register to the government.
>
> At a museum, the exhibted paystubs for a steel mill (5,000 people)
> appeared (by the typeface) to have been calculated by a bookkeeping
> machine. I suspect most payrolls and accounting in the early 1950s
> were processed that way, the largest companies had IBM tabulating
> machines.
I don't know about earlier days, but in my experience two weeks pay, or
> On Sep 20, 9:48 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wondered how a large employer, say a railroad with 200,000
>>> employees, handled the payroll for all those people. Ironically, if
>>> done manualluy by clerks there was some repetition in that many of the
>>> workers were plain laborers at the same set of time, so a single
>>> payroll calculation could be spread over a large group. Of course,
>>> many other workers had very diverse payroll types.
>>
>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>> when the banks failed.
>
> None the less, calculations were still required for creating the gross
> pay and deducting social security, and perhaps local taxes. Many
> workers were on "piecework", so their pay had to be calculated based
> on units made. Social Security deductions had to be tracked and
> submitted with a register to the government.
>
> At a museum, the exhibted paystubs for a steel mill (5,000 people)
> appeared (by the typeface) to have been calculated by a bookkeeping
> machine. I suspect most payrolls and accounting in the early 1950s
> were processed that way, the largest companies had IBM tabulating
> machines.
more, were held back. It probably took the full two weeks to do the
payroll using manual methods.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Sep 20, 2012, 6:47:56 PM9/20/12
to
On 9/20/2012 1:20 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sep 20, 10:36 am, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
>>>> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
>>>> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
>>>> minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
>>>> effect it was spooled).
>>
>> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
>> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
>
> Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
> generic term.
The definition is "simultaneous peripheral operations online," but I
> On Sep 20, 10:36 am, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> Also, until the 1401 came out in 1960, I don't know how business dealt
>>>> with the printing bottleneck--both tab shops and computer shops
>>>> depended on the IBM 407 tabulating as their printer, at 150 lines per
>>>> minute. (The 407 could work offline directly from a tape drive, so it
>>>> effect it was spooled).
>>
>> Actually, offline printing is the opposite of SPOOL, which is
>> *online*. Also, SPOOL software was available befor the 1401.
>
> Is SPOOL an acronym for something? I was thinking of spooling as a
> generic term.
suspect that is a "backronym." I get a vision of "spooling" a batch of
cards to a reel of tape for processing.
--
Pete
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 20, 2012, 7:24:15 PM9/20/12
to
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
> The banks should be allowed to fail - they used to be. The purpose of
> the FDIC is not to prop up banks, but to reimburse the depositors when
> the bank goes under. Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost
> sight of this. The system worked well until the most recent crisis,
> with the glaring problem that the failed banks were sold off to
> supposedly solvent larger banks, with the result that the big banks
> got bigger.
the gov ... like the joke from last decade about treasury being
goldman-sachs branch office in washington) that kept them going.
recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of ongoing
violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail including money
laundering for the drug cartels. when the money laundering for the drug
cartels showed up summer of 2010 ... "too-big-to-jail" was also coined
... referencing since they weren't going to throw the executives in jail
... gov. begging them to promise to stop money laundering.
lots of recent stuff about gov. not trying to correct the situation
... but encouraging it to get worse with too-big-to-fail grown even
larger. recent news item that five largest too-big-to-fail now have
aggregate assets equivalent to 60% of GDP.
this has the "Wall Street Rule":
Mirable Dictu! Has Someone Noticed the IRS isn't Enforcing Tax
Laws in the Mortgage-Industrial Complex?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/mirable-dictu-has-someone-noticed-the-irs-isnt-enforcing-tax-laws-in-the-mortgage-industrial-complex.html
references:
Wall Street Rules Applied to REMIC Classification
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/Insight/2012/09_-_September/Wall_Street_Rules_Applied_to_REMIC_Classification/
from above:
They take aggressive positions, and they figure that if enough of them
take an aggressive position, and there's billions of dollars at stake,
then the IRS is kind of estopped from arguing with them because so much
would blow up. And that is called the Wall Street Rule. That is
literally the nickname for it."
... snip ...
there have been other references that the five year statute of
limitations has run out on much of the activity from last decade ...
but the above references that if there was fraud ... then the statute of
limitations doesn't apply.
past posts mentioning too-big-to-jail:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#24 Little-Noted, Prepaid Rules Would Cover Non-Banks As Wells As Banks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010q.html#58 Programmer Charged with thieft (maybe off topic)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#50 What do you think about fraud prevention in the governments?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011f.html#52 Are Americans serious about dealing with money laundering and the drug cartels?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#49 The men who crashed the world
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#16 Wonder if they know how Boydian they are?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#35 The Dallas Fed Is Calling For The Immediate Breakup Of Large Banks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#37 The $30 billion Social Security hack
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#88 Defense acquisitions are broken and no one cares
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#9 JPM LOSES $2 BILLION USD!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#20 Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#14 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#25 This Is The Wall Street Scandal Of All Scandals
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#37 If all of the American earned dollars hidden in off shore accounts were uncovered and taxed do you think we would be able to close the deficit gap?
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Andrew Swallow
Sep 20, 2012, 8:15:23 PM9/20/12
to
On 21/09/2012 00:24, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
{snip}
> the bigger banks had failed ... it was the gov. (or at least parts of
> the gov ... like the joke from last decade about treasury being
> goldman-sachs branch office in washington) that kept them going.
>
> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of ongoing
> violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail including money
> laundering for the drug cartels. when the money laundering for the drug
> cartels showed up summer of 2010 ... "too-big-to-jail" was also coined
> ... referencing since they weren't going to throw the executives in jail
> ... gov. begging them to promise to stop money laundering.
Sending bankers to jail would be popular in Britain and I suspect in the
USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
Andrew Swallow
>
{snip}
> the bigger banks had failed ... it was the gov. (or at least parts of
> the gov ... like the joke from last decade about treasury being
> goldman-sachs branch office in washington) that kept them going.
>
> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of ongoing
> violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail including money
> laundering for the drug cartels. when the money laundering for the drug
> cartels showed up summer of 2010 ... "too-big-to-jail" was also coined
> ... referencing since they weren't going to throw the executives in jail
> ... gov. begging them to promise to stop money laundering.
USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
Andrew Swallow
Rod Speed
Sep 20, 2012, 8:18:25 PM9/20/12
to
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote
> Walter Bushell wrote
larger ones do that, we got the great depression.
> - they used to be.
They still are as long as they can't bring the entire economy down.
> The purpose of the FDIC is not to prop up banks, but
> to reimburse the depositors when the bank goes under.
The real purpose was to avoid runs on banks, because
the depositors knew that they would get their money
even if the bank did fail.
> Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost sight of this.
Nope.
> The system worked well until the most recent crisis, with the
> glaring problem that the failed banks were sold off to supposedly
> solvent larger banks, with the result that the big banks got bigger.
Canada and Australia have managed to work out how to have
MUCH bigger banks per capita than the US has, and NOT ONE
of their retail banks imploded spectacularly or even needed to
be bailed out by govt.
> Walter Bushell wrote
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>> when the banks failed.
>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>> when the banks failed.
>> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail.
>> Probable result, the country fails.
> The banks should be allowed to fail
The smaller ones are. We worked out that when the
>> Probable result, the country fails.
> The banks should be allowed to fail
larger ones do that, we got the great depression.
> - they used to be.
> The purpose of the FDIC is not to prop up banks, but
> to reimburse the depositors when the bank goes under.
the depositors knew that they would get their money
even if the bank did fail.
> Somewhere along the way we seem to have lost sight of this.
> The system worked well until the most recent crisis, with the
> glaring problem that the failed banks were sold off to supposedly
> solvent larger banks, with the result that the big banks got bigger.
MUCH bigger banks per capita than the US has, and NOT ONE
of their retail banks imploded spectacularly or even needed to
be bailed out by govt.
Dave Garland
Sep 20, 2012, 9:06:57 PM9/20/12
to
On 9/20/2012 7:15 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Sending bankers to jail would be popular in Britain and I suspect in
> the USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
Bank robber Willie Sutton reputedly said "I rob banks because that's
> Sending bankers to jail would be popular in Britain and I suspect in
> the USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
where the money is".
Which is why political candidates want bankers to be their friends.
And it's not friendly to send your friends to jail.
Walter Bushell
Sep 20, 2012, 9:32:56 PM9/20/12
to
In article <SYKdnWYSLqI9LMbN...@bt.com>,
The bankers *are* the government at least as so far as it affects
them. Campaign contributions and such.
them. Campaign contributions and such.
Rod Speed
Sep 20, 2012, 11:07:41 PM9/20/12
to
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:SYKdnWYSLqI9LMbN...@bt.com...
> Someone should tell the political candidates.
Patrick Scheible
Sep 21, 2012, 1:05:21 AM9/21/12
to
place without the money from the bankers. So neither side wants to
offend them by sending them to jail or even letting failed banks go
under without paying the officers golden parachutes.
-- Patrick
Rod Speed
Sep 21, 2012, 1:52:38 AM9/21/12
to
"Patrick Scheible" <k...@zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:86fw6cx...@zipcon.net...
> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>> On 21/09/2012 00:24, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>> the bigger banks had failed ... it was the gov. (or at least parts of
>>> the gov ... like the joke from last decade about treasury being
>>> goldman-sachs branch office in washington) that kept them going.
>>>
>>> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of ongoing
>>> violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail including money
>>> laundering for the drug cartels. when the money laundering for the drug
>>> cartels showed up summer of 2010 ... "too-big-to-jail" was also coined
>>> ... referencing since they weren't going to throw the executives in jail
>>> ... gov. begging them to promise to stop money laundering.
>>
>> Sending bankers to jail would be popular in Britain and I suspect in
>> the USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
> We have these insane three-year campaigns for President
> that cannot take place without the money from the bankers.
It isnt the money from bankers that pays for those.
>
>> On 21/09/2012 00:24, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>> the bigger banks had failed ... it was the gov. (or at least parts of
>>> the gov ... like the joke from last decade about treasury being
>>> goldman-sachs branch office in washington) that kept them going.
>>>
>>> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of ongoing
>>> violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail including money
>>> laundering for the drug cartels. when the money laundering for the drug
>>> cartels showed up summer of 2010 ... "too-big-to-jail" was also coined
>>> ... referencing since they weren't going to throw the executives in jail
>>> ... gov. begging them to promise to stop money laundering.
>>
>> Sending bankers to jail would be popular in Britain and I suspect in
>> the USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
> We have these insane three-year campaigns for President
> that cannot take place without the money from the bankers.
> So neither side wants to offend them by sending them to jail or even
> letting
> failed banks go under without paying the officers golden parachutes.
jmfbahciv
Sep 21, 2012, 9:07:42 AM9/21/12
to
arithmetic. Do you honestly think that they are capable of
understanding complicated matters of finance, trade, and money
matters?
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Sep 21, 2012, 9:07:43 AM9/21/12
to
Rod Speed wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>
>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed
>>> out where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit;
>>> I'd bet most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>> when the banks failed.
>
>> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail.
>
> That’s just plain wrong. Hordes of banks have failed since 2008.
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>
>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed
>>> out where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit;
>>> I'd bet most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>> when the banks failed.
>
>> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail.
>
>
>> Probable result, the country fails.
>
> Modern first world countrys NEVER fail.
US, Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain. and those are just off the
>> Probable result, the country fails.
>
> Modern first world countrys NEVER fail.
top of my head without thinking.
>
> Its only the likes of Zimbabwe that get even close to that.
in bankruptcy?
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Sep 21, 2012, 9:07:40 AM9/21/12
to
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <PM0004CA2...@ac81d8c1.ipt.aol.com>,
>
> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail. Probable result, the
> country fails.
>
Read about the other Depression. History is repeating itself.
/BAH
> In article <PM0004CA2...@ac81d8c1.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>> when the banks failed.
>>
>> /BAH
>
>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>> when the banks failed.
>>
>
> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail. Probable result, the
> country fails.
>
Read about the other Depression. History is repeating itself.
/BAH
Shmuel Metz
Sep 21, 2012, 9:09:56 AM9/21/12
to
In <k3g61i$jdt$1...@dont-email.me>, on 09/20/2012
produce a reference to support it. Given that in the IBM world people
spoke of reels of tape rather than of spools of tape, I consider the
backronym claim highly implausible, absent supporting documentation.
at 06:47 PM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:
>The definition is "simultaneous peripheral operations online," but I
>suspect that is a "backronym."
That has been discussed on wiki, and nobody has ever been able to
>The definition is "simultaneous peripheral operations online," but I
>suspect that is a "backronym."
produce a reference to support it. Given that in the IBM world people
spoke of reels of tape rather than of spools of tape, I consider the
backronym claim highly implausible, absent supporting documentation.
Shmuel Metz
Sep 21, 2012, 9:11:10 AM9/21/12
to
In <m34nmsu...@garlic.com>, on 09/20/2012
at 07:24 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> said:
>Mirable Dictu! Has Someone Noticed the IRS isn't Enforcing Tax Laws
>in the Mortgage-Industrial Complex?
Nor has DOJ filed RICO charges for fraudulent foreclosures.
>Mirable Dictu! Has Someone Noticed the IRS isn't Enforcing Tax Laws
>in the Mortgage-Industrial Complex?
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 21, 2012, 9:42:07 AM9/21/12
to
Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:
> We have these insane three-year campaigns for President that cannot take
> place without the money from the bankers. So neither side wants to
> offend them by sending them to jail or even letting failed banks go
> under without paying the officers golden parachutes.
re:
> We have these insane three-year campaigns for President that cannot take
> place without the money from the bankers. So neither side wants to
> offend them by sending them to jail or even letting failed banks go
> under without paying the officers golden parachutes.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
much more than president is congress ... lobbying for tax code is one of
the major things that contribute to congress being the most corrupt
institution on earth. tax code with all the special loopholes is now
over 72,000 pages. there are claims that direct & indirect costs dealing
with complexity of tax code costs 5-6% of GDP ... which could be brought
back if go to radically simplified tax code of 400-500 pages (any
individual loss of special loopholes would be more than offset by 5-6%
improvement in GDP).
starts with wallstreet ... but continues with pharmaceutical, farm/food
industry, military-industrial-congressional complex, etc. one of the
jokes is that congress could be bought ... they would pass legislation
that was "permanent" ... congress has moved to just being rented ...
change in legislation so it is just temporary ... so there is lots of
recurring graft&corruption. the apparent differences&conflicts between
the two parties is periodically referred to as Kabuki theater ... used
as both roman circus (to distract the populace) and significantly
increase the periodic flow of funds.
this published last week ... spends some amount of time discussing
the rise of wallstreet
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-ebook/dp/B007MEWAX2/
including several comments from former IBM vp (and head of research)
loc4213-16:
In this new era of globalization, the interests of companies and
countries have diverged. In contrast with the past, what is good for
America's global corporations is no longer necessarily good for the
American people. -- RALPH GOMORY, former IBM vice president
... snip ...
as well as wallstreet focus on managing wealth and offshoring jobs
... which has analogy here: The Influence of Sea Power Upon History,
1660-1783 (A. T. Mahan), 1890
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13529
loc1287-91:
The mines of Brazil were the ruin of Portugal, as those of Mexico and
Peru had been of Spain; all manufactures fell into insane contempt;
ere long the English supplied the Portuguese not only with clothes,
but with all merchandise, all commodities, even to salt-fish and
grain. After their gold, the Portuguese abandoned their very soil; the
vineyards of Oporto were finally bought by the English with Brazilian
gold, which had only passed through Portugal to be spread throughout
England.
... snip ...
a few past posts mentioning kabuki theater and/or penalty the economy
pays for dealing with the enormously complex tax code:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008m.html#49 Taxes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008m.html#87 Fraud due to stupid failure to test for negative
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#74 Why is everyone talking about AIG bonuses of millions and keeping their mouth shut on billions sent to foreign banks?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#53 Are the "brightest minds in finance" finally onto something?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#83 Architectural Diversity
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009h.html#20 China's yuan 'set to usurp US dollar' as world's reserve currency
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#13 64 Cores -- IBM is showing a prototype already
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#31 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#48 search engine history, was Happy DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010l.html#69 Who is Really to Blame for the Financial Crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#59 They always think we don't understand
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011d.html#18 The first personal computer (PC)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#8 Is the magic and romance killed by Windows (and Linux)?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#4 Geithner, Bernanke have little in arsenal to fight new crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#18 What Uncle Warren doesn't mention
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011k.html#73 Who was the Greatest IBM President and CEO of the last century
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#39 Kabuki Theater 1603-1629
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#44 Kabuki Theater 1603-1629
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#54 Why stability trumps innovation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#67 computer bootlaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#68 computer bootlaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#0 computer bootlaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#2 computer bootlaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#5 computer bootlaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#14 computer bootlaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#52 Chinese researchers say early climate changes responsible for human crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#4 The men who crashed the world
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#66 Civilization, doomed?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#73 A question for the readership
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#86 Congress as Kabuki Theater
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#99 Stop SOPA! A Plea from the Inventors of the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#137 The High Cost of Failing Artificial Hips
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#24 PC industry is heading for more change
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#33 The PC industry is heading for collapse
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#22 You can't do the math without the words
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#16 IBM cuts more than 1,000 U.S. Workers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#36 McCain calls for U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#61 Why Republicans Aren't Mentioning the Real Cause of Rising Prices at the Gas Pump
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#1 The Dallas Fed Is Calling For The Immediate Breakup Of Large Banks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#58 Word Length
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#88 Developing a Disruptive Mindset
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#15 Born Fighting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#17 Let the IRS Do Your Taxes, Really
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#25 Time to competency for new software language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#31 Rome speaks to us. Their example can inspire us to avoid their fate
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#46 Why America Is Slouching Towards Third World Status
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#47 How Selecting Voters Randomly Can Lead to Better Elections
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#32 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#33 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#34 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#39 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#64 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#1 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#41 Lawmakers reworked financial portfolios after talks with Fed, Treasury officials
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#86 Should the IBM approach be given a chance to fix the health care system?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#12 The Secret Consensus Among Economists
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#55 CALCULATORS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#60 Singer Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#66 Singer Cartons of Punch Cards
Dave Garland
Sep 21, 2012, 10:28:19 AM9/21/12
to
On 9/21/2012 8:07 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
their "friends" know who they are. And their "friends" will explain
the complicated matters of finance, trade, and money to them.
It's not even necessarily a matter of buying them. One local lobbyist
was quoted as saying that he didn't pay legislators to do things he
wanted, he found legislators who did things he wanted anyhow and
funneled money to them to finance keeping them in office. It's not
exactly a quid pro quo, it's more like producing some food every time
the bell rings.
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> The bankers *are* the government at least as so far as it affects
>> them. Campaign contributions and such.
>>
> Lynn has written about Congress members who could not do simple
> arithmetic. Do you honestly think that they are capable of
> understanding complicated matters of finance, trade, and money
> matters?
>
So what? They understand who their "friends" are. More importantly,
>> The bankers *are* the government at least as so far as it affects
>> them. Campaign contributions and such.
>>
> Lynn has written about Congress members who could not do simple
> arithmetic. Do you honestly think that they are capable of
> understanding complicated matters of finance, trade, and money
> matters?
>
their "friends" know who they are. And their "friends" will explain
the complicated matters of finance, trade, and money to them.
It's not even necessarily a matter of buying them. One local lobbyist
was quoted as saying that he didn't pay legislators to do things he
wanted, he found legislators who did things he wanted anyhow and
funneled money to them to finance keeping them in office. It's not
exactly a quid pro quo, it's more like producing some food every time
the bell rings.
Ibmekon
Sep 21, 2012, 10:30:20 AM9/21/12
to
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:42:07 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler
<ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
<>
>much more than president is congress ... lobbying for tax code is one of
>the major things that contribute to congress being the most corrupt
>institution on earth. tax code with all the special loopholes is now
>over 72,000 pages. there are claims that direct & indirect costs dealing
>with complexity of tax code costs 5-6% of GDP ... which could be brought
>back if go to radically simplified tax code of 400-500 pages (any
>individual loss of special loopholes would be more than offset by 5-6%
>improvement in GDP).
<>
So this is what computers were invented for , copy & paste
<ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
<>
>much more than president is congress ... lobbying for tax code is one of
>the major things that contribute to congress being the most corrupt
>institution on earth. tax code with all the special loopholes is now
>over 72,000 pages. there are claims that direct & indirect costs dealing
>with complexity of tax code costs 5-6% of GDP ... which could be brought
>back if go to radically simplified tax code of 400-500 pages (any
>individual loss of special loopholes would be more than offset by 5-6%
>improvement in GDP).
<>
legislation.
from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6146911/UK-has-longest-tax-code-handbook-in-the-world.html
UK has longest tax code handbook in the world.
The UK now has the longest tax code in the world according to
LexisNexis, the publishers of Tolley's tax guide. The handbook of tax
legislation now runs to 11,520 pages, a 10pc increase on last year and
more then double the number of pages from 12 years ago.
Carl Goldsworthy
Ibmekon
Sep 21, 2012, 10:31:38 AM9/21/12
to
Carl Goldsworthy
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 21, 2012, 11:05:21 AM9/21/12
to
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> writes:
> So what? They understand who their "friends" are. More importantly,
> their "friends" know who they are. And their "friends" will explain
> the complicated matters of finance, trade, and money to them.
>
> It's not even necessarily a matter of buying them. One local lobbyist
> was quoted as saying that he didn't pay legislators to do things he
> wanted, he found legislators who did things he wanted anyhow and
> funneled money to them to finance keeping them in office. It's not
> exactly a quid pro quo, it's more like producing some food every time
> the bell rings.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
> So what? They understand who their "friends" are. More importantly,
> their "friends" know who they are. And their "friends" will explain
> the complicated matters of finance, trade, and money to them.
>
> It's not even necessarily a matter of buying them. One local lobbyist
> was quoted as saying that he didn't pay legislators to do things he
> wanted, he found legislators who did things he wanted anyhow and
> funneled money to them to finance keeping them in office. It's not
> exactly a quid pro quo, it's more like producing some food every time
> the bell rings.
it was US comptroller general middle of last decade that was including
in speeches that nobody in congress was capable of middle school
arithmatic ... lot of it prompted by what congress was doing to the
budget after they let the fiscal responsibility act expire in 2002.
there are various articles that head of important committees use to go
to the most qualified congress person ... more recently they are handed
out as rewards to party favorites. at the start of the current congress,
the house majority leader was on local dc program bragging about putting
party loyalists on the tax&finance committees as rewards since it is
those commmittee members that receive the largest amount of dollars.
only small part of the graft & corruption
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
Wall Street Lobbying Efforts Reach $4.2 Billion Since 2006, Or $1,331 A
Minute, Report States
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/wall-street-lobbying_n_1796443.html
aka FIRE (Finance, Insurace, and Real Estate).
Wall Street's #1 "Investment" = 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen & 261,000
Lobbyists, Then CEOs Get Huge 100:1 Payoffs, Taxpayers Stuck With The
Tab!
http://wallstreetwarzone.com/invest-heavily-in-lobbyists-political-campaigns/
buying congress at 10000% ROI is biggest corporate payback.
wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
The Weekly Walk of Shame: Wall Street Lobbyists and Your Money
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/06/23/the-weekly-walk-of-shame-wall-street-lobbyists-and.aspx
CBO has that last decade tax revenue was reduced by $6T and spending
increased by $6T for a $12T budget gap (compared to baseline which had
all federal debt retired by 2010). Much of this occuring after congress
let the fiscal responsibility act expire in 2002 (required that spending
match tax revenues) ... big motivation for the comment about nobody in
congress capable of middle school arithmatic; comptroller general would
refer to the first major legislation (medicare part-d) after the fiscal
responsibility act expired ... as an long term unfunded mandate coming
to represent $40T, totally swamping all other budget items.
cbs 60 mins did segment on part-d as trillions of dollar gift to the
pharmaceutical industry. detailed how 18 members of congress & major
staff (all from majority party at the time) orchistrated bill thru
congress ... and at the last minute inserted one sentence in the bill
that prevented competitive bidding ... and prevented CBO from
distributing report on the effect of that sentence until after the bill
passed. Afterwards, all 18 had resigned and were on drug industry
payroll. 60mins also had side-by-side comparison of identical drugs
under part-d and veterans administration (which allows competitive
bidding) ... with part-d drugs three times the price of same identical
drugs from VA.
misc. past posts mentioning US comptroller general and/or medicare
part-d
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006f.html#41 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006f.html#44 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006g.html#9 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006g.html#14 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006g.html#27 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#2 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#3 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#4 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#17 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#19 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006h.html#33 The Pankian Metaphor
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006o.html#61 Health Care
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006p.html#17 Health Care
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006r.html#0 Cray-1 Anniversary Event - September 21st
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#26 Universal constants
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#20 IBM Unionization
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#91 IBM Unionization
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#19 Another "migration" from the mainframe
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007o.html#74 Horrid thought about Politics, President Bush, and Democrats
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#22 U.S. Cedes Top Spot in Global IT Competitiveness
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#7 what does xp do when system is copying
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007s.html#1 Translation of IBM Basic Assembler to C?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#13 Newsweek article--baby boomers and computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#14 Newsweek article--baby boomers and computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#15 Newsweek article--baby boomers and computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#24 Translation of IBM Basic Assembler to C?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#25 Newsweek article--baby boomers and computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#33 Newsweek article--baby boomers and computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#35 Newsweek article--baby boomers and computers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007v.html#26 2007 Year in Review on Mainframes - Interesting
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008.html#57 Computer Science Education: Where Are the Software Engineers of Tomorrow?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008d.html#40 Computer Science Education: Where Are the Software Engineers of Tomorrow?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008e.html#50 fraying infrastructure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008f.html#86 Banks failing to manage IT risk - study
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#1 The Workplace War for Age and Talent
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008h.html#3 America's Prophet of Fiscal Doom
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008h.html#26 The Return of Ada
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#98 dollar coins
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#8 Taxcuts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#9 Taxcuts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#17 Michigan industry
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#20 What is the real basis for business mess we are facing today?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#55 Hexadecimal Kid - articles from Computerworld wanted
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#86 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#87 IBM driving mainframe systems programmers into the ground
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#36 Happy DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010.html#37 Happy DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010b.html#60 Happy DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#0 Oldest Instruction Set still in daily use?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#3 Oldest Instruction Set still in daily use?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#9 Oldest Instruction Set still in daily use?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010c.html#23 Happy DEC-10 Day
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010f.html#34 The 2010 Census
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010f.html#35 The 2010 Census
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010f.html#46 not even sort of about The 2010 Census
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#79 Idiotic take on Bush tax cuts expiring
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#66 They always think we don't understand
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#69 They always think we don't understand
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#75 origin of 'fields'?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#78 origin of 'fields'?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#72 77,000 federal workers paid more than governors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#14 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#15 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#20 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#22 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#28 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#29 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#33 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#37 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#44 Happy 100th Birthday, IBM!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011j.html#18 Congressional Bickering
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011j.html#40 Advice from Richard P. Feynman
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#36 The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011l.html#59 computer bootlaces
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#68 Bernanke Hearings
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#57 The Mortgage Crisis---Some Inside Views
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#67 The debt fallout: How Social Security went "cash negative" earlier than expected
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#42 Speed: Re: Soups
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#73 How Pursuit of Profits Kills Innovation and the U.S. Economy
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#136 Gingrich urged yes vote on controversial Medicare bill
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#137 The High Cost of Failing Artificial Hips
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#6 We are on the brink of a historic decision [referring to defence cuts]
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#50 They're Trying to Block Military Cuts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#53 PC industry is heading for more change
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#36 McCain calls for U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#58 Word Length
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#61 Zakaria: by itself, Buffett rule is good
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#81 The Pentagon's New Defense Clandestine Service
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#88 Defense acquisitions are broken and no one cares
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#6 Adult Supervision
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#45 Fareed Zakaria
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#5 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#6 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#25 US economic update. Everything that follows is a result of what you see here
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#27 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#33 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#40 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#61 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#68 Interesting News Article
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#0 Interesting News Article
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#41 Lawmakers reworked financial portfolios after talks with Fed, Treasury officials
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#51 Is this Boyd's fundamental postulate, 'to improve our capacity for independent action'? thoughts please
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#63 Monopoly/ Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012i.html#81 Should the IBM approach be given a chance to fix the health care system?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#37 If all of the American earned dollars hidden in off shore accounts were uncovered and taxed do you think we would be able to close the deficit gap?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#45 If all of the American earned dollars hidden in off shore accounts were uncovered and taxed do you think we would be able to close the deficit gap?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#74 Unthinkable, Predictable Disasters
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#79 Romney and Ryan's Phony Deficit-Reduction Plan
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#85 Singer Cartons of Punch Cards
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 21, 2012, 12:41:22 PM9/21/12
to
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
> US, Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain. and those are just off the
> top of my head without thinking.
> US, Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain. and those are just off the
> top of my head without thinking.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#33 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
x-over from this boyd discussion group post ... analogy with wallstreet
obsession with managing wealth and offshoring all manufacturing jobs
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#29 Cultural attitudes towards failure
Contrasts England with ("failed") Spain/Portugal which had become
totally focused on managing their wealth (from the new world) and not
actually doing or producing anything of their own.
The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783 (A. T. Mahan),
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13529
loc1287-91:
The mines of Brazil were the ruin of Portugal, as those of Mexico and
Peru had been of Spain; all manufactures fell into insane contempt;
ere long the English supplied the Portuguese not only with clothes,
but with all merchandise, all commodities, even to salt-fish and
grain. After their gold, the Portuguese abandoned their very soil; the
vineyards of Oporto were finally bought by the English with Brazilian
gold, which had only passed through Portugal to be spread throughout
England.
... snip ...
"Why Nations Fail" (upthread) discusses that England initially attempted
loc1287-91:
The mines of Brazil were the ruin of Portugal, as those of Mexico and
Peru had been of Spain; all manufactures fell into insane contempt;
ere long the English supplied the Portuguese not only with clothes,
but with all merchandise, all commodities, even to salt-fish and
grain. After their gold, the Portuguese abandoned their very soil; the
vineyards of Oporto were finally bought by the English with Brazilian
gold, which had only passed through Portugal to be spread throughout
England.
... snip ...
to emulate Spain with Jamestown in the early 1600s. Mahan's reference is
reminiscant of recent discussions of US corporations exporting jobs to
other countries.
published last week
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-ebook/dp/B007MEWAX2/
spends quite a bit of time on the rise of wallstreet focused on
management of wealth and sending jobs overseas ... including quotes by
former IBM VP (and head of Research), loc4213-16:
In this new era of globalization, the interests of companies and
countries have diverged. In contrast with the past, what is good for
America's global corporations is no longer necessarily good for the
American people. -- RALPH GOMORY, former IBM vice president
... snip ...
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#23 How do you feel about the fact that today India has more IBM employees than any of the other countries in the world including the USA.?
Peter Flass
Sep 21, 2012, 12:49:13 PM9/21/12
to
On 9/21/2012 11:05 AM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> writes:
>> So what? They understand who their "friends" are. More importantly,
>> their "friends" know who they are. And their "friends" will explain
>> the complicated matters of finance, trade, and money to them.
>>
>> It's not even necessarily a matter of buying them. One local lobbyist
>> was quoted as saying that he didn't pay legislators to do things he
>> wanted, he found legislators who did things he wanted anyhow and
>> funneled money to them to finance keeping them in office. It's not
>> exactly a quid pro quo, it's more like producing some food every time
>> the bell rings.
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
>
> it was US comptroller general middle of last decade that was including
> in speeches that nobody in congress was capable of middle school
> arithmatic ... lot of it prompted by what congress was doing to the
> budget after they let the fiscal responsibility act expire in 2002.
They can do math just fine, what they're counting is votes instead of
> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> writes:
>> So what? They understand who their "friends" are. More importantly,
>> their "friends" know who they are. And their "friends" will explain
>> the complicated matters of finance, trade, and money to them.
>>
>> It's not even necessarily a matter of buying them. One local lobbyist
>> was quoted as saying that he didn't pay legislators to do things he
>> wanted, he found legislators who did things he wanted anyhow and
>> funneled money to them to finance keeping them in office. It's not
>> exactly a quid pro quo, it's more like producing some food every time
>> the bell rings.
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
>
> it was US comptroller general middle of last decade that was including
> in speeches that nobody in congress was capable of middle school
> arithmatic ... lot of it prompted by what congress was doing to the
> budget after they let the fiscal responsibility act expire in 2002.
budget dollars.
--
Pete
Charlie Gibbs
Sep 21, 2012, 1:08:39 PM9/21/12
to
In article <m34nmsu...@garlic.com>, ly...@garlic.com
that's doing it. Otherwise it's called "general revenue".
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
(Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes:
> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of
> ongoing violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail
> including money laundering for the drug cartels. when the money
> laundering for the drug cartels showed up summer of 2010 ...
> "too-big-to-jail" was also coined ... referencing since they
> weren't going to throw the executives in jail ... gov. begging
> them to promise to stop money laundering.
It's only called "money laundering" if it isn't the government
> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of
> ongoing violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail
> including money laundering for the drug cartels. when the money
> laundering for the drug cartels showed up summer of 2010 ...
> "too-big-to-jail" was also coined ... referencing since they
> weren't going to throw the executives in jail ... gov. begging
> them to promise to stop money laundering.
that's doing it. Otherwise it's called "general revenue".
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 21, 2012, 12:53:38 PM9/21/12
to
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
> They can do math just fine, what they're counting is votes instead of
> budget dollars.
> They can do math just fine, what they're counting is votes instead of
> budget dollars.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#33 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#34 General Mills computer
I think they are counting dollars in their pockets ... not budget
dollars (some of the dollars may be used for getting re-elected).
however, there have been counts of freshman in congress that have become
millionaires ... part of theme that congress is the most corrupt
institution on earth.
Charlie Gibbs
Sep 21, 2012, 1:22:46 PM9/21/12
to
In article <m3a9wj5...@garlic.com>, ly...@garlic.com
a three-way split, depending on your definition of "country" -
since many governments embody the idea of a sovereign being,
defining the country as themselves, and the people be damned.
> ... snip ...
>
> as well as wallstreet focus on managing wealth and offshoring jobs
> ... which has analogy here: The Influence of Sea Power Upon History,
> 1660-1783 (A. T. Mahan), 1890
> http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13529
> loc1287-91:
>
> The mines of Brazil were the ruin of Portugal, as those of Mexico and
> Peru had been of Spain; all manufactures fell into insane contempt;
> ere long the English supplied the Portuguese not only with clothes,
> but with all merchandise, all commodities, even to salt-fish and
> grain. After their gold, the Portuguese abandoned their very soil; the
> vineyards of Oporto were finally bought by the English with Brazilian
> gold, which had only passed through Portugal to be spread throughout
> England.
When I start to get depressed, it's good to see things like this.
It reassures me that things aren't necessarily getting worse
after all - they've always been this way.
(Anne & Lynn Wheeler) writes:
> In this new era of globalization, the interests of companies and
> countries have diverged. In contrast with the past, what is good for
> America's global corporations is no longer necessarily good for the
> American people. -- RALPH GOMORY, former IBM vice president
Since you mention the American people, we can think of it as
> countries have diverged. In contrast with the past, what is good for
> America's global corporations is no longer necessarily good for the
> American people. -- RALPH GOMORY, former IBM vice president
a three-way split, depending on your definition of "country" -
since many governments embody the idea of a sovereign being,
defining the country as themselves, and the people be damned.
> ... snip ...
>
> as well as wallstreet focus on managing wealth and offshoring jobs
> ... which has analogy here: The Influence of Sea Power Upon History,
> 1660-1783 (A. T. Mahan), 1890
> http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13529
> loc1287-91:
>
> The mines of Brazil were the ruin of Portugal, as those of Mexico and
> Peru had been of Spain; all manufactures fell into insane contempt;
> ere long the English supplied the Portuguese not only with clothes,
> but with all merchandise, all commodities, even to salt-fish and
> grain. After their gold, the Portuguese abandoned their very soil; the
> vineyards of Oporto were finally bought by the English with Brazilian
> gold, which had only passed through Portugal to be spread throughout
> England.
It reassures me that things aren't necessarily getting worse
after all - they've always been this way.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Sep 21, 2012, 12:57:47 PM9/21/12
to
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> It's only called "money laundering" if it isn't the government
> that's doing it. Otherwise it's called "general revenue".
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#33 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#34 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#35 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#30 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#32 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#33 General Mills computer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#34 General Mills computer
or "insider trading" ... people are sent to jail ... unless you are a
member of congress, then it is perfectly legal for members of congress
to trade on insider information (law was specifically written that way).
part of theme that congress is the most corrupt institution on earth.
Rod Speed
Sep 21, 2012, 1:51:59 PM9/21/12
to
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
> and those are just off the top of my head without thinking.
That last is obvious.
>> Its only the likes of Zimbabwe that get even close to that.
> Did you read the post from Morten when
> he talked about the US in bankruptcy?
Its nothing even remotely resembling anything like bankrupt.
The debt/GDP ratio has been higher than this before, and the
US survived that fine.
And the major costs of fucking over Iraq and Afghanistan
have come to an end or will do in the case of Afghanistan.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed
>>>> out where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit;
>>>> I'd bet most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>>> when the banks failed.
>>> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail.
>> That’s just plain wrong. Hordes of banks have failed since 2008.
>>> Probable result, the country fails.
>> Modern first world countrys NEVER fail.
> US, Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain.
None of those have failed.
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed
>>>> out where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit;
>>>> I'd bet most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>>> when the banks failed.
>>> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail.
>> That’s just plain wrong. Hordes of banks have failed since 2008.
>>> Probable result, the country fails.
>> Modern first world countrys NEVER fail.
> US, Germany, Spain, Greece, Britain.
> and those are just off the top of my head without thinking.
>> Its only the likes of Zimbabwe that get even close to that.
> Did you read the post from Morten when
> he talked about the US in bankruptcy?
The debt/GDP ratio has been higher than this before, and the
US survived that fine.
And the major costs of fucking over Iraq and Afghanistan
have come to an end or will do in the case of Afghanistan.
Rod Speed
Sep 21, 2012, 1:54:54 PM9/21/12
to
>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote
votes they get and the campaign contributions etc.
> Do you honestly think that they are capable of understanding
> complicated matters of finance, trade, and money matters?
You clearly aren't on something as basic as whether the US is bankrupt or
not.
>>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote
>>>> the bigger banks had failed ... it was the gov. (or at least parts
>>>> of the gov ... like the joke from last decade about treasury being
>>>> goldman-sachs branch office in washington) that kept them going.
>>>> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of ongoing
>>>> violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail including money
>>>> laundering for the drug cartels. when the money laundering for the drug
>>>> cartels showed up summer of 2010 ... "too-big-to-jail" was also coined
>>>> ... referencing since they weren't going to throw the executives in
>>>> jail
>>>> ... gov. begging them to promise to stop money laundering.
>>> Sending bankers to jail would be popular in Britain and I suspect
>>> in the USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
>>>> of the gov ... like the joke from last decade about treasury being
>>>> goldman-sachs branch office in washington) that kept them going.
>>>> recently there has been a series of reports of a whole range of ongoing
>>>> violations & criminal activity by the too-big-to-fail including money
>>>> laundering for the drug cartels. when the money laundering for the drug
>>>> cartels showed up summer of 2010 ... "too-big-to-jail" was also coined
>>>> ... referencing since they weren't going to throw the executives in
>>>> jail
>>>> ... gov. begging them to promise to stop money laundering.
>>> Sending bankers to jail would be popular in Britain and I suspect
>>> in the USA. Someone should tell the political candidates.
>> The bankers *are* the government at least as so far
>> as it affects them. Campaign contributions and such.
> Lynn has written about Congress members who could not do simple
> arithmetic.
That’s completely silly, they can certainly count the
>> as it affects them. Campaign contributions and such.
> Lynn has written about Congress members who could not do simple
> arithmetic.
votes they get and the campaign contributions etc.
> Do you honestly think that they are capable of understanding
> complicated matters of finance, trade, and money matters?
not.
Rod Speed
Sep 21, 2012, 2:01:19 PM9/21/12
to
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>> when the banks failed.
>>> Payroll wasn't centralized. Paychecks or cash had to be handed out
>>> where the employee worked. There wasn't any direct deposit; I'd bet
>>> most people didn't have a checking account in those days.
>>> People at that time were very leery of banks since they lost money
>>> when the banks failed.
>> Now we prop up the banks so they don't fail.
>> Probable result, the country fails.
> Read about the other Depression.
No such animal.
>> Probable result, the country fails.
> Read about the other Depression.
> History is repeating itself.
Like hell it is. The unemployment rate barely made it
into double digits for a couple of quarters this time
and then headed back down again. That’s NOTHING
like what happened in the great depression.
This time even the stupid Shrub had noticed that the
shit had hit the fan very spectacularly indeed and got
off his scrawny arse and did something about that
bailout wise. Nothing like that happened anything
like that quickly with that fool Hoover.
Rich Alderson
Sep 21, 2012, 2:49:47 PM9/21/12
to
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> On Sep 20, 2:21=A0pm, Alfred Falk <f...@arc.REMOVE.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> Is SPOOL an acronym for something? =A0I was thinking of spooling as a
>>> generic term.
>> Simultaneous Peripheral Operation On Line.-
> Interesting. Thanks.
And probably one of the most successful backronyms ever devised... ;-)
--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
> On Sep 20, 2:21=A0pm, Alfred Falk <f...@arc.REMOVE.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> Is SPOOL an acronym for something? =A0I was thinking of spooling as a
>>> generic term.
>> Simultaneous Peripheral Operation On Line.-
> Interesting. Thanks.
And probably one of the most successful backronyms ever devised... ;-)
--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages