wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am

wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm

Or maybe she's a figment of his imagination and Robesin would have to
roll out her old RRAP account when he's much too busy creating new
accounts for our geophysicist visitors.

"Geophysicists?" :-)

Why sure, Leonard. Your pal, Col. Mark Morgan has now confessed to
being a geophysicist. From some of his message headers, he is missing
his id.

Must have missed those. shrug Hawaii is the new
rock-and-roll state. Newington, CT, will ignore it as it
does all other things west of the Mississippi River...

There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright
falsehood. Both CNN and Fox News carried accounts of cellular phone
service being disrupted. I'll bet some of those radio hams end up
handling communication in the aftermath of the earthquake. Texas is
west of the Mississippi. Do you think hams will be a part of the action
in the wake of the flooding there?

For years he has tried to avoid posting anything
anywhere to document his alleged 18-year active USMC
career. He won't even make it available as private
e-mail.

I served in the military only four years, Len. I've posted nothing here
in documenting my active duty service. I've not, nor would I ever make
any such documentation available to you in an e-mail. Look what kind of
things you've written about my active duty military service. Go figure!

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time. Naturally, those who attended the "parochial
school" of the Church of St. Hiram will pick up on the
technique.

You haven't attended catechism studies and haven't been confirmed. You
don't pledge, you don't tithe. You may not partake. You're still an
unbaptized heathen in the world of amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm

wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm


There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright
falsehood.

"Outright falsehoods?" Illuminate the group with your
godly light and tell me that OPINIONS are "factual." :-)

Both CNN and Fox News carried accounts of cellular phone
service being disrupted. I'll bet some of those radio hams end up
handling communication in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Have CNN or Fox News carried acounts of hams "up handling
communication" in the aftermath of the [Hawaii] earthquake?
How about ABC, CBS, or NBC? Any major newspapers?

The Hawaii 6.7-Richter earthquake is OVER, senior. No
loss of life. Property damage, some. Utility damage,
some. The Governor of Hawaii has been quoted (several
times) as saying "Hawaii is open for business!" :-)

Is amateur radio about business? Sorry, it can't be.
FCC defines USA amateur radio as being done WITHOUT
pecuniary interest. No money for services rendered.
That doesn't sound like any "business" in the normal sense.

Texas is west of the Mississippi.

Fantastic bit of TRIVIA, mister atlas. :-)

Or do we call you Rand or McNally? :-)


I served in the military only four years, Len.

That's four MORE years than some civilian in PA served. :-)


I've posted nothing here
in documenting my active duty service.

Not a word? Oh, THAT is a complete FALSEHOOD! :-)


I've not, nor would I ever make
any such documentation available to you in an e-mail.

How about making it available to law enforcement? :-)


Look what kind of
things you've written about my active duty military service.

Tsk, I've failed to acknowledge your glorious heroism
in "a country at war?" Oh, my. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk...

You need some medal or ribbon to highlight your "active
duty military service?" BUY some. They are easy to
purchase. Somebody with the license call K4YZ has done
that, hasn't he? :-)

Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that. Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available. I've got a whole
20-page photo essay posted on what I did.


You haven't attended catechism studies and haven't been confirmed. You
don't pledge, you don't tithe. You may not partake. You're still an
unbaptized heathen in the world of amateur radio.

Sorry, but I Pledge from time to time. Good furniture
polish and dusting treatment.

I don't tithe amateur radio. It is NOT a religion.
It isn't a recognized religion. Except maybe in a
small town in Connecticutt? :-)

Tsk, tsk, I've been a hobbyist in radio and electronics
for 59 years, still doing that. I've been a professional
(as in accepting compensation for work performed) for 54
years, still doing that (but not now in regular office
hours).

I partake all I want, anytime I want. Fascinating thing
this radio-electronics thing. Made it my career choice.

I have a COMMERCIAL radio operator license, even had a
BUSINESS radio license. I got "baptised" (using your
ugly and insulting term) back in 1953 doing high-power
long-distance HF transmitting. I've since transmitted
legally from the air (at the controls of an aircraft)
and from the sea (from a private boat on HF SSB). I've
worked a station ON the moon...something amateurs have
NEVER done. :-)

Well, yes, I would imagine YOU think of ham radio as
some kind of "religion" where mantra is everything but
the technology is too ethereal for you to understand.
Take heart, your epiphany may come, even without anyone
kicking your phany.

As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm

wrote:

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are
factual.

Give us an example.

You GOT the "example."

He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946.

Just stating facts, Len. Nothing I stated about that machine was
incorrect.

You copied off the Moore School website PR material.
In itself that material is either incomplete or
erroneous...such as the extravagant claim that
"ENIAC changed the world."

The FACT is that tomorrow, Thursday, 19 October, marks
the 33rd anniversary of a federal court decision on
who had the first electronic computer. The judge's
decision was that Iowa State University had it, the
Atanasoff-Berry Computer (familiarly called "ABC").

Not only that, court transcripts indicate that John
Mauchly had already seen the "ABC" but talked to both
Atanasoff and Berry in detail on that "ABC." Further,
Mauchly and Atanasoff exchanged mail following Mauchly's
trip to Iowa to see the "ABC."

If you wish to see more and in detail on the REAL
"first electronic computer," just go to:

http://www.iastate.edu

And follow the links. There's many pages of information
on the "ABC" plus that famous trial about "the ENIAC
patents." Sperry-Rand (who had purchased the rights to
the ENIAC patents) LOST that trial. TS for Sperry-Rand.
Not only that, the judge chided Mauchly in his decision
paper, stating that Mauchly had taken a priori knowledge
from the "ABC" and tried to pass it off as "his" for the
ENIAC.


As for the ABC, it was not completely electronic.

Really?!? WTF are you talking about? Look at the Iowa
State "ABC" pages. Nice illustrations of it.

More importantly, the original was never completed.

"Never completed?!?" WTF are you talking about?
It was "completed" in the 1939 to 1942 period. As far
as a federal court is concerned it was most definitely
COMPLETED, completed well enough for the judge to
declare it, the "ABC", was the FIRST electronic
computer. [TRY to get used to that, Jimmie, I know it
is damn difficult for you but for 33 years the "first"
electronic computer title has gone to the Atanasoff-
Berry Computer of 1939]

ENIAC was fully operational for over a
decade -

NOT "fully operational" by Moore School or the short-
lived 'company' of Mauchly and Eckert (they went broke
and Sperry-Rand had to bail them out by buying rights
to the machine). The US Army took it over (having paid
for it in the first place) and John Von Neuman suggested
the Army should CHANGE certain parts of it.

ENIAC was *NOT* the "First" electronic computer. Get
used to it.

ABC was not finished until 1998.

Bull****. What *I* described was a REPLICA. Built by
the Computer Sciences Department of Iowa State. Between
1942 and about 1994 (a mere 52 years), the original "ABC"
had been scrounged for parts for other projects. All that
remained of the original (in the 1990s) was one memory
drum. Atanasoff and Berry kept good notes and diagrams,
even wrote some internal papers about the "ABC." Those
were used to build the REPLICA.

"ABC" used a revolving drum holding capacitors for
electronic memory storage...each capacitor storing one
binary bit. "ABC" had a "recharge" section which would
keep the bit capacitors' charges up for as long as it
was on. Note: In the 1939-1942 time frame there was
no such thing as a magnetic memory drum to use by
anyone. [magnetic recording was not yet mature in that
time frame, but it was available...barely] Atanasoff
and Berry had to use what was available. "High-speed"
mass memory didn't exist until the invention of the
"Williams tube" in the UK, the one using a CRT faceplate
with conductive foil in small patches on it to form an
equivalent charge storage for each bit.

ENIAC was NEVER replicated in its original form. At best
is a Moore School internal project for "ENIAC on a chip,"
putting the whole thing on a single IC. That info is on
the ENIAC website, perhaps of interest, perhaps not since
Intel had the FIRST CPU-on-a-chip decades ago.


But the original ABC was never fully operational, nor complete.

It was COMPLETE. It was FULLY OPERATIONAL as to its
intended tasks.

The "ABC" was intended to be used to solve certain
problems. It did that. While it was NEVER intended
to solve "all-purpose" computing problems (as if the
modern mainframes had existed in 1939 to use as a
model of that), it was FULLY OPERATIONAL enough for a
court to decide which electronic computer was FIRST.


Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The ENIAC was completed
and operational by 1946. ABC was not.

False. Firstly, YOU NEVER mentioned the "ABC." Secondly,
"ABC" was completed and operational by 1942, four years
prior to the ENIAC first running.

The patent in question was not
relevant to which machine was the first general purpose, high speed,
electronic digital computer.

The TIME FRAME is the relevant item, Jimmie, the TIME FRAME.
1939 to 1942 is WELL BEFORE the ENIAC.

Further, John Mauchly essentially committed intellectual
property theft of certain aspects of "ABC" to use in ENIAC.

Trashcan the "high speed" adjectives for ENIAC, Jimmie.
It is NOT "high speed" at all. It was slower in operation
than my Apple ][+ of 1980. It was slower than ALL of the
first personal electronic computers made in the 1960s and
1970s. "Programming" of ENIAC sometimes "took weeks" for
a single task according to some REAL computer history sites
and textbooks.

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time.

That's just sour graoes in your part, Len. Completely untrue.

I've never tasted a "sour graoe." What is it?

The ARRL *DOES* 'sin by omission' of lots of radio-electronic
history. 'Sin of omission' refers to mentioning ONLY what
the ARRL thinks is relevant for amateur radio and to make
prospective members think they can join a completely 'honest'
organization. ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY, Jimmie, it
lobbies for things *it* wants, but says what it wants is
"for the good of amateur radio." [typical POLITICAL spin]

Sorry, Jimmie, but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE. Try
untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend
the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never
served in any military, don't know how to fight for your
or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and
deserves every comment it gets, good or bad.

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm

There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright
falsehood.

"Outright falsehoods?"

Yup. Mistakes, errors, things that aren't true.

Illuminate the group with your
godly light and tell me that OPINIONS are "factual." :-)

Opinions are not sacred, Len. Not even yours. The mere fact that
someone holds an opinion does prevent it from being a falsehood.

For example, you may be of the opinion that the moon is made of green
cheese, or that it is 500 miles from Vladivostok to Tokyo. Both are
falsehoods.

Also, you are not clear about when you are providing an opinion and
when you are providing an alleged fact. You do not usually qualify your
statements with phrases like 'I think' or 'I feel' or 'IMHO'. Instead,
you state your opinions as if they are unquestionably true facts. They
aren't.

Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that.

Yet you call him "an imposter" without any proof.

Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

So? Who are *you* to demand proof?

I've got a whole
20-page photo essay posted on what I did.

Is it on what *you* did or on what the 700-man military unit that you
were assigned to did?

From: on Wed, Oct 18 2006 11:03pm


On 18 Oct 2006 19:57:49 -0700, "
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm
wrote:

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are

Sorry, Jimmie, but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE. Try
untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend
the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never
served in any military, don't know how to fight for your
or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and
deserves every comment it gets, good or bad.

Len I must take issue with you while I have come to dislike the ARRL
it doesnot deserve many of the coments it gets

The ARRL is three things in one. It is a national membership
organization; it is a publishing company; it is a political
entity with both a Lobbying firm and a Legal firm on retainer
in DC.

The publishing effort of the triad makes enough profit to
sustain the 'services' it offers to members and to keep the
Lobbying and Legal firms billing payments. Membership dues
won't pay for even a tenth of the total upkeep of the ARRL.
The publishing part offers the ARRL a virtual monopoly of
control of US amateur's opinions via graphics and text.
You don't see any conditioned thinking possible with having
a virtual control of US amateurs' opinions?

Since the Lobbying and Legal part of the triad is a POLITICAL
effort, the ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY. In the grand
old American tradition for over two centuries, political
entities are fair game for any person, any time, any where.

It does not deserve (although it tries to claim cridet for the current
tech license) it does not deservse cridet (or blame) for the fact we
all know (but maybe jim that NoCode Hf (at least for the general class
and likely extra as well) is coming soon (at least in ham radio terms)

Details of the ARRL's 92-year history are simply details of
history. PRESENT-DAY facts are that the ARRL is also a
POLITICAL ENTITY...a SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

I WILL stay with what I've said about the ARRL.

From: on Thurs, Oct 19 2006 2:46 am

[Jimmie and Davie are interchangeable entities now?]

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm


Opinions are not sacred, Len.

Yes they are, Jimmie. Amateur extra morsemen hold the code
test to be SACRED forever and ever. All those against it
tell "falsehoods" because they are against it. :-)

Not even yours. The mere fact that
someone holds an opinion does prevent it from being a falsehood.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, you are arguing against yourself there!

So, I state an OPINION that you don't like and it is a
"falsehood." But, because it IS an opinion, PREVENTS it
from being a "falsehood." :-)


Also, you are not clear about when you are providing an opinion and
when you are providing an alleged fact. You do not usually qualify your
statements with phrases like 'I think' or 'I feel' or 'IMHO'. Instead,
you state your opinions as if they are unquestionably true facts. They
aren't.

WTF are you babbling about?

Did you put on the Mother Superior habit already, knuckle-
spank ruler at the ready to correct "improper grammar?"


Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that.

Yet you call him "an imposter" without any proof.

PRECISELY! [it took a while for that to sink in your brain,
but it did!]

BECAUSE he has NO proof AT ALL he gets called an IMPOSTER.


Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

So? Who are *you* to demand proof?

A MILITARY VETERAN, Jimmie, something you will NEVER be.
Hans is a veteran, Frank is a veteran, Brian Burke is a
veteran.

When one takes an Oath putting their LIFE on the line in
military service it becomes very serious indeed. One
helluva lot MORE SERIOUS than having some amateur radio
hobby with imagined self-glory.


Is it on what *you* did or on what the 700-man military unit that you
were assigned to did?

Both. You can read it via:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

About 6 MB file size, takes 19 minutes download on dial-up.
Lots of photos in there in case you have trouble with the
technological words.

Its about something YOU can NEVER have, Jimmie. You never
volunteered for military service...even when you had the
chance. You are NO JUDGE over any military unit activities.


As ever to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm

wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm


There aren't many of your posts in which you don't tell some outright
falsehood.

"Outright falsehoods?" Illuminate the group with your
godly light and tell me that OPINIONS are "factual." :-)

Many opinions are factual, Leonard. Didn't you know that? Not
everything is subjective. Sometimes you make factual errors. Sometimes
you tell falsehoods because you don't know the facts. Sometimes you
know the facts and write something false despite your knowing.

Both CNN and Fox News carried accounts of cellular phone
service being disrupted. I'll bet some of those radio hams end up
handling communication in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Have CNN or Fox News carried acounts of hams "up handling
communication" in the aftermath of the [Hawaii] earthquake?
How about ABC, CBS, or NBC? Any major newspapers?

Not to my knowledge. Then again, I'm not tuned in 24/7. This wouldn't
be the first time that network news did not report something. That
doesn't mean that it didn't take place.

The Hawaii 6.7-Richter earthquake is OVER, senior.

Yes, it is. That's good news.

No
loss of life. Property damage, some. Utility damage,
some. The Governor of Hawaii has been quoted (several
times) as saying "Hawaii is open for business!" :-)

There was quite a bit of property damage and utility damage. Some
people were injured.

Is amateur radio about business? Sorry, it can't be.

You must be addressing yourself. I didn't write anything about business.

FCC defines USA amateur radio as being done WITHOUT
pecuniary interest.

Thanks, but I already knew that. I'm a radio amateur.

No money for services rendered.

Thanks, but I knew what "pecuniary interest" meant. I'm a radio amateur.

That doesn't sound like any "business" in the normal sense.

I didn't write anything about business. Do you have a business fetish too?

Texas is west of the Mississippi.

Fantastic bit of TRIVIA, mister atlas. :-)

It isn't TRIVIA or trivia, Len. It is pretty much common knowledge.
I don't think the ARRL will ignore what happened in Texas. Do you?

Or do we call you Rand or McNally? :-)

"Well they often call me Speedo but my real name is Mister Earl."


I served in the military only four years, Len.

That's four MORE years than some civilian in PA served. :-)

Is it?


I've posted nothing here
in documenting my active duty service.

Not a word? Oh, THAT is a complete FALSEHOOD! :-)

Sorry, Len. I've documented nothing. I've offered no proof. You have
only my claims. I've discussed my service on some web sites. You could
find them if you're on the ball. Still, there's nothing on those web
sites in the way of actual documentation. There is an easily found web
site which does confirm my time in the Air Force through an online
database. Did you ever find it?


I've not, nor would I ever make
any such documentation available to you in an e-mail.

How about making it available to law enforcement? :-)

Why would I need to do so? Are you the law, Len?


Look what kind of
things you've written about my active duty military service.

Tsk, I've failed to acknowledge your glorious heroism
in "a country at war?" Oh, my. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk...

I didn't write anything of glorious heroism, Len. I did serve in war
time. I was in the country where the war was taking place. I drew
combat pay for my entire stay in that country. I'm choosing not to
document it for you. Now what? Are you going to tell a recruiter about
me? Will you suggest to Brian Burke that he contact the "Stolen Valor"
folks.

You need some medal or ribbon to highlight your "active
duty military service?"

Thanks, Len, but I've already got them.

BUY some. They are easy to
purchase.

Thanks, I have them already. I appreciate your concern.

Somebody with the license call K4YZ has done
that, hasn't he? :-)

Has he?

Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here.

You don't know exactly what I did either. You've erroneously claimed
that I was assigned to a MARS unit. Now what?

Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that.

Yeah? Now what? What does Steve owe you in the way of documentation?
I found his name on that web site I mentioned. It even had his rank.

Yet Hans Brakob has made it available.

And?

Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

Oh yes, Frank Gilliland. He had not one, but two courts martial, didn't
he? I'm sure he's a fine, upstanding fellow.

I've got a whole
20-page photo essay posted on what I did.

Great. I'm sure you delight in the memories.


You haven't attended catechism studies and haven't been confirmed. You
don't pledge, you don't tithe. You may not partake. You're still an
unbaptized heathen in the world of amateur radio.

Sorry, but I Pledge from time to time. Good furniture
polish and dusting treatment.

Do you wash your duds with "Tithe"?

I don't tithe amateur radio. It is NOT a religion.

You've called it such. You even told us where the services are held.

It isn't a recognized religion.

You seem to recognize it.

Except maybe in a
small town in Connecticutt? :-)

Milford? "Connecticutt"?

Tsk, tsk, I've been a hobbyist in radio and electronics
for 59 years, still doing that.

Poor baby. You *are* in a rut. All this time and you still haven't
obtained an amateur radio license. Tsk, tsk.

I've been a professional
(as in accepting compensation for work performed) for 54
years, still doing that (but not now in regular office
hours).

There have been hints as to your irregularity, Len.

I partake all I want, anytime I want.

You partake in something entirely different than amateur radio. Now what?

Fascinating thing
this radio-electronics thing. Made it my career choice.

Many of us did, Len. Many of us became radio amateurs too. You didn't.

I have a COMMERCIAL radio operator license, even had a
BUSINESS radio license.

So? What has any of that to do with amateur radio?

I got "baptised" (using your
ugly and insulting term) back in 1953 doing high-power
long-distance HF transmitting.

You find baptism to be ugly and insulting? What is it that you
practice, Leonard?

I've since transmitted
legally from the air (at the controls of an aircraft)
and from the sea (from a private boat on HF SSB).

So? You're still not a participant in amateur radio. Are you trying to
impress us?

I've
worked a station ON the moon...something amateurs have
NEVER done. :-)

I know. You've told us that quite a number of times. I've used the
moon as a passive reflector. My signal traveled twice as far as yours.
Did I mention that my effort was done by radio amateurs?

Well, yes, I would imagine YOU think of ham radio as
some kind of "religion" where mantra is everything but
the technology is too ethereal for you to understand.

Actually, all of the imagining was yours, Len. You're the insufferable
boor who seems desperate for attention. What've you done lately?

Take heart, your epiphany may come, even without anyone
kicking your phany.

Yeah, it might, Len. I doubt you'll be a witness.

As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

"QSL via OH2BH with an IRC"?


See IEEE Code of Ethics

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:32pm

wrote:

Even though Jim posts with authority, not all of his postings are
factual.

Give us an example.

You GOT the "example."

Where? I think you can't provide one, and are just dodging the facts.

He went into fantasy orgasm on ENIAC of 1946.

Just stating facts, Len. Nothing I stated about that machine was
incorrect.

You copied off the Moore School website PR material.

Nope. Not at all. You are mistaken.

Here's one source:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

And another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac

There's also the book about ENIAC, which you probably haven't/won't
read.

In itself that material is either incomplete or
erroneous...such as the extravagant claim that
"ENIAC changed the world."

Nope. Not at all. You are mistaken.

ENIAC *did* change the world. It was the true beginning of modern
computing. It's the root of the tree:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html

Is the US Army wrong?

The FACT is that tomorrow, Thursday, 19 October, marks
the 33rd anniversary of a federal court decision on
who had the first electronic computer.

So what? That does not contradict what I wrote.

ENIAC was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general
purpose, electronic
digital computer.

That's what I wrote before, and it's a fact.

The judge's
decision was that Iowa State University had it, the
Atanasoff-Berry Computer (familiarly called "ABC").

The judge was ruling on the patents, not on which machine was the
world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose,
electronic digital computer. Which was ENIAC

Not only that, court transcripts indicate that John
Mauchly had already seen the "ABC" but talked to both
Atanasoff and Berry in detail on that "ABC." Further,
Mauchly and Atanasoff exchanged mail following Mauchly's
trip to Iowa to see the "ABC."

No one denied that - not even Mauchly himself.

If you wish to see more and in detail on the REAL
"first electronic computer," just go to:

http://www.iastate.edu

The Iowa State PR site.

And follow the links.

What links? Can't you provide something more direct?

There's many pages of information
on the "ABC" plus that famous trial about "the ENIAC
patents." Sperry-Rand (who had purchased the rights to
the ENIAC patents) LOST that trial. TS for Sperry-Rand.
Not only that, the judge chided Mauchly in his decision
paper, stating that Mauchly had taken a priori knowledge
from the "ABC" and tried to pass it off as "his" for the
ENIAC.

The ABC was not even a true computer.

As for the ABC, it was not completely electronic.

Really?!? WTF are you talking about?

The facts, Len. It was part electronic and part electromechanical.
Motors and switching drums, storage of intermediate results on paper,
and much more.

Look at the Iowa
State "ABC" pages. Nice illustrations of it.

Which prove my point.

More importantly, the original was never completed.

"Never completed?!?" WTF are you talking about?
It was "completed" in the 1939 to 1942 period.

Nope. It was never fully operational. It never completed a full-scale
calculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

As far
as a federal court is concerned it was most definitely
COMPLETED, completed well enough for the judge to
declare it, the "ABC", was the FIRST electronic
computer.

Was the judge an engineer?

The judge was ruling on the patents, not on which machine was the
world's very first fully operational, high speed, general purpose,
electronic digital computer. Which was ENIAC.

[TRY to get used to that, Jimmie, I know it
is damn difficult for you but for 33 years the "first"
electronic computer title has gone to the Atanasoff-
Berry Computer of 1939]

The ABC was not a computer in the modern sense. Or even in the 1945
sense.

All the ABC was designed to do was to solve systems of linear
equations. It could not do anything else.

By definition, a true computer is Turing-complete. ENIAC was
Turing-complete, ABC was not. ENIAC was a true computer, ABC was not.
End of story.

ENIAC was fully operational for over a
decade -

NOT "fully operational" by Moore School or the short-
lived 'company' of Mauchly and Eckert (they went broke
and Sperry-Rand had to bail them out by buying rights
to the machine).

Boy, Len, you really are on a roll with the mistakes. You make 'em in
quantity!

ENIAC was fully operational at the Moore School *and* at the Aberdeen
Proving Grounds. That's not an opinion - it's the official Army
history:

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

The US Army took it over (having paid
for it in the first place) and John Von Neuman suggested
the Army should CHANGE certain parts of it.

Eckert and Mauchly came up with the idea and convinced the Army to fund
it. The Army accepted and used ENIAC for almost a decade.

The improvements suggested by John Von Neumann (note the spelling) were
later incorporated, as were other improvements by the original
inventors.

ENIAC was *NOT* the "First" electronic computer.

Who said it was? Not me.

ENIAC was the world's very first fully operational, high speed, general
purpose, electronic
digital computer.

ABC was a special purpose calculator.

Get used to it.

Take your own advice.

ABC was not finished until 1998.

Bull****.

No, a fact.

What *I* described was a REPLICA. Built by
the Computer Sciences Department of Iowa State. Between
1942 and about 1994 (a mere 52 years), the original "ABC"
had been scrounged for parts for other projects. All that
remained of the original (in the 1990s) was one memory
drum. Atanasoff and Berry kept good notes and diagrams,
even wrote some internal papers about the "ABC." Those
were used to build the REPLICA.

Because the original was never fully operational. Explain how something
that is not fully operational can be complete.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

"ABC" used a revolving drum holding capacitors for
electronic memory storage...each capacitor storing one
binary bit. "ABC" had a "recharge" section which would
keep the bit capacitors' charges up for as long as it
was on.

An electromechanical system. Not electronic.

Note: In the 1939-1942 time frame there was
no such thing as a magnetic memory drum to use by
anyone. [magnetic recording was not yet mature in that
time frame, but it was available...barely] Atanasoff
and Berry had to use what was available.

So they used an electromechanical system rather than an electronic
system. They also used paper storage for intermediate results.

"High-speed"
mass memory didn't exist until the invention of the
"Williams tube" in the UK, the one using a CRT faceplate
with conductive foil in small patches on it to form an
equivalent charge storage for each bit.

So? What's your point?

ENIAC was NEVER replicated in its original form.

Doesn't matter. Even as ENIAC was being built, Eckert and Mauchly
thought up improvements, which wound up in EDVAC. They could not be
included in ENIAC because the design phase was over. Had to meet the
schedules.

ENIAC worked for almost a decade. The original ABC was never fully
functional and was abandoned for more than five decades.

At best
is a Moore School internal project for "ENIAC on a chip,"
putting the whole thing on a single IC. That info is on
the ENIAC website, perhaps of interest, perhaps not since
Intel had the FIRST CPU-on-a-chip decades ago.

Irrelevant.

But the original ABC was never fully operational, nor complete.

It was COMPLETE. It was FULLY OPERATIONAL as to its
intended tasks.

Incorrect on both counts. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

All the ABC could do was solve systems of linear equations. That's all
Atanasoff intended, and he abandoned the machine for other work. He and
Berry did not challenge the ENIAC patents - Honeywell did, because IBM
was trying to use them to monopolize the industry. That monopoly
attempt backfired on Big Blue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_v._Sperry_Rand

The "ABC" was intended to be used to solve certain
problems. It did that.

Systems of linear equations and nothing else. That's a special-purpose
calculator, not a computer. ENIAC was a true computer, ABC was not. End
of story.

While it was NEVER intended
to solve "all-purpose" computing problems (as if the
modern mainframes had existed in 1939 to use as a
model of that), it was FULLY OPERATIONAL enough for a
court to decide which electronic computer was FIRST.

The court was about the patents.

A patent does not require a fully operational example, either. All it
requires is that the concept not contradict known science.

Doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. The ENIAC was completed
and operational by 1946. ABC was not.

False.

No, true.

Firstly, YOU NEVER mentioned the "ABC." Secondly,
"ABC" was completed and operational by 1942, four years
prior to the ENIAC first running.

Not according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

The patent in question was not
relevant to which machine was the first general purpose, high speed,
electronic digital computer.

The TIME FRAME is the relevant item, Jimmie,

Who is this person you call "Jimmie", Len?

My name is Jim. "Jimmie" isn't me.

the TIME FRAME.
1939 to 1942 is WELL BEFORE the ENIAC.

Further, John Mauchly essentially committed intellectual
property theft of certain aspects of "ABC" to use in ENIAC.

How? What elements were used? The addition-subtraction method was
completely different. ENIAC did not use an electromechanical drum and
did not use binary.

If anything, Mauchly was more influenced by the counting circuits he
had used previously for other purposes.

Trashcan the "high speed" adjectives for ENIAC,

No.

It is NOT "high speed" at all.

Not by today's standards.

It was slower in operation
than my Apple ][+ of 1980.
It was slower than ALL of the
first personal electronic computers made in the 1960s and
1970s.

Irrelevant.

ENIAC was high speed because it was orders of magnitude faster than
anything that had existed before. ABC used a 60 Hz clock - ENIAC was
more than 100 times faster. Faster than any previous machine by at
least an order of magnitude, usually by several orders of magnitude.

"Programming" of ENIAC sometimes "took weeks" for
a single task according to some REAL computer history sites
and textbooks.

Writing software takes time, Len. That's what they were doing.

That sort of SELECTIVE highlighting with the sin of
omission or related facts is what the ARRL does most of
the time.

That's just sour graoes in your part, Len. Completely untrue.

I've never tasted a "sour graoe." What is it?

Sour grapes, You should know.

The ARRL *DOES* 'sin by omission' of lots of radio-electronic
history.

Nope.

'Sin of omission' refers to mentioning ONLY what
the ARRL thinks is relevant for amateur radio and to make
prospective members think they can join a completely 'honest'
organization.

You're really on a roll with the nonsense, Len. Give a concrete,
factual example for a change. Oh wait - you can't. Facts aren't your
style.

ARRL is also a POLITICAL ENTITY,

it
lobbies for things *it* wants, but says what it wants is
"for the good of amateur radio." [typical POLITICAL spin]

"The good of amateur radio" is an opinion, Len. Aren't they allowed to
put forth an opinion?

Sorry,

but what I wrote *IS* completely TRUE.

No, it isn't. It's a typical bunch of your errors, mistakes, and
general attention-seeking nonsense.

Try
untwisting your knickers a bit and quit trying to defend
the ARRL as if you were an army of one. [you've never
served in any military, don't know how to fight for your
or anyone else's life] ARRL *IS* a political entity and
deserves every comment it gets, good or bad.

Why should you let facts stand in the way, Len? That's not your style.

Here are those references again:

ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS WITHIN THE ORDNANCE CORPS
Index:
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/index.html

Chap 2 on ENIAC:
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap2.html

Tree of Computing:
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/61ordnance/chap7.html


Other references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_v._Sperry_Rand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atanasoff-Berry_Computer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eniac

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 19 2006 2:46 am

[Jimmie and Davie are interchangeable entities now?]

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm


BECAUSE he has NO proof AT ALL he gets called an IMPOSTER.


Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

So? Who are *you* to demand proof?

A MILITARY VETERAN, Jimmie, something you will NEVER be.

MILITARY VETERANS get to demand proof? Really? I never saw myself as
superior to other citizens who never donned a military uniform.

Hans is a veteran, Frank is a veteran, Brian Burke is a
veteran.

I'm a veteran. Dan from W4-land is a veteran. Do we get to demand
proof for your sphincter post? It'd be nice to know where and when the
artillery barrage took place and if your friend Gene can confirm it.

When one takes an Oath putting their LIFE on the line in
military service it becomes very serious indeed.

Well, it could become very serious if you ever actually had occasion to
put your life on the line.

One
helluva lot MORE SERIOUS than having some amateur radio
hobby with imagined self-glory.

....only if you were called upon to actually put your life on the line,
Len. Otherwise, you need to quit wrapping yourself in bunting and
stepping up on that soapbox.

Would the term "self-glory" come into play in discussing a guy who went
into great detail describing what it was like to undergo an artillery
barrage, except that he had never been involved in such an event?
Would you be inclined to describe such an individual as a sort of
imposter? It is certainly something for you to ponder.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 19 2006 2:46 am

[Jimmie and Davie are interchangeable entities now?]

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, Oct 18 2006 3:06 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Oct 16 2006 4:48am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 15 2006 4:17 pm

Opinions are not sacred, Len.

Tell it to Robesin. If you hold the wrong opinion, you are a" LIAR!"

Yes they are, Jimmie. Amateur extra morsemen hold the code
test to be SACRED forever and ever. All those against it
tell "falsehoods" because they are against it. :-)

LIAR!

Not even yours. The mere fact that
someone holds an opinion does prevent it from being a falsehood.

And so it starts...

Actually, it started long, long ago in a DX location far, far away...

Tsk, tsk, tsk, you are arguing against yourself there!

So, I state an OPINION that you don't like and it is a
"falsehood." But, because it IS an opinion, PREVENTS it
from being a "falsehood." :-)

Exactly! Any you're a LIAR so don't forget it.

Also, you are not clear about when you are providing an opinion and
when you are providing an alleged fact. You do not usually qualify your
statements with phrases like 'I think' or 'I feel' or 'IMHO'. Instead,
you state your opinions as if they are unquestionably true facts. They
aren't.

WTF are you babbling about?

So now you're using CW abbreviations...

Did you put on the Mother Superior habit already, knuckle-
spank ruler at the ready to correct "improper grammar?"

I saw Dave make a typo last weekend, but I didn't draw attention to it.

Of course, WE don't know EXACTLY WHAT this "K4YZ" call
sign person ever did...except for his bluffing and
bragging in here. Not ONE SINGLE item to document
that.

Yet you call him "an imposter" without any proof.

PRECISELY! [it took a while for that to sink in your brain,
but it did!]

BECAUSE he has NO proof AT ALL he gets called an IMPOSTER.

When someone draws attention to themselves with wild claims, it usually
follows that someone else will ask for documentation.

Yet Hans Brakob has made it available. Frank
Gilliland has made it available.

So? Who are *you* to demand proof?

A MILITARY VETERAN, Jimmie, something you will NEVER be.
Hans is a veteran, Frank is a veteran, Brian Burke is a
veteran.

Stolen Valor. It gives anyone the right to ask for documentation when
preposterous claims have been made. Robesin

When one takes an Oath putting their LIFE on the line in
military service it becomes very serious indeed. One
helluva lot MORE SERIOUS than having some amateur radio
hobby with imagined self-glory.

That should be a given, but apparently it isn't.

Is it on what *you* did or on what the 700-man military unit that you
were assigned to did?

Both. You can read it via:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

About 6 MB file size, takes 19 minutes download on dial-up.
Lots of photos in there in case you have trouble with the
technological words.

Its about something YOU can NEVER have, Jimmie. You never
volunteered for military service...even when you had the
chance. You are NO JUDGE over any military unit activities.

Other ways... other ways...

As ever to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.



Jim want's to think that his other ways are a substitute for military
service, kind of like Clinton's "AmericCorps..." Jim was just ahead
of his time in avoiding military service.