Is this possible? (Storage) (Off-topic?)

From: Captain Napalm <spc_at_armigeron.com>
Date: Fri Apr 10 18:39:58 1998

Sam Ismail:

> How many times must this argument be re-hashed? You didn't join this list
> to discuss Star Trek, you joined it to discuss CLASSIC (ie. OLD, ANTIQUE,
> VINTAGE, OBSOLETE) computers. Hence the name, ClassicCmp. Anybody is
> free (and I encourage them) to ask ANY question they want that is
> somewhere in the realm of CLASSIC computers. There are hundreds of Star
> Trek discussion groups. Just because one is too lazy to go find them is
> no excuse.

  The episodes in question were over 10 years old, and it was a computer
related question. So in very loose interpretation of the rules, I would let
it slide by. But even taking a rather strict interpretation, would
discussions about fictional computers (over 10 years) be allowed? Or is
this list solely about collecting old computers?

  If it is, then I say throw out Toney Duell, since almost half his posts
are about electronics and peripherals than COMPUTERS (to pick a silly
example). Kick him off I say! Kick him off!

  Also, in my experience, most everthing in this industry is pretty much 10
years old or older. Virtual memory? Intelligent I/O? Plug and Play? Hot
swappable components? The next Microsoft innovation? So far, everything on
that list has been done by the early 70s, and frankly, there isn't much
being developed today that hasn't been done before in one way or another.

J. Maynard Gelinas:

> It's been going fine since the last flamefest without any jostling
> for position and authority, and this is the way it ought to
> continue (IMHO). While a message like this does not fit into the
> classiccmp charter, Tim Hotze has been a long standing member here
> and doesn't seem to be attempting to divert the charter to classic
> computers _and_ Star Trek by posting an off topic question every
> now and then. This is just _not_ worth making a stink over.
 
Sam Ismail:

> Maybe he doesn't "seem" to be to you, but the fact is, he is. And he did.
> All I will say is, please stick to the topic.

  What exactly IS the topic of this list? I'm sure that if I were to start
talking about software (older than 10 years of course) you might get on my
case about it being off topic. Maybe it'd be best for you to post what
topics you consider ON-TOPIC.

J. Maynard Gelinas:

> For the last few days you've been acting like you run the show
> again. Please stop. Please treat the list members like the
> adults they are, especially long standing members like Tim. Even
> Enrico, who I admit has annoyed me as well, deserves better
> treatment. You have the option to delete and filter... use it
> (see man procmail).

Sam Ismail:

> As for treating people like
> adults, Tim is 12. Enough said about that.

  And he comes across as being more polite than you. He did mark the
message as potentially being off topic (check the subject line).

  But your comment is totally out of line. Until told otherwise, I had no
idea that Tim was 12. How can you be sure that I'm not 13 myself? Just
because I may be younger than 18 means I don't get treated as an adult?
Must the people here who want to be treated as adults need to present a
valid driver's licence or other form valid ID?

  And how is Tim supposed to learn when the adults around him are
discouraging. Geeze, given some of the adults around here, let more kids
on; they seem more reasonable.

> Basically though, if people
> who want to be a part of this list will have the courtesy, as adults, to
> take care that this discussion stays within its intended bounds, their
> courtesy will be returned in kind. That's all. Very simple.

  But that "intended bounds" is rather open ended I'm afraid.

  For instance, while the Newton isn't (according to the definition used on
this list) a Classic Computer, a device *like it* was used (may have been
used) on the original Star Trek series. Every so often, a petty officer
would hand Kirk a slate and pen like object and he would sign off on
something, but you never saw paper on it.

  Did the producers of the show conceive of the Newton 30 years ago? Who
knows? They saw the actions on a regular military style ship and may have
"futuristically" made improvements to certain everyday tasks (yes, the
computers in the original series looked alot like contemporary computers,
but they understood voice commands, something IBM is currently investing a
lot of money into right now) (also, the original Star Trek bridge layout was
studied by the Navy oddly enough. But enough of Trek Trivia).

  And even the Newton isn't new, as the idea is definitely tracable back to
the late 60s/early 70s with Alan Kay and his Dynabook; a classical computer,
even if a fictional one.

  -spc (Would like to see Sam control the topics on alt.folklore.computers,
        where topic drift is a way of life 8-)
Received on Fri Apr 10 1998 - 18:39:58 BST