Re: Who Knew ?

Andreas Kohlbach

unread,

Nov 1, 2021, 1:52:18 PM11/1/21

to

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much
>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it
>>> easily.
>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the
>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s.
>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they
>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which
>> has a Z80 CPU.
>
> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80.
>
> Sinclair came very late to the party.
>
> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious
> . 1974 or thereabouts

"Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800
(designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True,
that one had a 8080.

> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again

It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1
were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2
a year later they produced large quantities.

> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later.

1977.

> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business.

I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.

> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on
> Z80s/8080s.

UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not
shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an
emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>.

> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler.

The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80
based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s.

But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a
6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly
used in the education sector.

If you check some links of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be
noticed that most of the used a Z80.

> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it.

The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in
numbers.

[...]

>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the
>> Oric,
>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day.
>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to
>> code
>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64).
>>
>
> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well?

Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the
UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market.

F'up2 alt.folklore.computers
--
Andreas

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,

Nov 1, 2021, 6:00:02 PM11/1/21

to

On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 13:52:08 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.

I was working in the Cambridge Tandy store when the TRS-80 came out
in the UK. We sold quite a number of them to small businesses, one customer
reported that it had reduced an essential monthly task from three days of
painstaking calculations to do a scratch job to three hours to do it
properly.

Later on we carried Apple ][s, PETs, North Star Horizons and all
sorts of other machines but when the TRS-80 first appeared it put computers
in places that would never have dreamed of them (that customer above was a
cattle farmer - he was the first business customer which tends to stick
in the mind).

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Quadibloc

unread,

Nov 1, 2021, 8:38:02 PM11/1/21

to

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 11:52:18 AM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> > Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business.
>
> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.

Indeed. The Model II and the Model 16 were designed for businesses, and
they were actually fairly decent computers for that purpose.

John Savard

Joy Beeson

unread,

Nov 2, 2021, 12:21:48 AM11/2/21

to

On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 13:52:08 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach
<a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer.

I bought mine to replace a worn-out typewriter.

I took to Scripsit like a duck to water.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net

1p166

unread,

Nov 2, 2021, 12:48:49 AM11/2/21

to

I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first
"Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something
the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or
TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you
were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip.

The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the
new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed
straight at the student/hobby market and I don't
think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to
a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort
of "milestone" though because regular Joes could
actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real
"democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore
came along shortly after and blew the Altairs
out of the water.

The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from
the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal
issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s.
More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon
edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC
market (except for the CoCo).

(Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but
you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish
but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still
sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use
in embedded systems, esp those that need to be
close to Real Time)

The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were
one of the next steps for Small Business computers.
The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were
nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters
too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as
home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but
could never quite afford one. The final version had
a 68000 co-processor board in there.

The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s,
a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled
box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but
the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure
out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard.
PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business"
market. They offered similar performance, but except
for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a
CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short-
lived companies.

I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge
people, who had a computer shop, but mostly
made money writing clones of popular computer
games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET.
Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-)
He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd
then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s
and C-64s.

TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves
by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for
3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit
chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by
the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky
hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup
which stored register sets and stuff in system
memory because, at the time, it was actually
faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch
And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember
that instruction. It was never meant as a
"small business" PC, and neither were the
VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus".
A few C64s were put to "business" USE however -
for a very long time there was a "local govt
channel" and once in a while it'd crash and
you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-)

The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were
pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture
units.

But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
others went under eventually ... though Commodore
made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have
fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
support programs too. I bought the original, but
there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
PC (semi)-Clone.

The native 550 graphics were superior,
but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and
you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky
jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit,
and about a third the price of IBM. I might still
have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk.

Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years
back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because
it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went
down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and
WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ...

Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box
but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of
XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas,
a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly
went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small
business" boxes. Think you can still buy them
on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay
and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I
have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there,
they were VERY good systems and the OS was well
ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs
and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four
inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,

Nov 2, 2021, 1:30:03 AM11/2/21

to

On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 19:27:59 -0400
Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:

> Thanks for the info, my assumption was probably wrong.

Possibly a simple matter of time - things changed very fast through
the late 70s and mid 80s.

> Cannot remember I have seen one in the stores back in the day. OK, was a
> small German town with only three stores carrying computers. They had
> Commodore 64 as of 1983, Atari 8-bit and later ZX Spectrums ad

It was 1978 when we were selling TRS-80s into businesses, by 83
there were a lot of better choices for business use and the TRS-80 line
mostly went to home use - there were some business models but they didn't
do well against CP/M, MP/M and soon after the IBM PC clones destroyed all
the diversity.

Charlie Gibbs

unread,

Nov 2, 2021, 2:17:13 AM11/2/21

to

On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.

:-(

> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
> others went under eventually ... though Commodore
> made a fair try with the Amigas.

Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management
ran the company into the ground. At one point the
president and CEO (Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali) were
pulling down bigger salaries than the heads of IBM -
while the techies and marketing staff starved.
Shareholder meetings were held in the Bahamas to
discourage those pesky shareholders from attending.

> Those STILL have
> fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
> Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
> support programs too. I bought the original, but
> there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
> that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
> PC (semi)-Clone.

The Amiga's biggest shortcoming was its lack of memory
protection. If you stayed away from buggy software
that stomped on random memory locations, you could
avoid almost all Guru Meditations.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

Niklas Karlsson

unread,

Nov 2, 2021, 6:16:43 AM11/2/21

to

On 2021-11-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>> Those STILL have
>> fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
>> Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
>> support programs too. I bought the original, but
>> there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
>> that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
>> PC (semi)-Clone.
>
> The Amiga's biggest shortcoming was its lack of memory
> protection. If you stayed away from buggy software
> that stomped on random memory locations, you could
> avoid almost all Guru Meditations.

Yeah, I didn't have very many. They happened, but not that often.

Niklas
--
"But when your parts are 4 and 6" big, and massively oversized for the job, and
designed for servicing by chimpanzees (which is not to say the people that do,
are), it's a lot easier to get things in a vague approximation of right."
-- Jasper Janssen

1p166

unread,

Nov 3, 2021, 12:28:05 AM11/3/21

to

up

On 11/2/21 2:17 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great
>> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it.
>
> :-(
>
>> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the
>> others went under eventually ... though Commodore
>> made a fair try with the Amigas.
>
> Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management
> ran the company into the ground.

Rats. Sinking ship. What did you expect ? Pretend
make an visible effort, to keep the stock prices up
while cashing-in to the max.

Commodore was OVER. It had its day in the sun but
IBM (& clones) and Apple were IT - the future.
Whatever Amiga could do, Mac could do, or soon
do, better - and had a bigger customer base.

The Market at the time was consolidating. Only
two main players. All the fringe players were
OUT. Take the money and RUN.

Sorry, but Amiga was NOT a competitor. It had
its good features, but others, better capitalized,
soon copied and exceeded them.

That's the way it goes.

Whatever the Next Big Thing is, there will initially
be a bunch of players. Again, probably TWO will become
IT and all the others will wither away.

And even that duality will be something of a lie ...
the BIG people will have stock/influence in BOTH
"sides". Humans LOVE "duality", choices or false
choices. PLAY that psychology for profit.

Cynical ? Check it out. REAL.

MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa.
Check it out, you can confirm that. The "sides"
are all for show, a way of goading consumers
and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty
to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side.

The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
understood the utility of cultivating those
fake "sides".

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,

Nov 3, 2021, 3:30:02 AM11/3/21

to

On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
> understood the utility of cultivating those
> fake "sides".

Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have
been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly
recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive,
that was a sobering discovery.

The indoctrination for it starts in the earliest school with "What's
your favourite colour" and gets strengthened outside the classroom with
"Who do you support".

I remain thankful that Hermann Göring's astute observation on the
ease of raising war fever is not widely utilised today - I remain slightly
suspicious about the Falkland's War being a field test of the principle, it
was certainly a good demonstration if not.

Charlie Gibbs

unread,

Nov 3, 2021, 1:18:43 PM11/3/21

to

On 2021-11-03, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa.
> Check it out, you can confirm that.

Back in the '80s, M$ made Apple an outright gift of
$150 million. Apple was the only thing keeping the
Department of Justice off Microsoft's back, so Apple
had to be kept alive, but weak.

Unfortunately for M$, Apple didn't remain weak.

> The "sides"
> are all for show, a way of goading consumers
> and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty
> to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side.
>
> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
> understood the utility of cultivating those
> fake "sides".

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Charlie Gibbs

unread,

Nov 3, 2021, 1:18:44 PM11/3/21

to

On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>> understood the utility of cultivating those
>> fake "sides".
>
> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have
> been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly
> recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive,
> that was a sobering discovery.

It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways.
The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond
what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the
wall instead of following you around the house.

My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and
_Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're
seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been
replaced by social media.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs |
\ / <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> | "Alexa, define 'bugging'."

X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus |

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,

Nov 3, 2021, 4:00:02 PM11/3/21

to

On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
> > 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
> >> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
> >> understood the utility of cultivating those
> >> fake "sides".
> >
> > Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
> > Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and
> > have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I
> > fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly
> > simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery.
>
> It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways.
> The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond
> what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the
> wall instead of following you around the house.

What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed
to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but
rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest.

Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a
society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good -
right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with
carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as
there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless
rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive.

> My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and
> _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're
> seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been
> replaced by social media.

For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human
nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent
slavery.

Charlie Gibbs

unread,

Nov 3, 2021, 5:34:39 PM11/3/21

to

On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
>>> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>>>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>>>> understood the utility of cultivating those
>>>> fake "sides".
>>>
>>> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
>>> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and
>>> have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I
>>> fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly
>>> simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery.
>>
>> It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways.
>> The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond
>> what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the
>> wall instead of following you around the house.
>
> What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed
> to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but
> rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest.

Yes, it didn't occur to Orwell that Big Brother would actually turn out
to be Big Business. But let's face it, that one went past most people
(but not Pohl & Kornbluth, as you point out).

> Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a
> society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good -
> right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with
> carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as
> there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless
> rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive.
>
>> My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and
>> _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're
>> seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been
>> replaced by social media.
>
> For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human
> nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent
> slavery.

Societies seem to need a slave class. _Brave New World_ described this
in some detail. We thought that machines would take the place of this
class - but instead have turned out to be agents of the ruling class.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse.
\ / <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful -

X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin

1p166

unread,

Nov 3, 2021, 9:02:26 PM11/3/21

to

On 11/3/21 3:26 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>> understood the utility of cultivating those
>> fake "sides".
>
> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have
> been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly
> recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive,
> that was a sobering discovery.

It used to be the politicians/priesthood, but then
the ADVERTISERS came - and post-WW2 undertook what
you might call the "science of salesmanship", lots
of psych experiments designed to yield objective
data. What motivates people, in what ways, how much,
how long ... they made manipulation a science. And
then the politicians/priesthood (esp evangelicals)
borrowed all that data.

I'll rec a somewhat old book to you - it can still
be had. It was writ in the late 50s by a polymath
named Jaques Ellul and called "The Technological
Society". It was not about computers - it was about
the growth of science-informed psychological
manipulation by State and private entities. The
original was in French, but the English translation
is perfectly readable, albeit with some rather odd
wording at times.

Hmm ... I wonder what Obama's "Brain Initiative" was
REALLY supposed to find out :-)

> The indoctrination for it starts in the earliest school with "What's
> your favourite colour" and gets strengthened outside the classroom with
> "Who do you support".
>
> I remain thankful that Hermann Göring's astute observation on the
> ease of raising war fever is not widely utilised today - I remain slightly
> suspicious about the Falkland's War being a field test of the principle, it
> was certainly a good demonstration if not.
>

Goebbels ... Goring's interests rarely strayed from killing
people .......

Goebbels was a very GOOD propagandist ... but fortunately
his instincts and insights were mostly limited to German
culture. His stuff never translated very well.

But if Goebbels had the wealth of scientific data the
Mad Men compiled ...

Anyway, the MS/Apple "duality" is a sort of deliberate
scam. You pick a side and are encouraged to feel all
superior about it, hurl distain at "those OTHERS".
Meanwhile the big investors buy stock in BOTH companies
and encourage the 'competition' illusion.

Besides we Linux people know WE are the best :-)

Dave Garland

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 1:01:42 AM11/4/21

to

On 11/3/2021 8:02 PM, 1p166 wrote:

> Goebbels ... Goring's interests rarely strayed from killing
> people .......

Goebbels was a good propagandist. Goering (former fighter ace) was
more of a junkie who was self-important. His was a perceptive observation:

> Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
> Hermann Goring

Ahem A Rivet's Shot

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 1:30:03 AM11/4/21

to

On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 21:02:18 -0400
1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:

> Besides we Linux people know WE are the best :-)

Nah! Second best, BSD is the best :)

The Natural Philosopher

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 7:05:24 AM11/4/21

to

On 03/11/2021 19:58, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human
> nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent
> slavery.

We never lost slavery. We just use poverty and debt, not chains.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 7:08:16 AM11/4/21

to

On 04/11/2021 01:02, 1p166 wrote:
> On 11/3/21 3:26 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400
>> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>>
>>>     The Big Money people had this figured out LONG
>>>     ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli
>>>     understood the utility of cultivating those
>>>     fake "sides".
>>
>>     Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of
>> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have
>> been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly
>> recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and
>> naive,
>> that was a sobering discovery.
>
> It used to be the politicians/priesthood, but then
> the ADVERTISERS came - and post-WW2 undertook what
> you might call the "science of salesmanship", lots
> of psych experiments designed to yield objective
> data. What motivates people, in what ways, how much,
> how long ... they made manipulation a science. And
> then the politicians/priesthood (esp evangelicals)
> borrowed all that data.
>

Black magic, meet science.

And I hold stock in the big investors.

> Besides we Linux people know WE are the best :-)

From a certain technological point of view, yes.

But it ain't the only point of view.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 7:09:30 AM11/4/21

to

Goering or Göring - not Goring. That's what bulls do.

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

Bob Eager

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 9:48:31 AM11/4/21

to

On Thu, 04 Nov 2021 05:01:56 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 21:02:18 -0400 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>
>> Besides we Linux people know WE are the best :-)
>
> Nah! Second best, BSD is the best :)

+1

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Bob Eager

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 9:49:04 AM11/4/21

to

Or a place in Sussex.

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 1:02:41 PM11/4/21

to

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 3:34:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> Societies seem to need a slave class. _Brave New World_ described this
> in some detail. We thought that machines would take the place of this
> class - but instead have turned out to be agents of the ruling class.

And here I thought that the slave class subsidizing the people of Western
industrialized nations such as the one I live in as well as your own was the
labor force of the PRC.

Yet, the time when Canada, the United States, and much of the world was
happiest was when there was no 'slave class'; in the early 'sixties, we made
our own TV sets and radios, out of vacuum tubes even, and so there were
decent jobs for everyone.

Still, despite the pandemic, we're having the Great Resignation - apparently
the world is currently in what will become known as the YouTube Bubble.

Having only recently - some two million years ago - evolved from the
chimpanzee, it might not be too outrageous to suppose that a significant
proportion of the human race is not yet well-developed enough for civilized
life. (ObSF: _The Island of Doctor Moreau_ by H. G. Wells.) But we don't
have as much clear evidence of that as we might, otherwise, because we're
neglecting the education system - presumably out of a perceived need for
a slave class - so that we have many people whose inability to function as
responsible citizens was not genetically fore-ordained.

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 1:11:46 PM11/4/21

to

On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 11:01:42 PM UTC-6, Dave Garland wrote:

> Goebbels was a good propagandist. Goering (former fighter ace) was
> more of a junkie who was self-important. His was a perceptive observation:

> > Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders
> > of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to
> > drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship,
> > or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
> > can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
> > have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
> > for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same
> > in every country.

Perceptive, perhaps. But self-exculpatory, certainly.

The Nazis were _lying_ about the Jews, about Czechoslovakia, about Poland,
as they stirred up hostility in Germany to them.

The French and British governments weren't lying about Germany having
invaded Poland, a nation with large coal reserves which, if captured by
Germany, would give it a strategic advantage.

Franklin Delan Roosevelt didn't make up Pearl Harbor.

So, while the pattern Goering identified was hardly unique to the Nazi regime,
it's still true that there's a difference between aggressive countries and peaceful
ones. Democracies may stir the people up against threats that are not immediate,
but they're rather less likely to engage in blatantly aggressive wars.

John Savard

Quadibloc

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 1:16:02 PM11/4/21

to

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 11:11:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> Franklin Delan Roosevelt didn't make up Pearl Harbor.

And neither did Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which was my point.

John Savard

Charlie Gibbs

unread,

Nov 4, 2021, 1:19:47 PM11/4/21

to

On 2021-11-04, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 07:17:00 -0700
> "Kurt Weiske" <kurt....@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-n7j-this> wrote:
>
>> To: Charlie Gibbs
>> -=> Charlie Gibbs wrote to
>> comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linix,alt.folklore.computers <=-
>>

>>> My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and

>>> _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're

>>> seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been

>>> replaced by social media.
>>
>> Imagine if Facebook chose "Soma" as their new name... :)

Maybe the inventors of the Soma cube puzzle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_cube

might sue them.

Rumour has it that the puzzle was named after Huxley's drug.

A friend played with it a lot in the early '70s,
and subscribed to a newsletter whose trademark
was a 2 x 2 x 7 tower with one cube missing.
Originally this was a very stable structure,
but my friend found a way to build it in a very
unstable form. He liked to think that there
was a lot of screaming when the newsl