Let's settle Steve's argument once and for all, Folks.
Ed Dana
Let's finish this argument once and for all.
I'll start two more threads. One will be titled: Steve is right. The
other will be titled: Steve is wrong. If you think he is right, cast
your vote on that thread. If you think he is wrong, choose the other.
Only recognized posters will be counted (sorry, but no other way to
validate it). Only the first vote will be counted, multiple votes by the
same poster will be ignored. Deadline for this vote will be Friday
3/30/2001.
Let's go to the polls...
--
Sincerely, | Good and bad I defined these terms,
Ed Dana | Quite clear, no doubt, somehow...
Software Developer | Ah, but I was so much older then,
Amiga Enthusiast. | I'm younger than that now!
| -- Bob Dylan, My Back Pages.
=========== http://OurWorld.CompuServe.com/Homepages/EDanaII ===========
Luca Diana
news:3ABFF28F...@CSI.com...
> I'll start two more threads. One will be titled: Steve is right. The
> other will be titled: Steve is wrong. If you think he is right, cast
> your vote on that thread. If you think he is wrong, choose the other.
What about the undecided ones?
I don't even know who Steve you're talking about. :-)
Then again, I had better things to do then spend time replying to the usual
blah blah, like.... hmmm...ehm... I'll get you back on that one. ;-)
Luca
SG
> OK, I got a little proposal.
>
> Let's finish this argument once and for all.
>
> I'll start two more threads. One will be titled: Steve is right. The
> other will be titled: Steve is wrong. If you think he is right, cast
> your vote on that thread. If you think he is wrong, choose the other.
>
> Only recognized posters will be counted (sorry, but no other way to
> validate it). Only the first vote will be counted, multiple votes by the
> same poster will be ignored. Deadline for this vote will be Friday
> 3/30/2001.
>
> Let's go to the polls...
Only the Nintendo generation would think that their lack of a proper
education could be resolved by popular vote.
--
Steve.
Eelke Blok
> Let's go to the polls...
No, thank you. There is really so little point. Already Steve is showing all
by himself he will just ignore you. Why bother trying to convince one guy to
see things your way? I can see the sense behind Steve's effort, he has a
whole newsgroup to convert!*
It was fun while it lasted, seeing Steve say to everyone at least once they
lost the argument and seeing him say firmware is hardware because a hammer
doesn't contain the concept of hammering but actually *is* a hammer.
What are you afraid of? Some lost soul will wonder in here, will read the
thread and think "hey, this Steve-guy is right!"? Well, in that case, let's
hope he tells his friends about it, so they finally clearly can see what a
fruitcake this mr. Soul is. Trust me, there won't be very much of his kind.
Cheers,
Eelke
*: Truth is relative (Steve says opinions are irrelevant, I say opinions are
what "reality" is based on). Considering the truth Steve experiences, it is
more than worth it making his argument over and over and over again. This
doesn't mean I agree with him.
Paul Smith
news:3ABFEB00.MD...@erols.com...
> Ed Dana<EDa...@CSI.com> wrote:
> > Let's go to the polls...
>
> Only the Nintendo generation would think that their lack of a proper
> education could be resolved by popular vote.
Tell that to G.W Bush...
--
.oO Paul Smith Oo.
Bill Hoggett
No, tell it to his advisors. They might be able to explain it to him
in words of two syllables or less.
Come to think of it, they should stick to one syllable words only. He
seems to have trouble with two, such as "Gre-cian".
--
Bill Hoggett
No prejudice. I hate Microsoft without prejudice...
Greg Tallent
Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
Nintendo generation person.
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.
Ed Dana
Well, start a thread for abstentions, if you wish. :)
Kirk Strauser
At 2001-03-28T00:55:18Z, "Greg Tallent" <g...@nospamme.gte.net> writes:
> Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
> Nintendo generation person.
Whippersnapper! I had an Atari 2600, and we LIKED IT THAT WAY!
--
Kirk Strauser
Ed Dana
[snip]
> What are you afraid of? Some lost soul will wonder in here, will read the
> thread and think "hey, this Steve-guy is right!"? Well, in that case, let's
> hope he tells his friends about it, so they finally clearly can see what a
> fruitcake this mr. Soul is. Trust me, there won't be very much of his kind.
Not at all, Eelke. This is just a means of showing that Steve is the only one
who is buying his argument. Nothing more. :)
SG
> Eelke Blok wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > What are you afraid of? Some lost soul will wonder in here, will read the
> > thread and think "hey, this Steve-guy is right!"? Well, in that case, let's
> > hope he tells his friends about it, so they finally clearly can see what a
> > fruitcake this mr. Soul is. Trust me, there won't be very much of his kind.
>
> Not at all, Eelke. This is just a means of showing that Steve is the only one
> who is buying his argument.
Once again, its not "my argument." All sources posted agree with me
to the letter.
You've posted nothing intellectually interesting or factual to support
your "opinion" that Webster, American Heritage, Princeton U, etc, etc,
etc, are all wrong, IYO.
Instead, you opt to "vote" on your own opinion. You are
intellectually lazy, and thats why you are losing the argument you
started so badly.
I'm sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes.
--
Steve.
SG
And did you write software using it? Or were the programs it ran
simply hardware?
--
Steve.
Eelke Blok
> Once again, its not "my argument." All sources posted agree with me
> to the letter.
[Snip: more twisting by Steve]
See, Ed, completely pointless. I'm putting my time in more sensible things.
Cheers,
Eelke
Joona I Palaste
on comp.sys.amiga.misc:
> "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC138ED.MD...@erols.com...
>> Once again, its not "my argument." All sources posted agree with me
>> to the letter.
Steve, do you even bother to READ the definitions before blindly
claiming that they "agree with you to the letter"? NOT ONE of them has
defined firmware as hardware. NOT ONE. Not even the miraculous,
omnipotent Merriam-Webster you're so ecstatic about.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"The large yellow ships hung in the sky in exactly the same way that bricks
don't."
- Douglas Adams
Mikey C
>
> OK, I got a little proposal.
>
> Let's finish this argument once and for all.
>
> I'll start two more threads. One will be titled: Steve is right. The
> other will be titled: Steve is wrong. If you think he is right, cast
> your vote on that thread. If you think he is wrong, choose the other.
How about a "I am really totally bored with the whole thing and just
wish it would crawl away into a dark corner and die miserably" poll vote
option?
Your's
Really fed up to the nack teath with the Thread,
Mikey C
Paul Smith
news:3AC1FC...@ukonline.co.uk...
> Ed Dana wrote:
> >
> > OK, I got a little proposal.
> >
> > Let's finish this argument once and for all.
> >
> > I'll start two more threads. One will be titled: Steve is right. The
> > other will be titled: Steve is wrong. If you think he is right, cast
> > your vote on that thread. If you think he is wrong, choose the other.
>
> How about a "I am really totally bored with the whole thing and just
> wish it would crawl away into a dark corner and die miserably" poll vote
> option?
Press 1 if you agree.
Press 2 if you disagree
Press 3 if you don't care.
Hmmm..
Bill Hoggett
>I'm sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes.
You must be in excruciating pain then, having avoided the truth all
your life.
Stot
They were of course software stored in read only hardware, someone must
have written the software. A game running direct from CD ROM is the same
thing but would you call the information hardware or Software? Write
protect a floppy drive and run a game. Same thing going on there too.
Definitions of many things here are being maybe unitensionally mixed it
seems.
firm.ware
Pronunciation: (fūrm'wār"), [key]
-n. Computers.
a microprogram stored in ROM, designed to implement a function that had
previously been provided in software.
btw this was http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0440590.html
ROM
Pronunciation: (rom), [key]
-n.
computer memory in which program instructions, operating procedures, or
other data are permanently stored, generally on electronic chips during
manufacture, and that ordinarily cannot be changed by the user. Cf. PROM,
RAM.
firmware is stored in rom. ROM is the hardware not whats in it.
Cheers
Stot
--
600/020,25/8F/2C/800HD/16xCD/Squirrel
500/030,50/32F/1C/840HD/(trying to get picasso working)
--
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/boystot/
ICQ: 35995895
Ed Dana
Yep. And I didn't expect otherwise. :)
As to sensible things, your right. My house needs tending, garden needs sowing,
and lawn needs mowing. Definately time to move on. :)
Ed Dana
> Ed Dana wrote:
> >
> > OK, I got a little proposal.
> >
> > Let's finish this argument once and for all.
> >
> > I'll start two more threads. One will be titled: Steve is right. The
> > other will be titled: Steve is wrong. If you think he is right, cast
> > your vote on that thread. If you think he is wrong, choose the other.
>
> How about a "I am really totally bored with the whole thing and just
> wish it would crawl away into a dark corner and die miserably" poll vote
> option?
Be my guest. :)
Greg Tallent
Or...
Press 4 if you want to see Steve strapped down face first to a bed and receiving
massive doses of Thorazine rectally...
> Hmmm..
Isn't it?
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
All the easy problems have been solved.
Greg Tallent
Back on 28-Mar-01 01:31:40 SG sg...@erols.com Wrote:
> Kirk Strauser<ki...@strauser.com> wrote:
>>
>> At 2001-03-28T00:55:18Z, "Greg Tallent" <g...@nospamme.gte.net> writes:
>>
>> > Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
>> > Nintendo generation person.
>>
>> Whippersnapper! I had an Atari 2600, and we LIKED IT THAT WAY!
Hey, I had a 2600 too and an Atari Pong system(how's that for memories?) and
liked them also but Steve is talking about the supposed "Nintendo generation"
and at that time I was more into Sega than Nintendo.
(pardon me for picking the BETTER SYSTEM)
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
In Heaven, all the chairs are recliners.
Clockmeister
Greg Tallent wrote in message
<1097.487T194...@nospamme.gte.net>...
>Back on 28-Mar-01 11:07:39 Paul Smith ozric99....@lineone.net Wrote:
>> "Mikey C" <michael....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:3AC1FC...@ukonline.co.uk...
>>> Ed Dana wrote:
>>> >
>>> > OK, I got a little proposal.
>>> >
>>> > Let's finish this argument once and for all.
>>> >
>>> > I'll start two more threads. One will be titled: Steve is right. The
>>> > other will be titled: Steve is wrong. If you think he is right, cast
>>> > your vote on that thread. If you think he is wrong, choose the other.
>>>
>>> How about a "I am really totally bored with the whole thing and just
>>> wish it would crawl away into a dark corner and die miserably" poll vote
>>> option?
>
>> Press 1 if you agree.
>> Press 2 if you disagree
>> Press 3 if you don't care.
>
>Or...
>
>Press 4 if you want to see Steve strapped down face first to a bed and
receiving
>massive doses of Thorazine rectally...
>
That would only serve to encourage him ;-)
Regards,
Clockmeister.
SG
> to Kirk, not Steve(the original hasn't made it here yet(typical GTE))
>
> Back on 28-Mar-01 01:31:40 SG sg...@erols.com Wrote:
> > Kirk Strauser<ki...@strauser.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> At 2001-03-28T00:55:18Z, "Greg Tallent" <g...@nospamme.gte.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
> >> > Nintendo generation person.
> >>
> >> Whippersnapper! I had an Atari 2600, and we LIKED IT THAT WAY!
>
> Hey, I had a 2600 too and an Atari Pong system(how's that for memories?) and
> liked them also but Steve is talking about the supposed "Nintendo generation"
The Nintendo generation is actually defined as that group of poeple
who had no idea that computers existed before Nintendo. They have no
idea that computers running 24/7 (both electrical and solely
mechanical) literally won and lost WWII--a war fought by an educated,
worthwhile generation.
--
Steve.
SG
> Eelke Blok wrote:
>
> > "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AC138ED.MD...@erols.com...
> >
> > > Once again, its not "my argument." All sources posted agree with me
> > > to the letter.
> >
> > [Snip: more twisting by Steve]
> >
> > See, Ed, completely pointless. I'm putting my time in more sensible things.
>
> Yep. And I didn't expect otherwise. :)
>
> As to sensible things, your right. My house needs tending, garden needs sowing,
> and lawn needs mowing. Definately time to move on. :)
IOWs, now that you -finally- realize you've been wrong all along...
--
Steve.
SG
> Hi,
>
> They were of course software stored in read only hardware, someone must
> have written the software.
Written, key word.
It was software if it was written into computer memory during normal
runtime. But thats using an outside system, not the system in
question. The question is, can "this system" write a program into its
own memory? If so, it is software programmable. I not, its single
program is part of its hardware. Pretty simple.
This is why Nintendo users don't write Nintendo games using their
Nintendos. Nintendos can only run firmware, and thus they may only be
re-programmed by turning them off, then physically changing their
hardware configuration.
> A game running direct from CD ROM is the same
> thing but would you call the information hardware or Software? Write
> protect a floppy drive and run a game. Same thing going on there too.
>
> Definitions of many things here are being maybe unitensionally mixed it
> seems.
>
> firm.ware
>
> Pronunciation: (fūrm'wār"), [key]
> -n. Computers.
> a microprogram stored in ROM, designed to implement a function that had
> previously been provided in software.
Another brick in the wall.
Of the fortress.
Stot<st...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> They were of course software stored in read only hardware, someone must
> have written the software.
Written, key word.
It was software if it was written into computer memory during normal
runtime. But thats using an outside system, not the system in
question. The question is, can "this system" write a program into its
own memory? If so, it is software programmable. I not, its single
program is part of its hardware. Pretty simple.
This is why Nintendo users don't write Nintendo games using their
Nintendos. Nintendos can only run firmware, and thus they may only be
re-programmed by turning them off, then physically changing their
hardware configuration.
> A game running direct from CD ROM is the same
> thing but would you call the information hardware or Software? Write
> protect a floppy drive and run a game. Same thing going on there too.
>
> Definitions of many things here are being maybe unitensionally mixed it
> seems.
>
> firm.ware
>
> Pronunciation: (fūrm'wār"), [key]
> -n. Computers.
> a microprogram stored in ROM, designed to implement a function that had
> previously been provided in software.
Another brick in the wall.
Of the fortress.
> ROM
>
> Pronunciation: (rom), [key]
> -n.
> computer memory in which program instructions, operating procedures, or
> other data are permanently stored, generally on electronic chips during
> manufacture, and that ordinarily cannot be changed by the user. Cf. PROM,
> RAM.
>
> firmware is stored in rom.
Right, and it used to be software, by defintion above.
Which of course means that now it is not.
> ROM is the hardware not whats in it.
>
> Cheers
> Stot
>
> --
> 600/020,25/8F/2C/800HD/16xCD/Squirrel
> 500/030,50/32F/1C/840HD/(trying to get picasso working)
> --
> http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/boystot/
> ICQ: 35995895
>
>
--
Steve.
SG
> Eelke Blok <e.b...@student.utwente.nl> scribbled the following
> on comp.sys.amiga.misc:
>
> > "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AC138ED.MD...@erols.com...
>
> >> Once again, its not "my argument." All sources posted agree with me
> >> to the letter.
>
> Steve, do you even bother to READ the definitions before blindly
> claiming that they "agree with you to the letter"? NOT ONE of them has
> defined firmware as hardware. NOT ONE. Not even the miraculous,
> omnipotent Merriam-Webster you're so ecstatic about.
Uhm, they all do. Read em.
What do you think your Ninteno is programmed with, if not hardware?
--
Steve.
Patrick Ford
> who had no idea that computers existed before Nintendo. They have no
> idea that computers running 24/7 (both electrical and solely
> mechanical) literally won and lost WWII--a war fought by an educated,
> worthwhile generation.
Utter rubbish. Read some history.
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
Harvesters, send spam directly to:
ro...@127.0.0.1,abuse@!--#echo var,postm...@nsa.gov
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost.C:\con\con@localhost
news.admin.ne...@myriad.alias.net,spa...@spamcop.net
Ed Dana
Creative Interpretations (TM, SG), yet again. :)
'Nuff said.
Clockmeister
Steve Greenfield
> > Only the Nintendo generation would think that their lack of a proper
> > education could be resolved by popular vote.
>
> Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
> Nintendo generation person.
Pong.
Steve "Not -that- one" Greenfield
Tom and Lisa Peters
If you think computers running 24/7 were responsible for winning the
war, you must be the Nintendo generation poster child.
> Steve.
Rave On, Steve !
Mad Dog
SG
Guess you never heard of the Manhattan project.
--
Steve.
Tom and Lisa Peters
...and your point is ? The war was all but over by the time it was used.
Or are you gullible enough to think the allies could of lost the war in
1945 ? This assumes the computers were used in the MP. Not sure there.
(what am I saying, of course Steve is gullible)
>
> Steve.
Rave On Steve !
Mad Dog
SG
> SG wrote in message <3AC50F20.MD...@erols.com>...
> >The Nintendo generation is actually defined as that group of poeple
> >who had no idea that computers existed before Nintendo. They have no
> >idea that computers running 24/7 (both electrical and solely
> >mechanical) literally won and lost WWII--a war fought by an educated,
> >worthwhile generation.
> >--
>
> CRAP!
Interesting, lucid argument. You are so classy and entertaining.
--
Steve.
Greg Tallent
While I don't think you're classy, you're certainly entertaining.
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
Cats are smarter than dogs. They won't pull sleds.
Greg Tallent
>> > Only the Nintendo generation would think that their lack of a proper
>> > education could be resolved by popular vote.
>>
>> Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
>> Nintendo generation person.
> Pong.
Arcade or home unit? I used to play Pong in the arcade(next to all of the
pinball machines(anyone remember those? :)).
<tsb>
Greg Tallent |Amiga2000 GVP 040/33mhz/3.5 72 megs,9 gig/BuddhaIDE|
gwt at gte.net |Zoom 56k, Syjet, Zip, Picasso II 2Meg, Plextor CD-R|
Periodically spray diskettes with insecticide to prevent system bugs from
spreading.
Bill Hoggett
<g...@nospamme.gte.net> wrote:
>Back on 31-Mar-01 13:00:36 Steve Greenfield poly...@polyphoto.com Wrote:
>>> > Only the Nintendo generation would think that their lack of a proper
>>> > education could be resolved by popular vote.
>>>
>>> Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
>>> Nintendo generation person.
>
>> Pong.
>
>Arcade or home unit? I used to play Pong in the arcade(next to all of the
>pinball machines(anyone remember those? :)).
Arcade Pong? Oh yes, used to play it on the Channel ferry, much to my
parents delight. (It meant they knew where I was for a change...)
Also had a Pong home unit, with about four different variations -
remember the "football" one (it was probably called by different names
in different countries), with small goal areas, and two units - one
attacker and one defender - per team?
's allright. I'll get the blasted coat myself...
SG
> On 28 Mar 2001 01:05:49 -0500, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >Once again, its not "my argument." All sources posted agree with me
> >to the letter.
>
> On the contrary, most of the sources you provide are so vague that
> they could be interpreted in any way and still look correct.
Why don't you try addredssing one then?
--
Steve.
SG
> In article <3AC6B30F...@home.com>, Tom and Lisa Peters
> At the actual Manhattan Project site, there were no computers in the
> modern sense. There were people who operated electromechanical
> calculators, performing large calculations at the request of the
> physicists; if that was your job, you were known as a "computer".
> Modern usage of the word has changed quite a bit.
>
> No doubt there was some use of electronic or electromechanical computers
> offsite, but everything I've read indicates that the bulk (if not all)
> of the number crunching needed to support the actual theory and design
> of nuclear weapons got done at the New Mexico site without them. (There
> would have been serious security implications to doing any of it
> offsite.)
Do a little research and you'll see that many types of computers,
both electronic and mechanical, were run 24/7 during the war effort.
--
Steve.
SG
>
>
> SG wrote:
> >
> > Tom and Lisa Peters<gionp...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SG wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greg Tallent<g...@nospamme.gte.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > to Kirk, not Steve(the original hasn't made it here yet(typical GTE))
> > > > >
> > > > > Back on 28-Mar-01 01:31:40 SG sg...@erols.com Wrote:
> > > > > > Kirk Strauser<ki...@strauser.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> At 2001-03-28T00:55:18Z, "Greg Tallent" <g...@nospamme.gte.net> writes:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Speaking for myself I was always more of a Sega generation person than a
> > > > > >> > Nintendo generation person.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Whippersnapper! I had an Atari 2600, and we LIKED IT THAT WAY!
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, I had a 2600 too and an Atari Pong system(how's that for memories?) and
> > > > > liked them also but Steve is talking about the supposed "Nintendo generation"
> > > >
> > > > The Nintendo generation is actually defined as that group of poeple
> > > > who had no idea that computers existed before Nintendo. They have no
> > > > idea that computers running 24/7 (both electrical and solely
> > > > mechanical) literally won and lost WWII--a war fought by an educated,
> > > > worthwhile generation.
> > >
> > > If you think computers running 24/7 were responsible for winning the
> > > war, you must be the Nintendo generation poster child.
> >
> > Guess you never heard of the Manhattan project.
>
> ....and your point is ?
My point is it won the war. Obviously. Whether or not several
million Marines could've done the same over a period of months/years
is irrelevant.
Saying the A-bomb had nothing to do with winning the war is truly
absurd. So I'm not surprised you didn't know it had a major effect,
until I told you.
> The war was all but over by the time it was used.
> Or are you gullible enough to think the allies could of lost the war in
> 1945 ? This assumes the computers were used in the MP. Not sure there.
>
> (what am I saying, of course Steve is gullible)
--
Steve.
Patrick Ford
> > On the contrary, most of the sources you provide are so vague that
> > they could be interpreted in any way and still look correct.
>
> Why don't you try addredssing one then?
Because you totally ignore all the valid arguments that refute your belief
that firmware is hardware, that hardware can be downloaded from the net,
etc, etc, etc.
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
¸
,+°´°+,¸¸,+°´°+,¸¸,+°´°+,¸¸,+°´°+,¸¸,+°´°+,¸¸,+°´°+,¸¸,+°´°+,¸¸,+°´°+,¸
Patrick Ford
>
> Saying the A-bomb had nothing to do with winning the war is truly
> absurd. So I'm not surprised you didn't know it had a major effect,
>until I told you.
The war was over. The earlier incendiary bombing of Tokyo had more effect
that the two A-bombs. The war in Europe was also over.
Kirk Strauser
At 2001-04-02T00:18:52Z, Bill Hoggett <bill_h...@lineone.net> writes:
> Also had a Pong home unit, with about four different variations - remember
> the "football" one (it was probably called by different names in different
> countries), with small goal areas, and two units - one attacker and one
> defender - per team?
My dad won one of those for being salesman of the year or something, back in
197x. It had (IIRC, which I probably don't) tennis, jai ali, hockey, and
soccer. They were all the exact same game, except that the number and
layout of paddles per team changed according to the settings.
Wanna hear something funny? My first <steve>SOFTWARE</steve> programming
experience was shortly thereafter. My parents bought an Atari 2600, and
after much begging they also picked up the BASIC cartridge (I wanted it
mainly for the cool controllers). Each of 24 keypad buttons had 4
functions. They were listed around the button as such:
A
/-\
D| |B
\-/
C
The top option was colored red, right was green, bottom was white, left was
blue (or some similar setup). To enter something, you'd find the button
with the function you wanted, then you'd hit this special button that cycled
through the colors until the cursor was the same color as the function on
the button. It took *forever* to enter the simplest things.
Of course, the difficulty entering data was somewhat mitigated by the fact
that the thing had 63 BYTES (no, Steve-o, not kilobytes) of RAM, which meant
that the upper bound on what you could possibly want to input was pretty
damn low.
--
Kirk Strauser
Angus Manwaring
>SG wrote:
> >
>> Saying the A-bomb had nothing to do with winning the war is truly
>> absurd. So I'm not surprised you didn't know it had a major effect,
>>until I told you.
>The war was over. The earlier incendiary bombing of Tokyo had more effect
>that the two A-bombs. The war in Europe was also over.
The war wasn't over. Just as it wasn't over for the thousands of Russians
that were killed taking Berlin.
The incendiary bombing killed more people, but it didn't have a greater
effect on the Japanese. The fact that a single bomb could level a city had
a huge effect and brought about the surrender.
I agree that "The A-Bomb won the war" is too simplistic a statement,
rather it brought about the final surrender.
All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Kelli Halliburton
news:1026.492T298T6353241angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk...
> I agree that "The A-Bomb won the war" is too simplistic a statement,
> rather it brought about the final surrender.
Right. The electronic computers that helped the war effort had nothing to do
with the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project depnded entirely on slide
rules and electromechanical calculators and human computers.
The electronic computers that contributed to the war effort were Colossus,
which helped break the Enigma encryption scheme, and the ABC and the
precursors to ENIAC, which were used to create artillery and bombardier
tables. Another example would be the analog devices that were used in the
B-29's guns to compensate for windage and airspeed and relative motion, and
to prevent gunners from shooting parts of their own airplanes off. B-29 guns
were quite accurate, and it allowed the SuperFortresses to make it back from
the extended missions their range made possible without the need for the
level of fighter support that was required in the European theater.
Tom and Lisa Peters
SG wrote:
>
> Tom and Lisa Peters<gionp...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SG wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom and Lisa Peters<gionp...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SG wrote:
> > > > >
> > ....and your point is ?
>
> My point is it won the war. Obviously. Whether or not several
> million Marines could've done the same over a period of months/years
> is irrelevant.
Its such a shame to think someone in the armed forces is so ignorant
about the biggest conflict this century. Ah well, not much you say
surprises me (or anyone else).
The war was all-but-over, Steve. The A-bomb did not win the war, it
hastened its end. A small difference, but I assume you cant understand
that. No single issue "won" the war, but many things.
Back to your Nintendo, Steve !
> Saying the A-bomb had nothing to do with winning the war is truly
> absurd. So I'm not surprised you didn't know it had a major effect,
> until I told you.
Steve, you couldnt tell grass to be green.
> Steve.
Mad Dog
Bjørnar Bolsøy
<3ACA8230...@home.com>:
>SG wrote:
>> My point is it won the war. Obviously. Whether or not several
>> million Marines could've done the same over a period of
>> months/years is irrelevant.
>
>Its such a shame to think someone in the armed forces is so
>ignorant about the biggest conflict this century. Ah well, not
>much you say surprises me (or anyone else).
>
>The war was all-but-over, Steve. The A-bomb did not win the war,
>it hastened its end. A small difference, but I assume you cant
>understand that. No single issue "won" the war, but many things.
I think most people agree the A-bomb(s) didn't win the war, but
"helped" the Japanese surrender. Though in perspective it could
be mentioned that the about 330 B29s responsible for the Tokyo
firebomb raids during March 8-10 1945 caused more devestation
than both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki - combined.
Regards...
SG
> Tom and Lisa Peters <gionp...@home.com> wrote in
> <3ACA8230...@home.com>:
> >SG wrote:
>
> >> My point is it won the war. Obviously. Whether or not several
> >> million Marines could've done the same over a period of
> >> months/years is irrelevant.
> >
> >Its such a shame to think someone in the armed forces is so
> >ignorant about the biggest conflict this century. Ah well, not
> >much you say surprises me (or anyone else).
> >
> >The war was all-but-over, Steve. The A-bomb did not win the war,
> >it hastened its end. A small difference, but I assume you cant
> >understand that. No single issue "won" the war, but many things.
So the fact that the war ended a few days after the second was
dropped was purely coincidence, right? Get a life. Millions of
American lives yet to be spent on the bloodiest most brutal invasion
the world would have ever known is not "all but over" except to
someone who has never risked their own life in war (That would be
you. How do I know that? Because of your woeful maturity level).
> I think most people agree the A-bomb(s) didn't win the war, but
> "helped" the Japanese surrender. Though in perspective it could
> be mentioned that the about 330 B29s responsible for the Tokyo
> firebomb raids during March 8-10 1945 caused more devestation
> than both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki - combined.
Actually Bjornar, I think virtually every major fire bombing raid
was more deadly than either A-bomb. 75-90K dead per conventional, vs
about 45-60K for the nuclear, if memory serves.
--
Steve.
Bill Hoggett
>So the fact that the war ended a few days after the second was
>dropped was purely coincidence, right? Get a life. Millions of
>American lives yet to be spent on the bloodiest most brutal invasion
>the world would have ever known is not "all but over" except to
>someone who has never risked their own life in war (That would be
>you. How do I know that? Because of your woeful maturity level).
Actually, there was no question of invading Japan. They were
isolated, in retreat, with all their allies utterly beaten. There was
only ever going to be one outcome.
You may have forgotten, but your country wasn't the only one to fight
the Japanese at the time, not was it the first.
The A-Bomb was significant in the fact that it hastened the end of the
war, and thus saved an unspecified number of allied lives. However,
the A-Bomb was not responsible for *winning* the war. That was
already done, the outcome decided. The A-Bomb merely marked its end.
>Actually Bjornar, I think virtually every major fire bombing raid
>was more deadly than either A-bomb. 75-90K dead per conventional, vs
>about 45-60K for the nuclear, if memory serves.
Is this counting all those who died as a result of the bombing, or
just those killed in the actual attack?
Tom and Lisa Peters
SG wrote:
>
> Bjørnar Bolsøy<bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> wrote:
>
> > Tom and Lisa Peters <gionp...@home.com> wrote in
> > <3ACA8230...@home.com>:
> > >SG wrote:
> >
> > >> My point is it won the war. Obviously. Whether or not several
> > >> million Marines could've done the same over a period of
> > >> months/years is irrelevant.
> > >
> > >Its such a shame to think someone in the armed forces is so
> > >ignorant about the biggest conflict this century. Ah well, not
> > >much you say surprises me (or anyone else).
> > >
> > >The war was all-but-over, Steve. The A-bomb did not win the war,
> > >it hastened its end. A small difference, but I assume you cant
> > >understand that. No single issue "won" the war, but many things.
>
> So the fact that the war ended a few days after the second was
> dropped was purely coincidence, right? Get a life. Millions of
> American lives yet to be spent on the bloodiest most brutal invasion
> the world would have ever known is not "all but over" except to
> someone who has never risked their own life in war (That would be
> you. How do I know that? Because of your woeful maturity level).
What part of "all-but-over" is hard to understand ? Sure the amphibious
invasion would of taken a lot of casualties, but the end would never
be in doubt. The Japanese were doomed one way or another.
As for my "woeful maturity level", everyone is laughing at you Steve,
not me.
The A-bomb hastened the end, and almost didnt even do that (Japanese
palace coup). But thats a too subtle point for you to grasp,
apparently. I will try smaller words for you next time.
> > I think most people agree the A-bomb(s) didn't win the war, but
> > "helped" the Japanese surrender. Though in perspective it could
> > be mentioned that the about 330 B29s responsible for the Tokyo
> > firebomb raids during March 8-10 1945 caused more devestation
> > than both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki - combined.
>
> Actually Bjornar, I think virtually every major fire bombing raid
> was more deadly than either A-bomb. 75-90K dead per conventional, vs
> about 45-60K for the nuclear, if memory serves.
>
> --
>
> Steve.
Rave On, Steve !
Mad Dog
Bjørnar Bolsøy
<uekmctglsutoi36bo...@4ax.com>:
>> So the fact that the war ended a few days after the second was
>> dropped was purely coincidence, right? Get a life. Millions of
>> American lives yet to be spent on the bloodiest most brutal
>> invasion the world would have ever known is not "all but over"
>> except to someone who has never risked their own life in war
>> (That would be you. How do I know that? Because of your woeful
>> maturity level).
>
>Actually, there was no question of invading Japan. They were
>isolated, in retreat, with all their allies utterly beaten. There
>was only ever going to be one outcome.
>
>You may have forgotten, but your country wasn't the only one to
>fight the Japanese at the time, not was it the first.
A major problem wasn't that Japan didn't understand the catastrophic
turn of their war effort by 1945, but rather that they didn't
have a plan for capitulation. It was never a spoken issue. The
military leadership had told the population of nothing but victory
and certain enslavement by the demonic enemy for years, and the
firece firebombing raids of virtually every major Japanese city
probably didn't give the Japanese much reason for doubt.
It really wasn't until the Potsdam Declaration on July 26
that the Japanese became more comfortable of Allied intentions
when they were assured that Japan wouldn't be enslaved or
destroyed in an invation. Up until this moment the Japanese
leadership seemed confident to fight until the bitter end,
regardless of cost, and it can be discussed whether or not
the A-bomb would have had a decisive effect on this conviction.
From a objective perspective it's certainly only a matter of
figures: the A-bomb destroys 1 city with 1 bomber - using
conventional means it takes approximately 220 bombers to
destroy a city (according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey
after the war) and I'm pretty sure the Japanese knew the Allies
had both the resources and determination to pull this through.
>> Actually Bjornar, I think virtually every major fire bombing
>> raid was more deadly than either A-bomb. 75-90K dead per
>> conventional, vs about 45-60K for the nuclear, if memory serves.
>
>Is this counting all those who died as a result of the bombing, or
>just those killed in the actual attack?
Figures from the US Strategic Bombing Survey look something
like this:
Target Hiroshima Nagasaki Tokyo Fire Raid
Dead/Missing 70,000-80,000 35,000-40,000 83,000
Wounded 70,000 40,000 102,000
Total Casualties 140,000-150,000 75,000-80,000 185,000
Pop. Dens. 35,000 perSqmile 65,000 130,000
Area Destroyed 4.7 sq mile 1.8 sq mile 15.8 sq mile
Attacking Platform 1 B-29 1 B-29 334 B-29s
Weapon(s) Tall Boy 15Kton Fat Man 22Kton 1,667 tons
Regards...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
<Xns9078684FB...@195.70.164.134>:
> Weapon(s) Tall Boy 15Kton Fat Man 22Kton 1,667 tons
That should be Little Boy, for anyone concerned (Tall Boy
was the Brit's 12,000lb "Dambuster" used in the raids against
the Dortmund-Ems canal in late 1943).
Regards...
Bjørnar Bolsøy
Checked out the new XNews 4.04.03 test Bill? Quite a few
improvements, not at least multilevel colour quoting,
more powerful folder search options and download managment.
Regards...
Bill Hoggett
Bolsøy) wrote:
> From a objective perspective it's certainly only a matter of
> figures: the A-bomb destroys 1 city with 1 bomber - using
> conventional means it takes approximately 220 bombers to
> destroy a city (according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey
> after the war) and I'm pretty sure the Japanese knew the Allies
> had both the resources and determination to pull this through.
Obviously. I doesn't take a genius to do the maths.
> Figures from the US Strategic Bombing Survey look something
> like this:
>
> Target Hiroshima Nagasaki Tokyo Fire Raid
>
> Dead/Missing 70,000-80,000 35,000-40,000 83,000
> Wounded 70,000 40,000 102,000
> Total Casualties 140,000-150,000 75,000-80,000 185,000
> Pop. Dens. 35,000 perSqmile 65,000 130,000
>
> Area Destroyed 4.7 sq mile 1.8 sq mile 15.8 sq mile
> Attacking Platform 1 B-29 1 B-29 334 B-29s
> Weapon(s) Tall Boy 15Kton Fat Man 22Kton 1,667 tons
I was thinking of the later casualties, from radiation induced cancer
and other related ailments.
Bill Hoggett
Cheers for the tip Bjørnar.
<sheepish embarrassment>
I must admit time has had the better of me lately. I always seem to
have too much to do and too little time, with the result that the news
reader site development has suffered very badly. However, I want to
say the project has been put back a bit, but not abandoned. It *will*
be done, though the site is likely to be much redesigned from the old
material currently on show.
</sheepish embarrassment>
Bjørnar Bolsøy
No exact data are available about the numbers of casualties
caused by the two bombings. And noone really knows about the
long-term genetic effects of such radiation poisoning.
However, it's generally believed today that the immediate US
post-war figures were conservative. The Japanese now estimates
total fatalities in the two cities, including deaths that can
be traced to the bombs, at between 300000 and 350000.
Depressing as it is, some statistics by the Hiroshima City
Government puts the figures at 60000 deaths in the immediate
post-war years, and then leveling out with the rest of the
city population, totalling the Hiroshima casualties at around
200000.
http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/data.html
Regards...
SG
> On 4 Apr 2001 09:00:41 -0500, "SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >So the fact that the war ended a few days after the second was
> >dropped was purely coincidence, right? Get a life. Millions of
> >American lives yet to be spent on the bloodiest most brutal invasion
> >the world would have ever known is not "all but over" except to
> >someone who has never risked their own life in war (That would be
> >you. How do I know that? Because of your woeful maturity level).
>
> Actually, there was no question of invading Japan. They were
> isolated, in retreat, with all their allies utterly beaten. There was
> only ever going to be one outcome.
You are completely lost. The plan to invade was in place, and called
for the lives of approximately 1 million US servicemen. Why do you
think the bomb (obviously a horrible thing) was determined to be best
way to win the war?
How lost can a kid be these days? Wow.
--
Steve.
SG
>
>
> SG wrote:
> >
> > Tom and Lisa Peters<gionp...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SG wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom and Lisa Peters<gionp...@home.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SG wrote:
> > > > > >
>
> > > ....and your point is ?
> >
> > My point is it won the war. Obviously. Whether or not several
> > million Marines could've done the same over a period of months/years
> > is irrelevant.
>
> Its such a shame to think someone in the armed forces is so ignorant
> about the biggest conflict this century. Ah well, not much you say
> surprises me (or anyone else).
>
> The war was all-but-over, Steve. The A-bomb did not win the war, it
> hastened its end.
No difference. As you've never served your country (I can tell from
your woeful lack of maturity) you obviously wouldn't know or care
about the consequences of one million more US servicemen dead.
--
Steve.
SG
> "Angus Manwaring" <angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1026.492T298T6353241angus@angusm_ANTISPEM_.demon.co.uk...
>
> > I agree that "The A-Bomb won the war" is too simplistic a statement,
> > rather it brought about the final surrender.
>
> Right. The electronic computers that helped the war effort had nothing to do
> with the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project depnded entirely on slide
> rules and electromechanical calculators and human computers.
>
> The electronic
And fully mechanical computers, like the 200 Bombes in use
working on cracking Enigma codes, 24/7.
> computers that contributed to the war effort were Colossus,
> which helped break the Enigma encryption scheme, and the ABC and the
> precursors to ENIAC, which were used to create artillery and bombardier
> tables. Another example would be the analog devices that were used in the
> B-29's guns to compensate for windage and airspeed and relative motion, and
> to prevent gunners from shooting parts of their own airplanes off. B-29 guns
> were quite accurate, and it allowed the SuperFortresses to make it back from
> the extended missions their range made possible without the need for the
> level of fighter support that was required in the European theater.
And none of which could run computer software, obviously, which was
invented some 25 years later. These devices only executed programs
permanently imbedded in single purpose hardware.
--
Steve.
SG
And I'm sorry to report that all of those events were life saving
actions, given the alternative. For both sides.
--
Steve.
Tom and Lisa Peters
Which all fine and correct and utterly irrelevant to the point the
Japanese had all but lost the war. Invasion or not, the Japanese
were going to lose.
> How lost can a kid be these days? Wow.
Are you sure you serve in the military ?
> Steve.
Mad Dog
Tom and Lisa Peters
Nice random guess. Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.
As if you could tell.
1 million dead servicemen or not, Japan was going to lose.
In fact, I bet if you had to ask, all those who served would disagree
that
the A-bomb won the war... it was those same service men who could claim
to have won it.
Too bad you cant see that.
Back to your Nintendo, Steve.
> Steve.
Mad Dog
Bjørnar Bolsøy
>Bjørnar Bolsøy<bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> wrote:
>> Depressing as it is, some statistics by the Hiroshima City
>> Government puts the figures at 60000 deaths in the immediate
>> post-war years, and then leveling out with the rest of the
>> city population, totalling the Hiroshima casualties at around
>> 200000.
>>
>> http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/data.html
>
>And I'm sorry to report that all of those events were life saving
>actions, given the alternative. For both sides.
Personally I think that's debatable.
Regards...
Bill Hoggett
Never trust a version of history presented by the military, specially
that of the winning side.
It was mere coincidence of course, that the dropping of the A-Bombs
gave the generals a chance to use their new superweapon in anger -
against an enemy who couldn't strike back - and at the same time gave
the politicians a chance to send a stark message to the real
adversary: Russia.
SG
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:26:41 GMT, bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam (Bjørnar
> Bolsøy) wrote:
>
> >"SG" <sg...@erols.com> wrote in <3ACF4A82.MD...@erols.com>:
> >>Bjørnar Bolsøy<bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> wrote:
> >
> >>> Depressing as it is, some statistics by the Hiroshima City
> >>> Government puts the figures at 60000 deaths in the immediate
> >>> post-war years, and then leveling out with the rest of the
> >>> city population, totalling the Hiroshima casualties at around
> >>> 200000.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/data.html
> >>
> >>And I'm sorry to report that all of those events were life saving
> >>actions, given the alternative. For both sides.
> >
> > Personally I think that's debatable.
>
> Never trust a version of history presented by the military,
The military made that history, who else are you going to trust?
Duh.
--
Steve.
SG
Its not. Do a little research and find out the considerations, the
-only- reason the Pres dropped the big one (twice) was that it was
deemed to be a massive saver of primarily American, but also Japanese
lives. Estimated: 1 million (American only) dead after 1-3 year
invasion of Japanese mainland.
--
Steve.
Bjørnar Bolsøy
>Bjørnar Bolsøy<bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> wrote:
>>> And I'm sorry to report that all of those events were life
>>> saving actions, given the alternative. For both sides.
>>
>> Personally I think that's debatable.
>
>Its not. Do a little research and find out the considerations,
>the -only- reason the Pres dropped the big one (twice) was that it
>was deemed to be a massive saver of primarily American, but also
>Japanese lives. Estimated: 1 million (American only) dead after
>1-3 year invasion of Japanese mainland.
I'm not so much concerned what the President thought at the
time, the Japanese are the ones who made their choices.
The Postdam declaration shows it's a complicated issue. Perhaps
the allied intentions were to save lives, but whether or not
it really did is another question.
Regards...
Joona I Palaste
you please stop arguing about WWII?
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pal...@cc.helsinki.fi) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Stronger, no. More seductive, cunning, crunchier the Dark Side is."
- Mika P. Nieminen
SG
> I personally don't think this is relevant to the Amiga any more. Could
> you please stop arguing about WWII?
But they don't know anything about the Amiga... How else can they
argue about something?
--
Steve.
Bjørnar Bolsøy
<9as4qk$45v$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>:
> I personally don't think this is relevant to the Amiga any more.
> Could you please stop arguing about WWII?
Argue about what? :^)
Regards...