A127 >These are exciting findings, but I need a little bit more time to work >out a good theory of what might be happening behind the wall. I think >this might somehow be connected with the idea I suggested above, but I >need some time to get it settled in my head. Let me get back to you >once I get so far, OK? This is pure conjecture but someone might think of a way of proving or disproving it. The index register serves two purposes - it can index a memory register or it can be used for indirect branching to a label. There are 16 labels allowed which fits neatly into the 4 extra bits. *Maybe* the label is stored in the four extra bits while something else happens (behind the scenes) in the main register - calculating the appropriate address in memory perhaps? Just a thought. -- ==== ==== ==== X > group, also, but discussing politics is not one of them, I think). > This group sucks, when some people are discussing that much politics (even > though the war soon is over and that there arenĒt many wars/year)... X and there even more comments on stopping the OT than about calcs funny... ==== ==== > We can use the calculators to count votes in Florida... Oh man, you are cruel ... way? I know Asnar is one of the greatest bastards in Europe, but I wonder what he expects in return for all his ass licking ... I fear he wants one of those aircraft carriers to bomb the Basque people. Jordi. PS: Did you know that my real name is Jorge? Franco's law didn't allow my parents to give a Catalan name to their son! Why did no one help us kill that bastard then? ==== > > PS: Did you know that my real name is Jorge? Franco's law didn't allow my > parents to give a Catalan name to their son! > But with current spanish law you have been able to change your name from Jorge to Jordi for more than twenty years now. The procedure is very easy an straightforward when you are just translating a name from a language spoken in Spain into another one. Hurry up! Don't be lazy! Aznar is about to forbid it again! ;-) ==== ==== > > > We can use the calculators to count votes in Florida... > > Oh man, you are cruel ... Indeed he is, it was his counting method that brought Bush to power. (-; > way? I know Asnar is one of the greatest bastards in Europe, but I wonder what > he expects in return for all his ass licking ... Now this is a good question. I have the vague feeling that Blair and Asnar are very good friends but explanation? I don't know. I really tip in darkness. > I fear he wants one of those aircraft carriers to bomb the Basque people. No????? > Jordi. > > PS: Did you know that my real name is Jorge? Franco's law didn't allow my > parents to give a Catalan name to their son! > > Why did no one help us kill that bastard then? How much oil does Spain produce? (-; But really interesting to know that your name is Jorge. How is it pronounced? Is the J perhaps like a Y? Greetings for Jorge the Catalan from Nick the grrrrreeen. ==== cd9ca36b.0303221737.151190a2@posting.google.com, Nick Karagiaouroglou > How much oil does Spain produce? (-; > I have to step-up here... Spain produces absolutely excellent wine... They are also one of the biggest HP49 buyer Originator: mschaef@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) ==== >cd9ca36b.0303221737.151190a2@posting.google.com, Nick Karagiaouroglou >> How much oil does Spain produce? (-; >> > >I have to step-up here... Spain produces absolutely excellent wine... I wholeheartedly agree. :-) -Mike -- http://www.mschaef.com ==== out of my ti89 and have been quite happy. But I use it much less now because I have a professor who insist on MathCAD. The best of Ti is a toss between the 89 and V200. The V200 has more archive space, a querty keypad, and a bigger screen. My own assumption is that it is an ergonomic pain, particurally with Eqws. The v200 also comes with several flash apps that ti normally charges for. Besides that the software is the same. -Samuel S p.s. Sorry about the flame war comments > >If You are looking to start a flame war Please come into ti territory: > > Indeed NOT... I am NOT looking to start any kind of war. > > Even though I like hp calculators... I am not a fanatic... I bought hp because > I genuinely believed it was the best of the best..... I have had years of joy > using it... I have NEVER had a hardware problem of any kind.....and there are > STILL things I am discovering about it... even after owning it for 13 years > !!!!!! > > you have given me a lot of good reasons to explore a TI89.... so my challenge > was well met. > > I own both TI and Casio calculators which I have picked up over the years, in > addition to my hp's.... the TI, I have is not a graphing model, just a plain > basic solar powered scientific.... but I still like it for what it is.... I > used it in exams when I was a student back in 1989 and the hp wasn't allowed > in the exam > > I would be willing to buy another TI ... you advocating the TI89..... is that > the best of TI ? ? > > I am sorry if you found my post insulting or inciting. ==== maths of the Ti89 works in cases that the hp's fail to give correct results. Can you comment on this ? have you used or do you own an hp ??? >My own >assumption is that it is an ergonomic pain, particurally with Eqws. Eqws... what is that ?.... the Equation Writer perhaps ?? ==== X > >assumption is that it is an ergonomic pain, particurally with Eqws. > Eqws... what is that ?.... the Equation Writer perhaps ?? Yep! ==== It gets better with each sortie over Iraq. The US military is supreme: mess with the best, die like the rest. Bomb 'em back to the stone age, that's the only way to deal with the likes of Saddamn. Why is there no public offer from Germany or France or some other peacenik country to give Saddamn and his psychopath sons asylum? Why don't some of the great minds who regularly philosophise here about love, peace, transcendental hypnotism offer to take them into their homes? They'd make a great addition to a family, wouldn't you think? Caesar Garcia ==== I happen to agree with you, but I dont think your pst is apprpiate to this NG! > It gets better with each sortie over Iraq. The US military is supreme: > mess with the best, die like the rest. Bomb 'em back to the stone age, > that's the only way to deal with the likes of Saddamn. > > Why is there no public offer from Germany or France or some other > peacenik country to give Saddamn and his psychopath sons asylum? Why > don't some of the great minds who regularly philosophise here about > love, peace, transcendental hypnotism offer to take them into their > homes? They'd make a great addition to a family, wouldn't you think? > > Caesar Garcia ==== Another simple-minded triumphalist declares to the world his ignorance and arrogance with a boastful, irrelevant, ejaculation to the wrong newsgroup. I think your first name has gone too much to your head, Caeser. Tom Donaly > >It gets better with each sortie over Iraq. The US military is supreme: >mess with the best, die like the rest. Bomb 'em back to the stone age, >that's the only way to deal with the likes of Saddamn. > >Why is there no public offer from Germany or France or some other >peacenik country to give Saddamn and his psychopath sons asylum? Why >don't some of the great minds who regularly philosophise here about >love, peace, transcendental hypnotism offer to take them into their >homes? They'd make a great addition to a family, wouldn't you think? > >Caesar Garcia > > ==== Caesar Garcia schrieb im Newsbeitrag > It gets better with each sortie over Iraq. The US military is supreme: > mess with the best, die like the rest. Bomb 'em back to the stone age, > that's the only way to deal with the likes of Saddamn. > > Why is there no public offer from Germany or France or some other > peacenik country to give Saddamn and his psychopath sons asylum? Why > don't some of the great minds who regularly philosophise here about > love, peace, transcendental hypnotism offer to take them into their > homes? They'd make a great addition to a family, wouldn't you think? > > Caesar Garcia There is already an [OT] Iraq-US- thread above. So why didn't you participate there? But anyway, I'm impressed. You are proof that even Neanderthals are able to use a computer. Roman ==== > Caesar Garcia schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > It gets better with each sortie over Iraq. The US military is supreme: > > mess with the best, die like the rest. Bomb 'em back to the stone age, > > that's the only way to deal with the likes of Saddamn. > > > > Why is there no public offer from Germany or France or some other > > peacenik country to give Saddamn and his psychopath sons asylum? Why > > don't some of the great minds who regularly philosophise here about > > love, peace, transcendental hypnotism offer to take them into their > > homes? They'd make a great addition to a family, wouldn't you think? > > > > Caesar Garcia > > There is already an [OT] Iraq-US- thread above. So why didn't you > participate there? > > But anyway, I'm impressed. > You are proof that even Neanderthals are able to use a computer. > > Roman Agreed. OT threads should at least have an indirect way of relating to the main topic. And if not, they should be reasonable. Theres more to this war crap then meats the eye, including motives. Bomb 'Em Back To The Stone Age. Cut the crap please. Ill just leave it their. A lot more could be said. PLease post about calculators here, the forum is starting to die as i see it. Oh, and no offense please. [AC] ==== Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics ==== these internet generals are disgusting. if they are so infused with war, why arent they on the front lines? be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net ==== hi Andres, > Agreed. > OT threads should at least have an indirect way of relating to the > main topic. > And if not, they should be reasonable. Theres more to this war crap > then meats the eye, including motives. > > Bomb 'Em Back To The Stone Age. Cut the crap please. Ill just leave it > their. A lot more could be said. I'm not sure what you mean here: 1) Yes bomb them all to pieces or 2) The Bomb 'em all attitude is crap I prefer 2) > PLease post about calculators here, the forum is starting to die as i > see it. Oh, and no offense please. Agree. And I wasn't realy offended by his post;-) Roman > > [AC] ==== > PLease post about calculators here, the forum is starting to die as i > see it. Oh, and no offense please. This forum here like any other group will only die if mono-facetted people take over. The interest for more than calculators is apparently built-in to many of the people participating. Add the fact that many of the people here are somehow more familiar to each other, than what would be the case at groups where one would be a complete stranger, and you have the perfect conditions for a rich variety of discussion topics centered most of the time on calculators, but sometimes also on other important events that influence our lives. Or else I can't explain why so many persons respond, when the stigma of being OT is in permanent usage. Isn't it good to know that the users here look to other things than the screen of the HP49G from time to time? Greetings, Nick. ==== > > > hi Andres, > > > Agreed. > > OT threads should at least have an indirect way of relating to the > > main topic. > > And if not, they should be reasonable. Theres more to this war crap > > then meats the eye, including motives. > > > > Bomb 'Em Back To The Stone Age. Cut the crap please. Ill just leave it > > their. A lot more could be said. > > I'm not sure what you mean here: > > 1) Yes bomb them all to pieces > or > 2) The Bomb 'em all attitude is crap > > I prefer 2) Number 2. > > > PLease post about calculators here, the forum is starting to die as i > > see it. Oh, and no offense please. > > Agree. And I wasn't realy offended by his post; > > Roman > no one was i guess. ::::-) [spider face] [AC] ==== In message <342c651a.0303212104.26b1353@posting.google.com>, Caesar >The US military is supreme: mess with the best, die like the rest. US soldier 'attacks own base' A US soldier has been arrested after a grenade attack at a rear US base camp in northern Kuwait which killed another serviceman and wounded 12 others. -- Bruce Horrocks Hampshire England bh@granby.demon.co.uk ==== > > PLease post about calculators here, the forum is starting to die as i > > see it. Oh, and no offense please. > PLONK! ==== John B. Coarsey schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > > > PLease post about calculators here, the forum is starting to die as i > > > see it. Oh, and no offense please. > > > PLONK! You will miss a lot of interesting stuff by plonking him. Because sometimes (if there is no war) NK posts also _very_ good stuff about HP calcs (at least for beginners). Anyway, why are you reading this thread, just to plonk someone? Why not tell your point (instead of writing PLONK) in this already OT thread. I can't remember to have seen you ever posting before. I think I won't miss anything important by plonking you. PLONK have a peacefull day Roman ==== The question is: Can i program in c++ language for my hp 49? there's any program that translate c++ in sysrpl? Thanck's a lot ==== > The question is: > Can i program in c++ language for my hp 49? > there's any program that translate c++ in sysrpl? > please take a look at www.hpcalc.org . It such a thing exists, it'll be there. However, I wouldn't want to program in C++ for the Saturn-based machines, because the language is extremely different from (Sys)RPL . Maybe Debug4x could be an alternative, if the main reason is to have an SDK;-) Raymond ==== Drexel :: > The question is: > Can i program in c++ language for my hp 49? > there's any program that translate c++ in sysrpl? As far as I know, there exists C cross compiler for HP48 series, mantained by Alex Ramos. Check the http://hp48xgcc.sourceforge.net/ . It does contain few library functions. I do not know if similar project is going on for HP49 of for C++. Best wishes Robert Tiismus ==== Has anyone heard anything about calcPro recently. I placed an order eight days ago for some books. I choose the three-day delivery via UPS. When I sent them my American Express card no. as paymnent. Should I start to worry ? ==== Check with UPS first, you need the tracking number for that... Toby > Has anyone heard anything about calcPro recently. I placed an order eight > days ago for some books. I choose the three-day delivery via UPS. When response. > I sent them my American Express card no. as paymnent. Should I start to > worry ? > > > ==== Greetings. Should you worry? That depends. I really don't think that the CalcPro chap is going to max out your credit card and abscond with your loot. If that was what you were concerned with, rest easy. On the other hand, I hope you weren't a hurry for those books! The fellow who runs CalcPro (www.calcpro.com) seems like an by problems. If you were to call him, I'm sure all would be resolved. Cordially, Richard Kanarek P.S. Perhaps you might post again when your problems are, one way or another, resolved? P.P.S. I just visited www.calcpro.com. The following notice was prominently posted: We're Back! Our site is up and running. We thank you for your patience through our transition. Please let us know of any questions. Now aren't you glad you were patient? You might want to write them again, but calling would probably be a better idea. >Has anyone heard anything about calcPro recently. I placed an order eight >days ago for some books. I choose the three-day delivery via UPS. When >I sent them my American Express card no. as paymnent. Should I start to >worry ? > > ==== casio classPad300 versus Texas Instruments www.geocities.com/jaimezacalcs/casio/TIvsCASIOclassPad300.htm Jaime Fernando Meza ____________________________ ==== > The complex number pairs as (r,angle) or (x,y) are restricted to > numeric only. Please change to numeric first before combining to > complex. You may like to use use Approx. and Numeric to key in > complex numbers without entering symbolics. Yes, I see now. Out of frustration, I went ahead and purchased the Urroz HP49g book. What a great help! It has already paid for itself. My HP49g is finally useful now. :-) -- Titus Barik (barik@ieee.org) ==== Most HP49G clocks are not very accurate. One second a day may not seem to be much, but will sum up to a minute in two months. Additionally, the temperature of the HP49G, and therefore the usage of the calculator, influences the clock speed. ClckAdjst is a library, which provides tools for automatic clock adjustments and much more. ClckAdjst provides fast and easy setting and adjustment of the system clock. It handles changes of the time zone and automatic daylight saving time changes for USA and Europe. It provides an accurate automatic clock adjustment and shows the daily deviation of your HP49G clock. Next Sunday we will switch to daylight saving time in Europe. In the US the switch will be done one week later. Download of the Lib is available on: http://users.belgacom.net/EAA/Heiko/HP49/download.htm Update on Erics Site is in progress. Comments apprechiated! Heiko ==== Heiko Arnemann :: > > Most HP49G clocks are not very accurate. One second a day may not seem > to be much, but will sum up to a minute in two months. Additionally, the > temperature of > the HP49G, and therefore the usage of the calculator, influences the > clock speed. > ClckAdjst is a library, which provides tools for automatic clock > adjustments and much > more. > > ClckAdjst provides fast and easy setting and adjustment of the system > clock. It handles changes of the time zone and automatic daylight saving > time changes for > USA and Europe. It provides an accurate automatic clock adjustment and > shows the daily > deviation of your HP49G clock. I checked the package and saw that basically it works by correcting time with alarm routine. Altought it is little more sophisticated. I am using the kinda similar method currently, but was thinking of somewhat different approach for this task. Wouldn't it be possible to incorporate the time correction routine into System Outer Loop? It would be easy to implement in Java Stack Replacement program, or in MetaKernal. Easier in the first one, because sources are freely availailable. How come there are no sutch solutions yet? Best wishes Robert Tiismus ==== thanks for testing and your comments. > I checked the package and saw that basically it works by correcting time > with alarm routine. The basic idea behind the package is, *not using an alarmroutine. It can be done by those who prefer... The clock need to be adjusted only, when the accurate time is required! The corrective action can be done whenever you want, e.g. directly before showing the time or calculating something with the system time. Say, you travel to NewYork, make the change for the TimeZone, and run the corrective action (AutoADjust AAD it ist called in the package). This will check, if their is daylight saving time in NewYork and makes the setting of the clock, taking into account that some inaccuracy has been counted up, since the last adjustment). > Wouldn't it be possible to incorporate > the time correction routine into System Outer Loop? It would be easy to > implement in Java Stack Replacement program, or in MetaKernal. Easier in > the first one, because sources are freely availailable. How come there > are no sutch solutions yet? This is not my world:-( It would be nice to make AAD a little faster, by using sysRPL or ML. But I am not familar enough, with. Than AAD could be started together with the switch-ON. Heiko ==== Heiko Arnemann :: > The basic idea behind the package is, *not using an alarmroutine. > It can be done by those who prefer... > > The clock need to be adjusted only, when the accurate time is > required! The corrective action can be done whenever you want, > e.g. directly before showing the time or calculating something with > the system time. Say, you travel to NewYork, make the > change for the TimeZone, and run the corrective action > (AutoADjust AAD it ist called in the package). This will > check, if their is daylight saving time in NewYork and makes > the setting of the clock, taking into account that some inaccuracy has > been counted up, since the last adjustment). Yes, I read about this from the documentation. But this method is not universal. I mean that the existing time display routines or other time related programs can not use this method by default. They must be recompiled :( The alarm method is more universal, but it has weaknesses. For example: if set to every night alarm at 4 am. then you have to be aware that your work will be interrupted if you do it too late at evening or too early at morning ;) And between the corrections there is always the moving discrepancy between the real time and the calculator time... >>Wouldn't it be possible to incorporate >>the time correction routine into System Outer Loop? It would be easy to >>implement in Java Stack Replacement program, or in MetaKernal. Easier in >>the first one, because sources are freely availailable. How come there >>are no sutch solutions yet? This was a rethorical question. I was just wondering. By all means it was not directed at you or your software :) Best wishes Robert Tiismus ==== < level-headed reply snipped > -Joe- ==== X > Forty-five countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, > including: > Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, > Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, > Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, > Lithuania, Macedonia, > Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, > Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon > Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States , > Uzbekistan. > > While this list does not include France, Germany, or Greece, this doesn't > look all that unilateral to me. :-) X Finland, Sweden, Island,..Hey! What about Norway? Why do you _always_ forget about the Scandinavian countries? ==== > The best way to get the oil flowing would have been to remove the sanctions > and let Iraq sell all the oil they wanted. It all ends up on the world > market anyway, whether sold by the Iraqi government or sold by the US after > taking over Iraq. No difference that I can see. Control. > That said, I don't think the US has plans to run Iraq or steal their oil. This is the analysis of the best analysts in the middle east. The enforcement of the USA governement interests. > We didn't do that in Kuwait in 1992. We shall see how it turns out this > time, right? Also, given what the war will cost the US, it would take a LONG > time for cheap/free oil to cover that cost even IF the US government set up > shop on the Iraqi oilfields, which I do not believe they will do. Kuwait 1992 was the start. But as you say, we will see. But if we will see what I think, what then? Will anybody in the USA accept that this is not right? I am afraid as long as it works good for us we simply don't see any problems. > My hope and prayer is that fewer people will die over the next year once > this conflict is over than would have died had we not entered into this war > of liberation, since many people have died in Iraq each year under their > present/former government. Again, we shall see. And again this can't be used as an argument because there are countless examples of other lands with dictatorships, which have nothing to fear from the USA army. > I also noted that the coalition of the willing in this endeavor is now > larger than it was back in the first gulf war. I find it interesting that > many of the nations formerly under Soviet domination are supporting the > effort. Forty-five countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, > including: > Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, > Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, > Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, > Lithuania, Macedonia, > Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, > Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon > Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States , > Uzbekistan. And many of them were put under such an economic pressure from the USA government that they had to think twice. > While this list does not include France, Germany, or Greece, this doesn't > look all that unilateral to me. :-) France and Germany have other interests which for the time being dictate a no-war policy. As you can see I don't believe that there are any philanthropic governments any more. As about Greece, oh man, I suppose Greece with its modern army would have been more a problem than a help. We could throw tzatziki bombs though. Who knows, perhaps the curlic aroma would solve all problems immediately (-: > Since I have responded without any venom, I hope for the same from any other > posters. I respect Nick's right to disagree with this viewpoint and hope my > right is also respected. getting green next time. > Now, can we get back to discussing calculator marathons? I enjoy those posts > much better with you Nick. :-) OK, let's go. next thing coming up is calculus part one but though I have written much, I have big problems with organization of the stuff. So much things that depend on each other and so much inreconnections, I really don't know (yet) what to put first and what second. But I don't give up. Just give me a couple of days. Hulking on calculus, Nick. > > Gene > -- > * These statements and opinions are mine alone and CERTAINLY do not reflect > my employer's views. * > > > > >This* is one of the reasons why the usa feels, it is the cop of the > > > universe. > > > > > > I think the primary reason that the usa feels it is the cop of the > > > universe is that we did not get into the WWII fray as early as we > > > should have. That is one mistake we have no intentions of ever > > > repeating. > > > > *This* I can accept as an argument. And I thank you that you for > > mentioning it. There is no reason to hide what everybody thinks but > > nobody dares to say. > > > > But, Samuel, if this combined with the ability for intervention is the > > reason, then never forget that what was the right thing to do at that > > time, might (will?) prove devastating in our times. There are many > > But: > > 1) Hussein and the arabic world, especially the most fanatic > > individuals will instrumentalize this war, as a reason for even more > > terrible terroristic actions, whic I unfortunately have to expect in > > the near future. As you could see in the last months, only a few of > > the heads of the terroristic organizations were found. The big > > bosses are still out there, presumably planing revenge. I don't see > > any hopes that they would stop. Now, imagine what happens if the > > arabic lands that are lightly pro west up to now, turn 180 degrees and > > start sympathizing with those big bosses. > > 2) The USA gov. at that time of the WWII accordingly to what is known, > > didn't have any plans for enforcing its own interests, at least not in > > that particular form that I can observe in the oil regions of this > > world today. (If it already did at that time, then I am indeed more > > naive than I thought.) It seems totally unacceptable to me, to use the > > argumentation we free Irak while the real attitude is, to enforce > > oil interests. If as you say there is a concern not to repeat the > > mistakes of the past, then why is Tibet left alone? Why no action > > against the chinise regime? Why not against Korea? The only answer > > that I can think of is that nobody has found oil there (yet). > > > > > >If the usa would attack one the way or the other, > > > > what was the use of the whole shitty comedy? > > > > > > The US really wanted UN support. The US did not get it. Do you > > > remember a few years back how the US had to go through NATO to get > > > Slobodan Milosevic, because Russia would not let us. Oh and where was > > > the monetary/natural resources benefit for going after Mr. Milosevic? > > > > There is another benefit here. But it will get too speculative, so I > > take your advice and re-think about that case. Still, there are too > > many cases of oppressive regimes which were/are supported by certain > > usa governments and I can't say that this convinces me of good > > intentions. > > > > Greetings, > > Nick. ==== > As about Greece, oh man, I > suppose Greece with its modern army would have been more a problem > than a help. We could throw tzatziki bombs though. Who knows, perhaps > the curlic aroma would solve all problems immediately Read this: > OK, let's go. next thing coming up is calculus part one but though I > have written much, I have big problems with organization of the stuff. > So much things that depend on each other and so much inreconnections, > I really don't know (yet) what to put first and what second. But I > don't give up. Just give me a couple of days. I should now write I will not read your amateurish analysis of mathematics, so don't even bother making any more of these poor marathons. Stay to war idiocy. But I won't... - ==== > effort. Forty-five countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, > including: > Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, > Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, > Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, > Lithuania, Macedonia, > Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, > Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon > Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States , > Uzbekistan. Remove the one under strong financial pressure, or about to receive millions in aids (e.g. All the countries from eastern-europe) To make the list bigger, they should have listed the cities or small rocks :) Only Australia and the UK have agreed for military commitment Turkey has now started to invade Irak against American will and I fear about what's going to happen to the Kurdish in northern Irak ==== > Only Australia and the UK have agreed for military commitment Denmark has too, and I believe Holland as well. ==== How about the stupid arrogance of people who think that they have some type of inalienable right to take over a board and post their political ramblings? As it has no doubt been posted above, this is an HP calculator board, not a war or antiwar board! > >This* is one of the reasons why the usa feels, it is the cop of the > universe. > > I think the primary reason that the usa feels it is the cop of the > universe is that we did not get into the WWII fray as early as we > should have. That is one mistake we have no intentions of ever > repeating. > > > >If the usa would attack one the way or the other, > > what was the use of the whole shitty comedy? > > The US really wanted UN support. The US did not get it. Do you > remember a few years back how the US had to go through NATO to get > Slobodan Milosevic, because Russia would not let us. Oh and where was > the monetary/natural resources benefit for going after Mr. Milosevic? > > > > -Samuel Stearley ==== > How about the stupid arrogance of people who think that they have some > type of inalienable right to take over a board and post their > political ramblings? As it has no doubt been posted above, this is an > HP calculator board, not a war or antiwar board! Newsgroup. HP calculator *newsgroup*. ==== Well, I'm certainly not going to defend everything the U.S.A. has ever done. It has, at times, acted very dishonourably, and sometimes it's made stupid mistakes, and I'm ashamed of those occurrences. Sometimes it's made naive mistakes, so have I; an honourable person usually has a natural tendency to expect the same of others; I'm not so sure that that's anything to be ashamed of. And of course some mistakes are just plain mistakes, no one can know everything or be certain of all the results of all of his actions (or lack of action). When you make a decision based on the best evidence available to you at the time and with the best of intentions, it can indeed still be a mistake. Such mistakes are certainly regrettable in hindsight, but nothing to be ashamed of. And no, the U.S.A. hasn't even attempted to solve all of the world's problems. And in many cases it's tried to solve problems but failed. Do you think that any country could solve all of the world's problems? The U.N. was supposed to do something like that (well, at least problems among sovereign states), but in reality it's mostly just a (sometimes) useful debating society where each member state (and even some who are not members or not states) can have a voice and hope to be persuade others. But when the U.N. doesn't reach a consensus, then what? It can take no action without a consensus, and sometimes the lack of action has much the same results as a wrongful action. So the member states have little choice but to look after their own best interests and (I hope), the best interests of the world in general, as best they can, even if the U.N. is unable or unwilling to support the actions of those member states. The U.N. also suffers from much the same sort of problems that the U.S.A. suffered from under the Articles of Confederation; it has no way to compel payment of dues, no way to compel any member state to contribute to any military effort, or, for that matter, to take or refrain from taking any action whatsoever, short of reaching a consensus to make war on its own members, which it's quite rightly rather reluctant to do. Sometimes I have my doubts that the U.S.A. should ever have had anything to do with the U.N., but sometimes the U.N. ends up doing the right thing despite all of its faults and weaknesses. But I don't think that the world is ready for a world government with authority over the whole world to the degree that the U.S.A.'s government has authority over the whole U.S.A., so I suppose that we'll have to settle for the U.N. for the foreseeable future. And yes, the U.S.A. does have some of those dreaded weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons at least. Under what circumstances would you expect the U.S.A. to use them? Would you really feel any safer if the U.S.A. unilaterally disarmed? If it destroyed all of it's weapons and disbanded its military, save perhaps for a militia to be called up in the event of invasion or some other act of war on the territory of the U.S.A.? Let's see, I guess that that would leave Russia, the U.K., France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, and maybe a few others in possession of nuclear weapons; have I left anyone out? Well, I guess we could maybe count the U.N., NATO, and the E.U. (or should I say Greater France, if France ever achieves what it seems to want), even though they're not exactly sovereign states. My apologies if I've overlooked someone, or for that matter if I've included a state that doesn't have nuclear weapons; I'm not so sure that Israel has ever claimed to have them. And of course some states that don't have any nuclear weapons still have quite fearsome military capabilities. And let's not forget that there are organizations other than states that can wreak plenty of havoc. Somehow, I'm not convinced that the world would be safer if the U.S.A. disarmed. I happen to believe that the U.S.A. has well and truly given up its chemical and biological weapons programs, although I certainly can't prove it, and the various departments of just about any government do keep some things secret. I don't expect that you'll ever choose to believe this though; you know for an absolute fact that the U.S.A. is the most evil state that has ever existed. Certainly the U.S.A. (and almost any other state) wouldn't find it too terribly difficult to develop such weapons if it chose to do so (some chemicals intended for industrial uses and micro-organisms kept in research laboratories could cause some awfully massive destruction if released intentionally or unintentionally), but for what purpose? Would the U.S.A. ever dare to use them? Or dare even to hint at their existence as a threat? If the U.S.A. were really anywhere near as evil as you seem to believe it is, I expect that the world would be in much worse condition than we find it. And yes, I've read that many stations are refusing to play the songs of some group that I'd never heard of before. So? I guess those stations are simply airing their own message. Would it be better if the government forced those stations to play whatever the government wanted them to? In the U.S.A., the government doesn't dictate what commercial stations put on the air. I'm not sure what the government's official position on this war is, but in my personal view, it's not a new war, but rather a resumption of the Gulf War which began in 1991. The consensus then was that Iraq had acted wrongly in invading Kuwait, and as Iraq wasn't persuaded to leave Kuwait voluntarily, the best option, bad as it was, was to make war on Iraq to force it to do so. After Iraq was forced to leave Kuwait, a conditional cease-fire was reached leaving the Iraqi government in power. The cease-fire agreement included the condition that Iraq substantially disarm, although it would be allowed to keep its military forces and some weapons for self-defense. This was the consensus of the U.N. We made the naive mistake of believing that Iraq would live up to the cease-fire conditions, perhaps largely because we believed that Iraq had learnt its lesson and it's government would do the right thing and act in the best interests of its citizens. U.N. inspectors were sent in, I believe, mostly to observe the destruction of the forbidden weapons and find any that Iraq might have overlooked or lost track of in the confusion of war, rather than to search for any hidden weapons. Iraq pretty much thumbed its nose at the world, but the world took little notice or action, except for some trade sanctions (which ended up doing much more harm to common ordinary folks than to the Iraqi government, whose leader still managed to live quite comfortably) and some states instituting the no-fly zones to protect Iraqi citizens from their own government. As for the U.S.A., perhaps it didn't really believe that Iraq was all that much of a threat. Clinton (now there's a President that I'm ashamed of) was probably slightly distracted by his zipper coming down at inappropriate times, unusually treated cigars, and so on, and all of the problems that those caused for him. When George W. Bush became President, he didn't seem to be particularly interested in international affairs. Indeed he seemed to be somewhat oblivious to them, taking notice of such matters only when he was forced to do so. And he seems rather unskilled at diplomatic double-talk, as if he says what he means and means what he says. That certainly rubs some people the wrong way, but personally, I find it rather refreshing, even when I disagree with what he says. The events of September 11th, 2001 forced the entire government of the U.S.A. (and those citizens who weren't already very much aware of it) to take notice that the world really is a very dangerous place. If a relatively small number of fanatical criminals could do so much damage, how much damage could the government of a well-armed state do? So the U.S.A. eventually got around to the problem of the government of Iraq, which certainly seemed to be a clear and present danger to its own citizens, its neighbors, and the world in general, including the U.S.A. So the U.S.A asked the U.N. to enforce the conditions of the cease-fire. But the U.N. didn't reach a consensus to do so, and instead sent in inspectors to try to accomplish the impossible task of finding any and all forbidden weapons that Iraq would have hidden. In my opinion, that was a very stupid mistake, and it was a very stupid mistake for the U.S.A. to agree to something that was so obviously doomed to fail. But we gave in to those in favor of appeasement and peace in our times, and gave Iraq more chances and more time to conform to the cease-fire conditions, and it continued to play silly games and thumb its nose at the world. So at last the U.S.A. and several other states have begun to take effective action by resuming the war, even though the U.N. refuses to reach a consensus to do so. So who should we blame for this horrible war that no one wants going on now? For myself, the answer is quite clearly that it's mostly the fault of the Iraqi government, with the blame shared by those who chose to ignore the problem and failed to take effective action in a more timely fashion when it would've be easier to take care of, by those who failed to take effective action even when the need became blindingly obvious, and by those who even now wouldn't take any action for reasons that are beyond my understanding. A note on the English language. I didn't invent it, and neither did the President (although he does sometimes seem to have a regrettable tendency to invent his own new dialect; or maybe that's just the Texas dialect). Sometimes I wish that it were different, but if we're going to communicate effectively, we have to use a language in a way that the general consensus of it users understands it. When we mean both continents, we say the Americas. When we mean just one of the continents we say North America or South America. For better or worse, when someone says America, just about everyone who understands English (and quite a few other languages) understands that he means the United States of America. I'd prefer that the President hadn't used the simple unqualified word America, but I don't see that he was in any way at fault in doing so. So, Nick, with all due respect, I disagree with you on these matters. -- James ==== > According to the title of the group, you are right. > But! but... nothing. That's it, you realized that. Anything else is an excuse to talk about politics. > Is there anything at all nowadays, not connected to politics? Find me > that and I stop. If you can't find it, can we then still say that > politics is off topic anywhere at all? I suspect not. Is there anybody at all nowadays, not connected to FOOD ? So, let's talk about food too. Or religion, or health. You see your reason is that you only want to talk about that?. > Besides, at the moment in which we know that thousands will be > directly or indirectly hit by the monster called war, can we really > just sit here and discuss about our calculators only? Are we > completely insensitive for other people's pain? Are we? I live in a country where we have had an internal war since 40 year ago. Till I know you have been completely insensitive for people of my country for 40 years. Where were your comments one week ago? one month ago? one year ago?. What? You didn't know that there are many wars and pain around the world? But, of course now is different, because this war is near to you and appears on CNN. The pain and suffering is different, isn't it ? People of my country don't count, but those thousands you mention, of course they are more important. > Didn't we, the same people, express our sympathy for the victims and Where was your sympathy for the victims of my country six months ago? ten years ago? twenty years ago? > for the relatives and friends of the victims of the terrorist attacks > on that black day? Are those Arabs now less victims, down there in > that ancient land? > > NOT(HULK) What about the victims of my country? 40 years of death but who cares. We only appear on BBC or TVE now and then, so who cares. Now, you see how pointless (and off-topic) this discussion was. Let's talk about calculators. Leon. P.S.: Do you know which one my country is? I think not, but as I see you are very interested in wars, search for it in the 3rd world and tell us why you don't talk about my country. Not here please, look for the properly group. ==== X > You will not teach me what a dictatorship is. I have leaved under such > a regime for years, so forget the blah-blah about the usa being the X > And one of the reasons why the earth is talking english? X Was the Alexander the Great a Greek dictator?! He ruled ALL the (known) world, larger than anybody else. AND he was a dictator! Why even the New Testament is written in Greece. (Un)fortunately Greeks lost their empire and we are free!!! (-; PS: Folks! Let's see Nicks answer to this one! ==== > > Well, I'm certainly not going to defend everything the U.S.A. has ever > done. It has, at times, acted very dishonourably, and sometimes it's > made stupid mistakes, and I'm ashamed of those occurrences. Sometimes This makes it sound accidental. Ooops we just started a war. Sorry! I don't think that much was left to chance when it came to liberating the Iraki oilfields. > And no, the U.S.A. hasn't even attempted to solve all of the world's > problems. I can't think of many cases of the USA doing much at all unless certain conditions are filled: a) within sphere of influence (Nicaragua, Honduras, El Slavador, Cuba, Grenada) b) strategic importance [oil] (Somalia, Iraq) c) sparring with other superpowers (Korea, Viet-Nam). > And in many cases it's tried to solve problems but failed. Do > you think that any country could solve all of the world's problems? Some countries try using diplomacy. [snip - UN] Of course, had the USA been able to bully the Security Council into backing it's invasion, then we'd now be hearing praise for it. > And yes, the U.S.A. does have some of those dreaded weapons of mass > destruction, nuclear weapons at least. And has used them. > Under what circumstances would you expect the U.S.A. to use them? Hopefully only if ever attacked by similar weapons. > Would you really feel any safer if the U.S.A. unilaterally disarmed? Yes, much safer if the USA disposed of its arsenal that is capable of destroying the Earth as we know it. Perhaps the others would do so too. [snip disarmament] > Well, I guess we > could maybe count the U.N., NATO, and the E.U. (or should I say Greater > France, if France ever achieves what it seems to want), even though Limitless farm subsidies? Are you trying to say that France's secret weapon is to pay farmers to grow cauliflowers that nobody wants to eat, and that somehow this cauliflower surplus will enable stunning military supremacy? Of course, riddled throughout this master plan is rampant fraud of the poor European tax payers. That is the reality of the EU. [snip - more disarmament] No more chemical or biological weapons. Whoopee. Most civilised countries have now banned landmines. Guess which Western country is the big exception? > If the U.S.A. were really anywhere near as evil as you seem to believe > it is, I expect that the world would be in much worse condition than we > find it. What makes you assume that? I don't particularly see anything that stops you from dumping on other people but not dumping on your own people. [Present war a continuation of the last one] Oh yeah. > disagree with what he says. The events of September 11th, 2001 forced > the entire government of the U.S.A. (and those citizens who weren't > already very much aware of it) to take notice that the world really is a > very dangerous place. If a relatively small number of fanatical It gets even more dangerous if you go around invading countries. > criminals could do so much damage, how much damage could the government > of a well-armed state do? So the U.S.A. eventually got around to the I presume that by well-armed state you're not referring to Irak. To date, all that they seem to have managed to do is to fire 4 missiles at bits of the Kuweiti desert. > problem of the government of Iraq, which certainly seemed to be a clear > and present danger to its own citizens, Since when did the USA give a damn about other countries' citizens, especially 3rd world countries? Did I miss the invasion of China to liberate the Tibetans? Two things that stink of hypocrisy: 1. There was a UN resolution for Israel to leave the lands that it occupied 30 odd years ago. How did the USA punish Israel for not complying? Embargo? No, $US10 billion of aid to help it out of the current crisis. 2. Suez. OK, Nasser wasn't the nasty dictator that Hussein is, and it was more complicated since it was a 3-way struggle. However, it was as much about self-interest as the current invasion. Britain and France wanted to keep control of the Suez canal. The USA didn't want either Britain and France to control it or, worse, the USSR to get a foothold in the region. In the end the USA bought out Britain, and the Egyptians got the canal. Oh and by the way, did anyone mention Panama? One last thing. France has been painted a villain for intransigently saying that it would veto a UN resolution paving the way for war. Guess with other permanent member has used its veto 3 or 4 times more often than France? You guessed - the USA. A bientot Paul -- Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth) Netgear: the worst technical support I've ever encountered. ==== >< a lot snipped> > > >> The ones really destroying UNs reputation this time was France and > Germany. >> What do you suppose a veto before the French knew what they were vetoing > to >> means? That's a spanner into the works for you. > > I don't agree on this point. France, Russia and Germany (China) just didn't > want to sign a paper which leads directly to war. They had probably > different reason for not signing it. But by signing this resolution there > was _no_ other consequences than war. There was no way that Irak would (or > better could) have accepted this second paper. Germany is not a permanent member of the Security Council. The UN was formed just after the Second World War, at a moment when Germany and Japan were not in very good favour. As for vetoing, the USA does it far more often than France. Ipso facto the USA destroys the UN's reputation far more than France. A bientot Paul -- Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth) Netgear: the worst technical support I've ever encountered. ==== Paul Floyd schrieb im Newsbeitrag > >< a lot snipped> > > > > > >> The ones really destroying UNs reputation this time was France and > > Germany. > >> What do you suppose a veto before the French knew what they were vetoing > > to > >> means? That's a spanner into the works for you. > > > > I don't agree on this point. France, Russia and Germany (China) just didn't > > want to sign a paper which leads directly to war. They had probably > > different reason for not signing it. But by signing this resolution there > > was _no_ other consequences than war. There was no way that Irak would (or > > better could) have accepted this second paper. > > Germany is not a permanent member of the Security Council. The UN was > formed just after the Second World War, at a moment when Germany and > Japan were not in very good favour. I didn't claim that Germany is a permanent member of the Security Council. I know the history of Europe (the big picture) and even of the UN;-) > As for vetoing, the USA does it far more often than France. Ipso facto > the USA destroys the UN's reputation far more than France. There is no doubt about this. Roman > A bientot > Paul > -- > Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth) > Netgear: the worst technical support I've ever encountered. ==== > Even in your own dictatoric country, citizens of the usa, the > tactics of covering critics is now active! Even the Dixie > Chicks were wiped out of the lists of radio stations after > they expressed their dislike for what Bush started. What a > manifestation of democracy! This bit alone, suggests you should UP YOUR DOSAGE! So, people in the US are seen protesting in the streets against Bush, outside the White house if they like. Does the government stop that?? No, they're too busy making sure that the Dixie Chicks are kept off the air waves??? You have NO credibility. ==== Maybe, but the calc scene is the closest I get communication with people of other countries. Please forgive one or two off-topic threads. By the way, I've released some instructions on how to make a pc <-> unit link connector. All questions, comments, suggestions are welcome: http://www.calvin.edu/~sstear70/hp49g_link.txt -Samuel ==== > >Maybe, but the calc scene is the closest I get communication with >people of other countries. Please forgive one or two off-topic >threads. > (The rest snipped.) What you did wasn't communication. Tom Donaly ==== X > I can't think of many cases of the USA doing much at all unless certain > conditions are filled: > a) within sphere of influence (Nicaragua, Honduras, El Slavador, Cuba, > Grenada) > b) strategic importance [oil] (Somalia, Iraq) > c) sparring with other superpowers (Korea, Viet-Nam). Yesssshhh! X > > And yes, the U.S.A. does have some of those dreaded weapons of mass > > destruction, nuclear weapons at least. > > And has used them. X > Most civilised countries have now banned landmines. Guess which Western > country is the big exception? Not a guess, a fact: Finland! A) All landmine fields are on secret military maps I have personally seen and used those maps Planned, armed and disarmed mine fields NEVER does Finland use air-scattered mine fileds B) Our long eastern border against a super-power, which has already defeated us several times leaves no options C) We are BAD X > > disagree with what he says. The events of September 11th, 2001 forced > > the entire government of the U.S.A. (and those citizens who weren't > > already very much aware of it) to take notice that the world really is a > > very dangerous place. If a relatively small number of fanatical > > It gets even more dangerous if you go around invading countries. I can't use a smiley here... > > criminals could do so much damage, how much damage could the government > > of a well-armed state do? So the U.S.A. eventually got around to the > > I presume that by well-armed state you're not referring to Irak. To > date, all that they seem to have managed to do is to fire 4 missiles at > bits of the Kuweiti desert. They were naturally poison gas, nerve gas, bacteria or nuclear missiles? X > > problem of the government of Iraq, which certainly seemed to be a clear > > and present danger to its own citizens, > > Since when did the USA give a damn about other countries' citizens, > especially 3rd world countries? Did I miss the invasion of China to > liberate the Tibetans? > > Two things that stink of hypocrisy: X Only those two??!! PS: Not that I'm not glad that the Iraq thing is soon over but USA is definitely stomping on UN and has no right to do it !! Bush has been sued for being a war criminal... ==== X > This bit alone, suggests you should UP YOUR DOSAGE! X Are you totally nuts??!!! Nick's gamma dosage is already at HULK levels ! Who needs more?! (-; ==== > X > > You will not teach me what a dictatorship is. I have leaved under such > > a regime for years, so forget the blah-blah about the usa being the > X > > And one of the reasons why the earth is talking english? > X > Was the Alexander the Great a Greek dictator?! Definitely! > He ruled ALL the (known) world, larger than anybody else. > AND he was a dictator! Yes, one of the most dangerous kind. > Why even the New Testament is written in Greece. Because at that time the greek ruled the world. > (Un)fortunately Greeks lost their empire and we are free!!! Unfortunately you say? Thaks heavens the empire was lost and the real achievements were saved for later ganerations! > (-; > PS: Folks! Let's see Nicks answer to this one! You might expect me to try to defend big Alex because he was born where I was born (Same city actually!) But I rather prefer Diogenes: -Mr. Alex, get out of my sight, you hide the sun! Or, to let the old cynical man speak again: I search for human beings! just for fun. Greek oppression, Irak oppression, US oppression, whatever oppression is an act of humiliation. Because I have tasted that in the past, I promised myself to never shut up when such things take place. Greetings from hell, Nick. ==== The whole world, and thus this board also, *has to become* an anti war board. Greenish, Nick. > How about the stupid arrogance of people who think that they have some > type of inalienable right to take over a board and post their > political ramblings? As it has no doubt been posted above, this is an > HP calculator board, not a war or antiwar board! > > > > >This* is one of the reasons why the usa feels, it is the cop of the > > universe. > > > > I think the primary reason that the usa feels it is the cop of the > > universe is that we did not get into the WWII fray as early as we > > should have. That is one mistake we have no intentions of ever > > repeating. > > > > > > >If the usa would attack one the way or the other, > > > what was the use of the whole shitty comedy? > > > > The US really wanted UN support. The US did not get it. Do you > > remember a few years back how the US had to go through NATO to get > > Slobodan Milosevic, because Russia would not let us. Oh and where was > > the monetary/natural resources benefit for going after Mr. Milosevic? > > > > > > > > -Samuel Stearley ==== > > According to the title of the group, you are right. > > But! > > but... nothing. That's it, you realized that. Anything else is an excuse to > talk about politics. An excuse you say? A reason it is!!! > > Is there anything at all nowadays, not connected to politics? Find me > > that and I stop. If you can't find it, can we then still say that > > politics is off topic anywhere at all? I suspect not. > > Is there anybody at all nowadays, not connected to FOOD ? So, let's talk > about food too. Or religion, or health. You see your reason is that you > only want to talk about that?. And because food depends on politics we have to talk and argue about politics! > > Besides, at the moment in which we know that thousands will be > > directly or indirectly hit by the monster called war, can we really > > just sit here and discuss about our calculators only? Are we > > completely insensitive for other people's pain? Are we? > > I live in a country where we have had an internal war since 40 year ago. > Till I know you have been completely insensitive for people of my country > for 40 years. Where were your comments one week ago? one month ago? one year > ago?. I damn *any* oppression and I have no sympathy for any dictatorship. The fact that your people have to live under such conditions is just another proof of how philanthropic those invaders are. > What? You didn't know that there are many wars and pain around the world? This was exactly what one of my main points of argumentation included. I say that the real faces of super powers can be seen when one conciders all hidden wars and crimes. > But, of course now is different, because this war is near to you and appears > on CNN. The pain and suffering is different, isn't it ? People of my country > don't count, but those thousands you mention, of course they are more > important. No they aren't, and I find it good that you come out and tell us about that. Unfortunately I am limited to what I know through the news, which are way not perfect. So please tell us more, so that we have yet another case of unfairness and political crime, which isn't shown to us, to make us believe that all is right. > > Didn't we, the same people, express our sympathy for the victims and > > Where was your sympathy for the victims of my country six months ago? > ten years ago? twenty years ago? Because I am shielded from the truth by reporters who report to me what they are allowed to report. > > for the relatives and friends of the victims of the terrorist attacks > > on that black day? Are those Arabs now less victims, down there in > > that ancient land? > > > > NOT(HULK) > > What about the victims of my country? 40 years of death but who cares. We > only appear on BBC or TVE now and then, so who cares. I care! I am presumably a nothing which isn't going to change anything. But I do care. The bodies of dead people, whichever country they were born in, form a terrible accusation for anybody who still pretends that dirty politics is a mean for ending problems. > Now, you see how pointless (and off-topic) this discussion was. Let's talk > about calculators. I can't! While this butchery is going on, also on your people, I can't! We all, have to stand up and demand stronger controlling of politicians by ordinary people, who after all are the only ones who really suffer in such catastrophs. > Leon. > > P.S.: Do you know which one my country is? I think not, but as I see you > are very interested in wars, search for it in the 3rd world and tell us why > you don't talk about my country. Not here please, look for the properly > group. *depends* on such voices like yours! Help me to know better! Do that for uncovering the shameless oppressors that kick people down like nothing. The first that dies in a war is the truth! Please, help me to understand better, Nick. ==== Maybe I couldn't explain myself very well. My answers to your discussion were with the intention you realize that here is not the place to talk about politics, but in a kind of implicit way. Obviously you didn't understand, but it was my fault; my english is very bad. Nevertheless I think I can write the same thing in an explicit english: mad. Now, we can talk about calculators, can't we ? Leon. Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics P.S.: You are very smart, Nick. You always find the way to involve people in your war stuff discussion, such the Anti-war activists here in my country. Sorry, I'm an activists-skeptic. Let's talk about calculators in comp.sys.hp48.....yeah !!!. ==== > > There is no oil to steel in N-K... > You disappoint me, Veli-Pekka. > > > USA is the only country in the whole planet and its history > > which has ever used nuclear weapon against another nation/state > > especially civilians in this case!!! AND that twice in a row! > > What would you have liked to have done instead? > Were you a soldier during WWII? I was born 1958. My mother (born 1935) lived in Sweden during the Soviet attacks. My mother's only brother died defending Finland from the commies. > No, Finland - like my own country - lacked soldiers back then. > So I see - you are definetely the right person to frown at those two bombs. > If it weren't for them, you would very likely be living in Russia or Germany now. Hmmm...IIRC H & N where the places where civilians where A-bombed by US of A. indeed speak Russian language now. Strange to thank A for that?! Also thanks to Finnish veterans AND those other free willing fighters all over the world - including USA - that helped us against the CCCP. Yes - we were allies with the Nazi's (against commies) We live in Technicolor(@) > > So Saddam has got it right: US of A is The Great Satan. > > Only that Saddam is his son.... > I suddenly doubt your ability to judge clearly now. Well, Saddam has just > lit his oilwells again, so ecological dissaster is guarenteed. He has also > opened up the blankets for his relationship with Al-Qa'ida, threatening the > western world with suicide bombers. If a greater - much greater power would attack you, what would you do? Just sit and wait there? where the whole world has now a reason to afraid of Saddam!!! > I hope for the hell of it that the Brits and Americans can pull it off down > there, because we're f***** otherwise. I should go back to the weapons > industry again - there's said to be good money there currently. We'll > probably need some new cruise missiles or something soon. That's entirely your choice. > I don't give a rats ass for people complaining without a solution these > days. Go help your pal Saddam Hussein, if you feel he is being so > mistreated. (deleted msg for Nick). You got to be mad?! I would thing that The son of Satan would be my pal. He is totally nuts! But Bush is no pigeon of peace either. I wonder why we have UN after all...Cheezh! Everybody seems crazy nowadays... Veli-Pekka PS: I still like all the people writing here. I respect any opinion. I encourage questioning anyone's opinions and facts (including but not limited to that of mine) ==== > Hmmm...IIRC H & N where the places where civilians where A-bombed by US of > A. Is Japanese a better language then? I just mean everyone agrees the bombs stopped WWII. There's still debate which action would have caused the fewer casualties. I know the world is not B&W - but focusing entirely on the oil in Iraq is not even close to gray scale (now, finally a semi-calc statement ;-) > That's entirely your choice. Yes, a choice I had a few years ago, when I made my mind up to quit the military R&D. I'm glad I did that - life (as in my head) is much greener now. It's unfortunately only a illusion - someone else is doing my job today. > He is totally nuts! But Bush is no pigeon of peace > either. I never said that. In fact, I'm very sorry that Mr. Bush is president in the USA now - I don't trust that guy. I don't trust Saddam either though. > I wonder why we have UN after all...Cheezh! Everybody seems crazy > nowadays... Yes, these kinds of situations tend to have that effect on people. I'll step out of this debate on c.s.hp48, since I don't think it belong here. Sorry for my participation. Maybe a fluke of saneness :-) > PS: I still like all the people writing here. I do too - I have a hard time coping with Nicks harsh language, but I'm not sensitive. I also think these threads are OT, but it's a weird situation we're in, and I have seen OT threads for far less. Leon is right though - what's so different with this situation, as compared to everyday life in many countries? Lets find an auction where they sell clear-headed leaders. We could need a few (not that there aren't any currently, but the world is on thin ice this decade - hopefully it won't last the century). ==== > > > > Well, I'm certainly not going to defend everything the U.S.A. has ever > done. It has, at times, acted very dishonourably, and sometimes it's > made stupid mistakes, and I'm ashamed of those occurrences. Sometimes > it's made naive mistakes, so have I; an honourable person usually has a > natural tendency to expect the same of others; I'm not so sure that > that's anything to be ashamed of. Very nice said but completelly irrelevant. The mistakes of a person are not the mistakes of a government. Besides, what you call mistake was most of the time the calculated thoughts of one and only purpose, namely how to become the ruler of the world. > And of course some mistakes are just > plain mistakes, no one can know everything or be certain of all the > results of all of his actions (or lack of action). When you make a > decision based on the best evidence available to you at the time and > with the best of intentions, it can indeed still be a mistake. Such > mistakes are certainly regrettable in hindsight, but nothing to be > ashamed of. The decision taken by the cowboy is based on the plans that his father already started 1991. Did you forget the security council and the New World Order of senior Bush? The current amok runner, brought to power by his millioners friends in *oil branch of economy*, wants to continue what his daddy started. The plan for the absolute ruling of the USA in that region. There is nothing more understandable than that the Arabs will not just say OK. Spare me the please this argumentation because I get green when I hear that there is nothing to be ashamed of, by taking away the future of a whole culture. > And no, the U.S.A. hasn't even attempted to solve all of the world's > problems. This is not what I said, the USA government doesn't give a feedling fart about problems of other countries. > And in many cases it's tried to solve problems but failed. Do > you think that any country could solve all of the world's problems? No, I think that no empire should exist that takes the ruling of the world by eliminating all concurence. Like MS. > The U.N. was supposed to do something like that (well, at least problems [UN part cut for brevity] > have to settle for the U.N. for the foreseeable future. This had nothing to do with the empire politics of the USA. It is right but irrelevant. > And yes, the U.S.A. does have some of those dreaded weapons of mass > destruction, nuclear weapons at least. Under what circumstances would > you expect the U.S.A. to use them? Under any circumstances that the amok runner considers to be dangerous resistance against their egoistic nationalistic imperialistic plans. Besides! They already did, and I don't only mean Japan. > Would you really feel any safer if > the U.S.A. unilaterally disarmed? I would feel safer if the USA not only disarms but stops wanting to be the absolute ruler. And if you at last will bring some president to power that has the appropriate education/willing/sensitiveness to solve problems for the next 10 generations, instead of acting as if nobody would exist after him. > If it destroyed all of it's weapons > and disbanded its military, save perhaps for a militia to be called up > in the event of invasion or some other act of war on the territory of > the U.S.A.? Don't connect defense of the USA with world ruling. This is not the same. > Let's see, I guess that that would leave Russia, the U.K., > France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, and maybe a few others in > possession of nuclear weapons; have I left anyone out? Well, I guess we > could maybe count the U.N., NATO, and the E.U. (or should I say Greater > France, if France ever achieves what it seems to want), even though > they're not exactly sovereign states. My apologies if I've overlooked > someone, or for that matter if I've included a state that doesn't have > nuclear weapons; I'm not so sure that Israel has ever claimed to have > them. And of course some states that don't have any nuclear weapons > still have quite fearsome military capabilities. And let's not forget > that there are organizations other than states that can wreak plenty of > havoc. Somehow, I'm not convinced that the world would be safer if the > U.S.A. disarmed. The amount of weapons posessed by all those lands is a small fart compared to what exists in the arsenals of the USA. And not only for mass destruction weapons. Combined with the blind nationalism of the amok running cowboy, this is more dangerous than 25 Husseins. > I happen to believe that the U.S.A. has well and truly given up its > chemical and biological weapons programs, although I certainly can't > prove it, and the various departments of just about any government do > keep some things secret. I don't expect that you'll ever choose to > believe this though; Haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaa, good joke, the next please! James, do you really believe that the whole spectrum of sciences that deal with bio is solely for civil purposes? There are scientific fields that are (from the scientist point of view) faaar more important than the laughable bio. There are guys out there that find that the universe is exactly the same if it has a radius of R or 1/R. (You can imagine what tha means?) They get a few cents compared to the amonut of money spent for shitty bio-labs. Why do you think that this happens? > you know for an absolute fact that the U.S.A. is > the most evil state that has ever existed. I have repeated over and over again: With USA I mean the gov, James, the current government. Not the land. This is something that shows clearly that we need to distinguish between the land and its government, which, especially in the USA, has almost nothing to do with common people. So I will use from now on the term USA gov, to avoid misunderstandings, which I think are often the reason why many US citizen get angry with me. (And they are right to be angry they get the impression that I say all this to them personally.) I don't even mean the soldiers that are now in the war, I know what a shitty situation they are in. BTW, why do you identify the land with the government? > Certainly the U.S.A. (and > almost any other state) wouldn't find it too terribly difficult to > develop such weapons if it chose to do so (some chemicals intended for > industrial uses and micro-organisms kept in research laboratories could > cause some awfully massive destruction if released intentionally or > unintentionally), but for what purpose? Don't talk about other lands, the USA gov sits on judgement not the other lands. And that for the simple fact that only the government of the USA posesses the arrogance to appear armed in front of other countries and enforce their will. > Would the U.S.A. ever dare to > use them? Or dare even to hint at their existence as a threat? The USA gov. has used them! No need to answer this. > If the U.S.A. were really anywhere near as evil as you seem to believe > it is, I expect that the world would be in much worse condition than we > find it. The world is in a terrible condition but perhaps you can't see that because you don't belong to the part whose conditions have been devastated by the USA gov. Travel to some other lands and then I'll tell you what terrible conditions means. > And yes, I've read that many stations are refusing to play the songs of > some group that I'd never heard of before. So? I guess those stations > are simply airing their own message. Would it be better if the > government forced those stations to play whatever the government wanted > them to? In the U.S.A., the government doesn't dictate what commercial > stations put on the air. This combined with the above identification with the government clearly shows that in the USA criticsism, substancial self-criticism are not wished and hidden away. If the radio could bradcast this, but doesn't do it because the quotes would fall, this shows that the main portion of the citizens doesn't like to hear heavy dritisism about the government. But any government is an intitution that *has* to be critisized *permanently*. No democracy is real democracy without this. > I'm not sure what the government's official position on this war is, but > in my personal view, it's not a new war, but rather a resumption of the > Gulf War which began in 1991. In which pappy Bush started his dirty plans how the crusade against the world can be carried out. >The consensus then was that Iraq had acted > wrongly in invading Kuwait, and as Iraq wasn't persuaded to leave Kuwait > voluntarily, the best option, bad as it was, was to make war on Iraq to > force it to do so. After Iraq was forced to leave Kuwait, a conditional > cease-fire was reached leaving the Iraqi government in power. >The cease-fire agreement included the condition that Iraq substantially > disarm, although it would be allowed to keep its military forces and > some weapons for self-defense. This was the consensus of the U.N. We > made the naive mistake of believing that Iraq would live up to the > cease-fire conditions, perhaps largely because we believed that Iraq had > learnt its lesson and it's government would do the right thing and act > in the best interests of its citizens. U.N. inspectors were sent in, I > believe, mostly to observe the destruction of the forbidden weapons and > find any that Iraq might have overlooked or lost track of in the > confusion of war, rather than to search for any hidden weapons. Iraq > pretty much thumbed its nose at the world, but the world took little > notice or action, except for some trade sanctions (which ended up doing > much more harm to common ordinary folks than to the Iraqi government, > whose leader still managed to live quite comfortably) and some states > instituting the no-fly zones to protect Iraqi citizens from their own > government. No and again no! The best analysts of the near and middle east will start the description looooooong time before the first Irak war. When the USA brought Hussein to power, as they believed at that time that he would play the role of the goooood friend (colaborateur) for ever. Real experts who spended half their lifes in arabic lands and learned about the history and most important the arabic soul will tell you this. And most important: Don't use western logic to understand what is going on there, if you want to really know what the wrong thing is. > As for the U.S.A., perhaps it didn't really believe that > Iraq was all that much of a threat. Clinton (now there's a President > that I'm ashamed of) was probably slightly distracted by his zipper > coming down at inappropriate times, unusually treated cigars, and so on, > and all of the problems that those caused for him. In a land where a simple (and also human) bl****b counts more than anything else, I don't expect real progress for the next couple of centuries. The private life of Clinton is the private life of Clinton and nobody has the right to be interested in this. And to tell you the truth: The girl was beautiful, the president hasn't seen his wife for days, he was a human being and just went for it. So what? He is not the first and not the last. If we count that bl****b against what he did for his people, we *have* to come to the conclusion that he was one of the very best presidents. More like him in power! And more bl****bs, just to see that this is not just an institution that is soooooo much higher than we, but a real human out of flesh and blood. There were times where I really thought that this man, Clinton, didn't sleep for weeks. He worked like a horse, perhaps 25 hours a day, just for the problem Palestina- Israel. At his time we could observe at least a possible start for negotiations, for peace, for cooperation. Bring him back! > When George W. Bush > became President, he didn't seem to be particularly interested in > international affairs. Oh no, he was and still is interested in one national affair, namely how to americanize the whole world! > Indeed he seemed to be somewhat oblivious to > them, taking notice of such matters only when he was forced to do so. > And he seems rather unskilled at diplomatic double-talk, as if he says > what he means and means what he says. That certainly rubs some people > the wrong way, but personally, I find it rather refreshing, even when I > disagree with what he says. The events of September 11th, 2001 forced > the entire government of the U.S.A. (and those citizens who weren't > already very much aware of it) to take notice that the world really is a > very dangerous place. It is not a dangerous place, it has been *made* to a dangerous place by him and his millioners friends. Why was that terrible terroristic hit in *his* presidential time? Observe, combine, conclude! > If a relatively small number of fanatical > criminals could do so much damage, how much damage could the government > of a well-armed state do? They will do nothing if the USA leaves them in peace and gives them back what the own. Their land, their oil, the feeling that they are not slaves! > So the U.S.A. eventually got around to the > problem of the government of Iraq, which certainly seemed to be a clear > and present danger to its own citizens, its neighbors, and the world in > general, including the U.S.A. So the U.S.A asked the U.N. to enforce the > conditions of the cease-fire. But the U.N. didn't reach a consensus to > do so, and instead sent in inspectors to try to accomplish the > impossible task of finding any and all forbidden weapons that Iraq would > have hidden. In my opinion, that was a very stupid mistake, and it was a > very stupid mistake for the U.S.A. to agree to something that was so > obviously doomed to fail. But we gave in to those in favor of > appeasement and peace in our times, and gave Iraq more chances and > more time to conform to the cease-fire conditions, and it continued to > play silly games and thumb its nose at the world. So at last the U.S.A. > and several other states have begun to take effective action by resuming > the war, even though the U.N. refuses to reach a consensus to do so. So > who should we blame for this horrible war that no one wants going on > now? For myself, the answer is quite clearly that it's mostly the fault > of the Iraqi government, with the blame shared by those who chose to > ignore the problem and failed to take effective action in a more timely > fashion when it would've be easier to take care of, by those who failed > to take effective action even when the need became blindingly obvious, > and by those who even now wouldn't take any action for reasons that are > beyond my understanding. The Iraki government doesn't posess such weapons and was never so well armed as the USA gov wants us to believe. There are no evidense, no hard proof nothing! This is what the USA gov wants us to believe in order to explain a war that is the first step to get the whole world. The whole time we wait and wait and see nothing. Where are Husseins missiles? Where is his weaponry? I want to see it or I don't believe any of that hollywood like movies about b and c weapons of the Irak. *AND* if after the war they show what they find, then I will know certainly that I am right. This will be lies and propaganda put in scene. They show us that they can find the color of my grapes per spy satelite, but [extreme irony on] ohh no, for weapons they will find what they didn't find and have to postpone what they wanted to show us because the weather was rainy and the water salty. [extreme irony off] And I say PAPARLAPAPP! Nothing has been found so the bombing for oil has to be stoped. > A note on the English language. I didn't invent it, and neither did the > President (although he does sometimes seem to have a regrettable > tendency to invent his own new dialect; or maybe that's just the Texas > dialect). Take a look at many books of the english language - this analphabet has created an extra chapter, Bushisms. With the knowledge of a sparrow he stands there, like the hero of the world and talks bullshit. Reminds me somehow of Mussolini. > Sometimes I wish that it were different, but if we're going to > communicate effectively, we have to use a language in a way that the > general consensus of it users understands it. Yes, but it doesn't have to be english. If you take the time to learn a few sentences in arabic, you are half the way to get new friends. Most us citizens that live here since years haven't learned a single word german (OK swiss german) and expect from everybody to talk their language. But even if it has to be english, I expect from a man that is in such a position to speak absolutely correct and fine english. OK not necesserily Oxford, but without such diamonds. > When we mean both > continents, we say the Americas. When we mean just one of the > continents we say North America or South America. For better or > worse, when someone says America, just about everyone who understands > English (and quite a few other languages) understands that he means the > United States of America. I'd prefer that the President hadn't used the > simple unqualified word America, but I don't see that he was in any > way at fault in doing so. Ask yourself how this bad habbit has been created. It needs much of that sort of selfconfidence that completely ignores others. > So, Nick, with all due respect, I disagree with you on these matters. And it is good that you do so. But you see what happens here? We talk we discuss, we argue, we even flame. But we do all that battles verbally. I don't think that we would ever use guns against each other for manifestating our different views. (Though I would presumably sometimes receive some punch.) Imagine a huge party around the lake here where we could keep this on the whole night. After the differences and the flames and the accusations, at the small hours of morning the thought will arive: He isn't bad at all, he resembles my errors and my mistakes, he can get angry as well, he can be ironical, hmm, could it be that he is more similar to me than I think? What happens then is real understanding and not understanding through papers paragraphs and dirty plans. I hope I have been able to make a desription a way to understanding, that is hard and long, but with lasting results. My ideal person for the high responsibility of the president or the councelor or whatever is somebody who does this, and in addition has good visions, ideas for the future, unconventionally clear sight of the consequences for the future, combined with a friendly heart and finest manners. That person must find solutions that have only advantages for everybody, must act out of deepest concern for the people, his people and other people, and also the environment and must have the ability to give others the feeling that he *listens*! I want too much? Perhaps! But if I have to fullfil 3 pages of such demands only to get a job as a programmer, then it is only natural that the person who applies for the job of the president has to be.... *wise*! Not clever, not intelligent, but wise! For the time being... I can't see the slightest trace of wisdom on the person of the president of the USA. Not green, thank you for answering, think about the party Nick. ==== > I don't give a rats ass for people complaining without a solution these > days. Go help your pal Saddam Hussein, if you feel he is being so > mistreated. (N-K might even still be able to look down the barrel of a rifle > pointing towards someone he hates so badly. Now don't give up so easy, > Nick - I hear the Republican Guard is looking for volunteers). Scholl-Latour or Marcel Pott, I will not listen to your amateurish analysis of the problems. The fact is that the USA gov wants the world. YOu didn't answer any of my points as far as I can see, so anything you say is perhaps right but irrelevant! Stay to calcs! When this plan to rule the world has been carried out some steps telling you to go serve your pal, the USA gov, be it Bush or any successor. Time is on my side! Greenish, Nick. ==== > Maybe I couldn't explain myself very well. My answers to your discussion > were with the intention you realize that here is not the place to talk about > politics, but in a kind of implicit way. Obviously you didn't understand, but > it was my fault; my english is very bad. Never mind, mine is even badder ;-) > Nevertheless I think I can write > the same thing in an explicit english: > > mad. But I am HULK, the mad green thing, I have to behave this way. > Now, we can talk about calculators, can't we ? The one thing doesn't exclude the other, Leon. > Leon. > Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics > > > P.S.: You are very smart, Nick. Who me? No! I am a small whining hulky terror worm. Until now at least. > You always find the way to involve people in > your war stuff discussion, such the Anti-war activists here in my country. If the people do participate, this clearly shows that there is not only the need for such OT discussions, but also (thank heavens) the plurality that allows non-agreement to create discussion and - who knows? - perhaps solutions. I only tip the top of the avalanche. > Sorry, I'm an activists-skeptic. Let's talk about calculators in > comp.sys.hp48.....yeah !!!. But we do that since years! It's getting quite boring to talk about calcs (only) in such times. Even future calculators can depend on what the results of this war can be. Besides, I don't know any rule that says either calcs or politics. And also I am ***NOT*** anti-american, dammi siech, how often have I to repeat this. I am anti-american-government. Greetings, Nick. ==== > X > > This bit alone, suggests you should UP YOUR DOSAGE! > X > Are you totally nuts??!!! > Nick's gamma dosage is already at HULK levels ! > Who needs more?! > (-; Loughing my heart out! Mwaaaaaaahaaaahaaa! ()-: Drop laugh bombs! But it is fan! Seriosity killed the good hearts. Hulk.o.Nick ==== > > Hmmm...IIRC H & N where the places where civilians where A-bombed by US > Is Japanese a better language then? AAARRRGGHHH! > > I know the world is not B&W - but focusing entirely on the oil in Iraq is > not even close to gray scale (now, finally a semi-calc statement ;-) North Korea can make A-bomb and nobody cares...there is no oil there. X > > He is totally nuts! But Bush is no pigeon of peace either. > I never said that. In fact, I'm very sorry that Mr. Bush is president in the > USA now - I don't trust that guy. I don't trust Saddam either though. Here we agree strongly. That was exactly my point. > > I wonder why we have UN after all...Cheezh! Everybody seems crazy > > nowadays... > Yes, these kinds of situations tend to have that effect on people. I'll step > out of this debate on c.s.hp48, since I don't think it belong here. Sorry > for my participation. Naah! - Sometimes it's OK to be OT. This was one of those times. ==== >> This is a great idea Nick! I think you should post this to 20000 >> other groups too. There is an enormous potential for savings here. >> Just imagine what could be done with all the cpu-cycles wasted today >> to keep track of which group a message belongs to when the entire >> Usenet could be concentrated to one big pile of heated, ahem, >> discussion on current geopolitical events. > > It would perhaps lead to better understanding because we could at last > see the world through the eyes of other people, instead of accepting > ad hoc that our view has to be the right one. I think it would lead to a situation where the usenet would be dominated by ads and trolls. All the real discussions would drown under the sheer volume of unsorted msgs. There are adequate groups for almost every political view imaginable as well as groups designed for genereal discussion. Why is it necessary to spill over to highly specialized groups like this one? >> We who are neither Yunkees, nor interested in the not-so-balanced >> arguments of the debate just have to go somewhere else, I guess. > > You (plural) are definitely not whom I addressed the message, except > of course if you all members of the government, or identify with it. > Should I suppose that? Do you honestly think that any members of the US Govt reads this NG? If they did - do you think they would choose to defend their politics here? I can't imagine that you thought that and then you must have been trying to address the members of the NG. >> > Blasting the columns of truth to everybody! >> > Until you bomb me to keep me silent! >> >> I honestly don't think that the US military policy-makers finds that >> your propaganda will have enough impact on the world to motivate >> allocation of US tax-dollars to drop a bomb on you... > > 1) I *answer* propaganda with propaganda. Oh, that makes me feel much better... However, IMnsHO, almost nothing is ever achieved with two parties throwing propaganda at each other. If you were in a crowd of 10000 people I might have paid attention. Now you just look like a lone troll in a NG. Which is sad considering how much you have contributed to the group in the past. > 2) I know that nothing I do will ever have an impact, but this is not > the reason for doing it. Do I have to explain the reasons? No, you don't. But if you know it hasn't any impact then I can't think of any good reason to stir up flames - maybe it makes you feel better? Post your thoughts on a website or something. /Jesper ==== > X > > What about North Korea? > There is no oil to steel in N-K... Aw, c'mon now, Veli-Pekka. Of course the U.S., like any state, group, corporation, or individual, is selective about which issues and resources are important enough to take an active interest in or to get involved in. For the industrialised world, the continued supply of petroleum (while it lasts) or its products is quite understandably deemed to very important. Would any reasonable person expect otherwise? As the supply of petroleum gets scarcer, I expect, barring some amazing changes, that it will be considered ever more important. This would seem to bode ill for the world.... But in the case of Iraq, it seems to me that it would have been far easier to say (in confidence or by a failure to say anything): Let's be friends. Invade any country that you can (as long as as it's not us and we don't get the blame). Keep or use any weapons that you can get your hands on (as long as you don't use them against us or let it be known that we were involved in your getting them). As long as you sell us your petroleum or put it on the world market so that we can buy it at a reasonable price, we'll look the other way. Now that I think about it, perhaps that's exactly the attitude of some. I don't think that there's any need or intention to steal Iraq's oil, it would've been easy enough to continue buying it, albeit perhaps indirectly. In the case of North Korea, need I point out that the likely consequences of resuming the conflict there would likely, it seems to me, be far more serious, not just for the U.S., but for the whole world, and especially for its nearer neighbors? I think that the wiser course there is to continue the cease-fire, if that remains at all possible. Perhaps the U.N. (with the U.S. abstaining from any participation) can find a solution that makes the whole world happy? Maybe it would be best for the U.S. to pull its military forces and weapons back to the U.S. and let North Korea sort things out with its closer neighbors? I certainly don't know what's best to be done about that whole situation. Maybe North Korea would be happy if the U.S. stole all of Iraq's petroleum, refined it, and shipped it all to North Korea; could it be that that's what we're up to in Iraq? > X > > I think that if USA was responsible for massive genocide for the last 15 > > years, that just might be the message. > X > USA is the only country in the whole planet and its history > which has ever used nuclear weapon against another nation/state > especially civilians in this case!!! Quite true, and it was certainly horrible for the victims, most (or all) of whom, I suppose, had very little, if any, choice in the behaviour of Japan as a state. Would it've been better to explode the bomb over the seat of government, Tokyo? Maybe that would've killed many of those in power, making an invasion easier, but how many innocent people lived there? I don't know what it would've been best to do. I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone, but the sad fact seems to be that innocent people have always suffered and died as a result of the choices of those with more power, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to expect that this will ever change, unless Transcendental Meditation or prayer (in the manner of the One True Religion, of course) is universally adopted and proves to be more powerful than most of us expect. The U.S. was the only state that had nuclear weapons at that time. Suppose that one of the other participants in that war had had them available during the war; I wonder how long it would have refrained from using them. In Europe, the Nazis were certainly willing to kill civilians; indeed, one of their objectives was to eliminate all who failed to conform to their standards of what a human should be. By the time of the U.S.'s late entry into the war, I believe that all of the warring parties had demonstrated a willingness to kill civilians whenever it seemed likely to further their objectives. The U.S. was certainly not alone in killing civilians in Europe; which of the participants could claim to be innocent in that regard? In Asia, right from the start in Manchuria, Japan's military leadership seemed to encourage the mistreatment, torture, rape, enslavement, and killing of all non-Japanese. I think that I've read somewhere that the Emperor found this distressing, but I gather that he really didn't have control. Consider the alternatives available to the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military forces (that is, the President of the U.S.). Japan didn't seem the least bit inclined to surrender as long as it could possibly resist. Invading Japan's homeland using conventional weapons would certainly have cost much suffering and many lives, both military, and for Japan, civilian; by many estimates, far more civilians than would be killed by the use of nuclear weapons. No doubt the Soviet Union (an ally, I believe, only under the enemy of my enemy principle) would have insisted on participating in any such invasion and having a hand in governing post-war Japan and even greater influence in the world. The U.S. certainly wasn't going to settle for anything less than the surrender of Japan, and even if it had, for example, opted to try to keep Japan under a state of siege indefinitely, this would no doubt have resulted in great suffering and the death of many, civilians and those with the least power especially, and I very much doubt that the Soviet Union (which had its own long-standing grievances against Japan and desire for influence) would have stayed out of it in any case. None of the options seem the least bit appealing to me. I don't know how difficult it was for the President to make his choice, but I'm certainly glad that I've never had to choose among such terrible alternatives. If you were in his shoes at that time with the same alternatives to choose from, how would you have chosen? > AND that twice in a row! Well, they didn't take the opportunity to surrender after the first time. Should the U.S. have kept the last weapon on the shelf and continued using conventional weapons which caused so much suffering and death? I wonder what the opinions of the world would be if the U.S. had never used nuclear weapons at all but had instead restricted itself to the use of conventional weapons at the cost of more suffering and loss of lives, and it were eventually to come to light that the U.S. had possessed a secret weapon that it could've used to end the war quickly, had it chosen to do so. Of course, I wasn't even born until 1950, when it was long all over bar the shouting, which, it seems, is destined to go on indefinitely. In school, they never did seem to get around to 20th century history; perhaps they assumed that we already knew all about such current events, or were waiting until the actual events were mostly forgotten before deciding on what the correct version would be and writing it into history books. Certainly my knowledge and understanding of history, and even current events, is far from complete and no doubt often incorrect. As a relatively minor point, I believe that there's rather convincing evidence that a good number of people have died as a result of the testing of nuclear weapons, both by the U.S. and others. > So Saddam has got it right: US of A is The Great Satan. Well, as I've written elsewhere, the U.S. has indeed done things which I'm very much ashamed of, even though my influence over the behaviour of the U.S. is vanishingly small; even in local elections, I've never cast a vote which, by itself, determined the result. I doubt that any of the participants in this newsgroup has noticeable influence on the behaviour of any government, although some (all?) of us do have strong opinions on the events of the world. I do hope that we can avoid blaming each other personally for the actions of our governments. But I wonder about his choice of the word Satan. Saddam doesn't, to me, seem be be very religious. It seems to me that this may be a good example of hypocrisy. > Only that Saddam is his son.... And in my opinion, the horrible current war is the result of his choice to invade Kuwait and his behaviour since. Let's hope that it will soon be over and that fewer people will have suffered and died as a result than would've been the case had we left him to do as he would. Well, I hope that most of us will keep it cool and civilised, remember that any reasonably large group of intelligent persons is very likely to have diverse viewpoints and conflicting opinions, and recall that the reason for this newsgroup is to discuss our favourite calculators. After all, the governments of this world will no doubt continue to do as they will whether we like it or not. I'm somewhat sorry for participating in such an off-topic thread and no doubt offending several of the regulars, but sometimes I just can't quite resist. I do hope that those who don't care to read my miserable drivel have filtered it out or ignored it without reading it to this point. -- James ==== X > Of course the U.S., like any state, group, corporation, or individual, > is selective about which issues and resources are important enough to X That's just what I meant: US is selective. X > a reasonable price, we'll look the other way. X That would be even worse, but is there no 3rd option?. France is using veto because it has drilling right and nice weapon sales. Russia is using veto because 40% of the Iraq oil goes through them. Now USA was to have more control there. It's all about oil and control. Not liberation the people. > > Maybe North Korea would be happy if the U.S. stole all of Iraq's > petroleum, refined it, and shipped it all to North Korea; could it be > that that's what we're up to in Iraq? X (-; LOL ! A very good idea, but would it really work OR would the Koreans also have some belly laughs (they don't trust USA) > > Quite true, and it was certainly horrible for the victims, most (or all) > of whom, I suppose, had very little, if any, choice in the behaviour of > Japan as a state. Would it've been better to explode the bomb over the > seat of government, Tokyo? X That was the deal, but they gave up the idea, because the air defence was much too good in Tokyo. Todays wars are dirty. You always hit the civilians. X > from, how would you have chosen? A demonstration first in a smaller Japanise island. X > > So Saddam has got it right: US of A is The Great Satan. > Well, as I've written elsewhere, the U.S. has indeed done things which > I'm very much ashamed of, even though my influence over the behaviour of X I understand and agree. > example of hypocrisy. X > > Only that Saddam is his son.... > And in my opinion, the horrible current war is the result of his choice > to invade Kuwait and his behaviour since. Quite reasonable. > X > all, the governments of this world will no doubt continue to do as they > will whether we like it or not. > > I'm somewhat sorry for participating in such an off-topic thread and no > doubt offending several of the regulars, but sometimes I just can't > quite resist. I do hope that those who don't care to read my miserable > drivel have filtered it out or ignored it without reading it to this > point. > > -- > James - I'm stopping now (if not directly addressed) ==== > Scholl-Latour or Marcel Pott, I will not listen to your amateurish > analysis of the problems. agree with Wolfgang about you. Be careful whom you alienate. > The fact is that the USA gov wants the > world. YOu didn't answer any of my points as far as I can see, so > anything you say is perhaps right but irrelevant! Stay to calcs! You decide what is irrelevant? Don't order me in any way to do anyhting! > When this plan to rule the world has been carried out some steps > telling you to go serve your pal, the USA gov, be it Bush or any > successor. Don't bother - you're in my killfile from now on. - ==== > This is not what I said, the USA government doesn't give a feedling > fart about problems of other countries. This is completely irrelevant, as this was the meaning taken from your statement - hence your expressed yourself badly. > No, I think that no empire should exist that takes the ruling of the > world by eliminating all concurence. Like MS. Oh, I expect you're a member of Greenpeace, right? Why do you use a calculator at all (I expect you do, even though I can't find much evidence of it)? A calculator, as you probably already know, is a tool for the war-monger - a grim result of the industrialized evil part of the world. They're conjured up by the true culture-depressers out there - the guys who are secretely listening in on your every spoken word (ECHELON, you know?). Aren't you off the Oxycodone yet? > This had nothing to do with the empire politics of the USA. It is right > but irrelevant. Of course, since the only topic of relevance here, is what is contained in the Nick-O-Pedia of Green Shit, right? > Under any circumstances that the amok runner considers to be dangerous > resistance against their egoistic nationalistic imperialistic plans. > Besides! They already did, and I don't only mean Japan. Stop the secrecy Nick. We can take it. Please share the truth with us? Please...? Preeeeeeetty please? > I would feel safer if the USA not only disarms [...] The complete USA now? And I thought you were only after the government of the USA......boy was I wrong. Or was it you? You probably can't make you mind up, but that's ok. A typical symptom, so don't be sad... > Don't connect defense of the USA with world ruling. This is not the > same. No, we should definetely not make that mistake. Especially not after you have told us that is is not a topic in the Nick-O-Pedia. > The amount of weapons posessed by all those lands is a small fart > compared to what exists in the arsenals of the USA. And not only > for mass destruction weapons. Combined with the blind nationalism > of the amok running cowboy, this is more dangerous than 25 Husseins. You are crazy and pretty irreleveant to this world. I guess you're right about one thing though: You can be glad you aren't a government, because the world would probably start knocking on your door, just to make sure you're not as crazy as you make us believe. Or is N-K an alias of S-H? > Haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaa, good joke, the next please! James, > do you really believe that the whole spectrum of sciences that > deal with bio is solely for civil purposes? There are scientific > fields that are (from the scientist point of view) faaar more > important than the laughable bio. Nick the biochemist. I have more respect of you for every minute passing. > Don't talk about other lands Again, not in the Nick-O-Pedia. You should know that by now James. > The USA gov. has used them! No need to answer this. So, Saddam Hussein has used poison gas against the kurds - kill him and all his allies! Is that your message, Nick? You're starting to contradict yourself now. A typical symptom, so don't be sad... Since I don't want to waste any more time or bytes on you, I tell you this: You're a moron that don't know shit when it's in your nose. Bring your Green ass out off here, please, and stop your senseless spamming. No need to reply, but if you do, please stick with your snotty childish attitude (same as I'm demonstrating here, if you've forgot) as you have so thoroughly used throughout your idiotic campaign. What's your age again? 50? I'd say 12... And I guess you do not live in Greece even, heh? That figures. Where are you writing from then? Definetively not an EU-country (as you said). How about the Guantanamo-base? Am I close? - ==== > The decision to post this after my long silence about such things has > two reasons. Totally invalid reasons. Your post is totally off-topic and you're only speaking with hatred. Nothing constructive can be gain from it. In fact, you've destroyed all your arguments yourself as it is clear that most of them are simply emotional arguments rather than logical one ==== > agree with Wolfgang about you. Be careful whom you alienate. one who feels the same way. Wolfgang was right. -- Wayne Brown | When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper. e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock ==== Having noted that the text file distributed with emu48 says that it implements DDE for stack exchanges, I'm trying to use that capability with visual basic. I've had no luck so far. Visual basic has methods and properties for text boxes and forms that allow them to do DDE, but all the examples show it working with excel, and not with any generic foreign application. The following series of statements elicits an error message in visual basic: txtDDE.LinkMode = 0 'start from no link txtDDE.LinkTopic = Emu48 'set up link txtDDE.LinkItem = ' does nothing txtDDE.LinkMode = 2 ' actually starts the link The error message is no foreign application responded... When I change line 2 of that code to txtDDE.LinkTopic = Emu48|Stack, it executes without an error message. I think this indicates that a connection has now been established, but any other thing I try to do gets a different error message: foreign application won't perform method or operation. Has anyone used the DDE feature in Emu48, or does anyone know the exact syntax or method to use? -- john ==== Nick Karagiaouroglou schrieb im Newsbeitrag > The whole world, and thus this board also, *has to become* an anti war board. > No. If this newsgroup becomes a political board, I'll just drop my link to it immediately! I know you (and some others) like to abuse this newsgroup for off-topic stuff;-) As I said earlier, too much OT leads to nothing, else the ng could be named comp.sys.trash or alike. Maybe it would be more appriorate to use this ng for HP calculator related stuff only, and an political oriented ng for your other interests. Raymond ==== > > Nick Karagiaouroglou schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > The whole world, and thus this board also, *has to become* an anti war > board. > > > No. > > If this newsgroup becomes a political board, > I'll just drop my link to it immediately! > > I know you (and some others) like to abuse this newsgroup for off-topic > stuff;-) > As I said earlier, too much OT leads to nothing, > else the ng could be named comp.sys.trash or alike. > > Maybe it would be more appriorate to use this ng for HP calculator related > stuff only, > and an political oriented ng for your other interests. > > > > Raymond Dividing sharply fields of interest has never brought any real progress. Besides you can count the percentage of the extremely OT threads to be negligible compared to the rest. It is way not like you present it. Sometimes we have to put the cals aside. Nick. ==== Nick Karagiaouroglou schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > > > Nick Karagiaouroglou schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > > The whole world, and thus this board also, *has to become* an anti war > > board. > > > > > No. > > > > If this newsgroup becomes a political board, > > I'll just drop my link to it immediately! > > > [snipped] > > > Maybe it would be more appriorate to use this ng for HP calculator related > > stuff only, > > and an political oriented ng for your other interests. > > > Dividing sharply fields of interest has never brought any real > progress. > This is a good point. But overflooding a technical oriented calculator newsgroup with political themes which definitely don't belong there/here won't bring any positive progress, too. In this case it could only lead to bleeding out of this newsgroup. > Besides you can count the percentage of the extremely OT > threads to be negligible compared to the rest. It is way not like you > present it. > At the moment it *is* as presented. You start various off-topic threads here in c.s.hp48, and as you might realize from the reactions of many posters, many, if not most people don't want to be involved in political discussions here, too. The whole world is talking about the Iraq conflict at many occasions, so why not let this off-topic theme out at least here? > Sometimes we have to put the cals aside. > I think most of the people here discuss the real word's problems in appriorate places, and when they come visit c.s.hp48 , they don't want these topics appear here, too, and this can be seen by the many posters who write to stop the OT here. There are newsgroups for nearly any flavour, why not use a ng where people *want* to discuss these topics? I think it would be more efficient, and bring more personal progress;-) Compare it to using the appriorate function or program for your specific problem... Raymond ==== Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics ==== > Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics > I second that. Meanwhile it gets annoying. ==== > Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics Perhaps if you used a real newsreader (not google) to post, then you'd be able to use a killfile. A bientot Paul -- Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth) Netgear: the worst technical support I've ever encountered. <65448cb5.0303220754.73d59a1@posting.google.com> ==== > Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics Yes please. If I want to learn about Irak, I switch my TV to BBC, CNN, or any other local news channel. Yes, I'm French, and so, what? -- ----- Moi je connais pas trop les ng techniquement s'il y a quelqu'un qui s'y connait assez pour m'indiquer une personne qui s'occupe des newsgroups et qui pourrait passer un coup de balai ici... -+- AT in: Guide du Neuneu Usenet - Neuneu comme un balai -+- ==== > Free comp.sys.hp48 of politics I agree ==== I had a working HP49G 1.19-6. It crashed during the running of Unitman. It recovered memory, but lost my home directory. So I did a restore.... This restore from a PC of a recent backup left my HP49G hung. flashing busy hour glass I have tried: paper clip reset stops the flashing busy hour glass +, ENTER, ON (keys) Does bring up No System screen menu. Diag tests all pass without error. But reboot or Off leaves the it such that the next ON goes back to flashing hour glass and nothing more. While the flashing hour glass is flashing all other key presses do not stop or change the flashing hour glass. I need to clear ALL user memory! And do a clean boot. Help. But how? Sincerely, Kevin Waite ==== Kevin Waite schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > I had a working HP49G 1.19-6. > > It crashed during the running of Unitman. > > It recovered memory, but lost my home > directory. > > So I did a restore.... > > This restore from a PC of a recent backup left > my HP49G hung. > flashing busy hour glass > > I have tried: > paper clip reset stops the flashing busy hour glass > > +, ENTER, ON (keys) > > Does bring up No System screen menu. > > Diag tests all pass without error. > > But reboot or Off leaves the it such that > the next ON goes back to flashing hour glass > and nothing more. > > While the flashing hour glass is flashing all > other key presses do not stop or change the > flashing hour glass. > > I need to clear ALL user memory! > > And do a clean boot. > > Help. > > But how? Did you press the backspace key during a reboot. Maybe you have a bad or corrupted lib. Pressing the backspace key during the reboot of the calc won't attach the lib. Don't forget to delete the bad file. Roman > Sincerely, > Kevin Waite > > ==== YEA! thank you Sincerely, Kevin Waite > Kevin Waite schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > > > I had a working HP49G 1.19-6. > > > > It crashed during the running of Unitman. > > > > It recovered memory, but lost my home > > directory. > > > > So I did a restore.... > > > > This restore from a PC of a recent backup left > > my HP49G hung. > > flashing busy hour glass > > > > I have tried: > > paper clip reset stops the flashing busy hour glass > > > > +, ENTER, ON (keys) > > > > Does bring up No System screen menu. > > > > Diag tests all pass without error. > > > > But reboot or Off leaves the it such that > > the next ON goes back to flashing hour glass > > and nothing more. > > > > While the flashing hour glass is flashing all > > other key presses do not stop or change the > > flashing hour glass. > > > > I need to clear ALL user memory! > > > > And do a clean boot. > > > > Help. > > > > But how? > > Did you press the backspace key during a reboot. Maybe you have a bad or > corrupted lib. Pressing the backspace key during the reboot of the calc > won't attach the lib. Don't forget to delete the bad file. > > Roman > > > Sincerely, > > Kevin Waite > > > > > > ==== > Is that also working in ALL the models (including 28) the same way? Ok, ok. I was reasonably certain that they worked on the 28 series (I couldn't see any reason why not), but now I've tested them on both a 28C version 1BB and a 28S version 2BB (as far as I know, this was the only version of the 28S), and they do indeed work exactly as intended. Provided, of course, that LASTARG is changed to LAST and -55 DUP SF CF (in two of the programs) is changed to 31 DUP CF SF. Previously tested on a version E 48SX, version R 48GX, and revision 1.19-6 49G, with 2 and -55 entered as 2. and -55. on the 49G, although 2 and -55 also work. I don't see any reason to suspect that they wouldn't work on other ROMs on the 28 series, 48 series, or 49G. I'd almost forgotten how nice the 28S is, very well designed (with the notable exceptions of the lack of any input method other than the keyboard and the battery cover and batteries), although I wouldn't want to go back to programming it on a regular basis. By the way, the 48 series and 49G accept LAST as a synonyn for LASTARG, but it always decompiles as LASTARG. Perhaps that might save someone a few keystrokes when typing in the command. Does anyone know of a built-in shortcut for LASTARG; shorter than the PRG ERROR menu or the catalog, that is? It seems a strange thing to leave out. Of course, the program that returns *nothing* in the event that the last arguments buffer (Is that the correct term? For the lack of a better term, that's what I've been using.) is empty may well be considered buggy by those accustomed to a LSTx key that always returns *something*. > If so, great work, Mr. Bond! I've been wondering whether a variation that leaves all of the contents of the last arguments buffer as they were is possible. I can't think of any way to do it in UserRPL, but perhaps it could be accomplished in SysRPL, if anyone cares to play around with it. -- James ==== > > > > Try the following; note that it restores whatever was the most recent > > object in the last arguments buffer back to the last arguments buffer. > > You're welcome Bill. I'm glad that someone finds it to be useful. I was mostly just playing around. I did remember that I'd seen a version of LASTX somewhere but hadn't bothered to look it up. I had previously written a version of LASTX that mostly worked, except that in the somewhat unlikely event that the last arguments buffer were empty, it would return *nothing* to the stack but put the real number 0 in the last arguments buffer. I was never quite satisfied with that, so I decided to take another look. And then a couple of more looks. If you don't mind, which version do you prefer? For myself, I prefer the version that, when the last arguments buffer is empty, puts the real number 0 both on the stack and in the last arguments buffer. -- James ==== > > If you don't mind, which version do you prefer? For myself, I prefer the > version that, when the last arguments buffer is empty, puts the real > number 0 both on the stack and in the last arguments buffer. Yes, that's the one I prefer. Actually, I don't use LASTX much, but it sure is useful when you need it. Bill ==== > When trying to use Organizer v1.1 and Scribe v1.01a together I keep > receiving an error. To get the error I run Organizer and the selected > either TODO or PHON. In both cases the message Bad Argument Type! > Press a key... appears so I press a key and then get Invalid > Parameters! Press a key... so I press another key. Scribe then runs > Ok. I can't yet replicate the same error on an emulator. Any one have > any suggestions as to the cause? All other aspects of the two programs > seem to be OK. I had the same problem the first time I installed them on my calc. Now everything is fine, but I forgot what solved the problem. Martin J. ==== >If you assign this to the [SYMB] key you need only 1 keystroke ><< -16 DUP IF FS THEN CF ELSE SF >> > YES but what happens with the normal behaviour of a key when you do something like this.... surely this must interfere with the (already crammed) functionality of the keyboard !! ==== Who needs [SYMB] anyway??? > >If you assign this to the [SYMB] key you need only 1 keystroke > ><< -16 DUP IF FS THEN CF ELSE SF >> > > YES but what happens with the normal behaviour of a key when you do something > like this.... surely this must interfere with the (already crammed) > functionality of the keyboard !! ==== Veli-Pekka Nousiainen schrieb > Who needs [SYMB] anyway??? You are right Veli. It just took me 2 Minutes to find SYMB, because since years I use it for EVAL (which is mentioned above the key :-) For these rare Moments one can switch of usr-mode or I use Keyman, to get longpressed (and doubble-klick) funktionality. ..Heiko ==== I Would NEVER get rid of my 20 year old HP-41C! Never Never Never ==== Is there a way to (or software that will) isolate a variable in a linear inequality on the HP48 (e.g. 2*x-4 > 0 isolate x.). If not, is this something that the HP49 CAS can do? Ollie. ==== The HP 48G ISOL cannot do it, but the HP 49G commands SOLVE or SOLVEVX will give 'X>2' > > Is there a way to (or software that will) isolate a variable in a linear > inequality on the HP48 (e.g. 2*x-4 > 0 isolate x.). > > If not, is this something that the HP49 CAS can do? > > > Ollie. > > > ==== So Erable or ALG48 won't do it either? > The HP 48G ISOL cannot do it, but the HP 49G commands > SOLVE or SOLVEVX will give 'X>2' > > > > Is there a way to (or software that will) isolate a variable in a linear > > inequality on the HP48 (e.g. 2*x-4 > 0 isolate x.). > > > > If not, is this something that the HP49 CAS can do? > > > > > > Ollie. > > > > > > > > ==== Hang on... I tried it on my HP49 emulator and got a 'solvx error: non unary operator'. Is there a trick to doing this? > The HP 48G ISOL cannot do it, but the HP 49G commands > SOLVE or SOLVEVX will give 'X>2' > > > > Is there a way to (or software that will) isolate a variable in a linear > > inequality on the HP48 (e.g. 2*x-4 > 0 isolate x.). > > > > If not, is this something that the HP49 CAS can do? > > > > > > Ollie. > > > > > > > > ==== Get the latest 1.19-6 ROM > Hang on... > > I tried it on my HP49 emulator and got a 'solvx error: non unary operator'. > Is there a trick to doing this? > > > > The HP 48G ISOL cannot do it, but the HP 49G commands > > SOLVE or SOLVEVX will give 'X>2' > > > > > > Is there a way to (or software that will) isolate a variable in a linear > > > inequality on the HP48 (e.g. 2*x-4 > 0 isolate x.). > > > > > > If not, is this something that the HP49 CAS can do? > > > > > > > > > Ollie. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== the SX and GX communicate fine over the infrared link. although the 49G has an IR window, there is NOTHING about IR in the documentation... can you comment on this ? however, the 49G and 48GX communicate well over the wire link... but its slower than the IR. Please comment on the Connectivity Kit F1897A........do I or do I not need it ????????????? The 49G comes with a serial adapter piece that plugs into a PC serial port..... and there is conectivity software file on the web.... so WHY would HP tell me in the manual that I need a connectivity kit ?????????? WHAT ELSE COMES in their connectivity kit ??? ==== > although the 49G has an IR window, there is NOTHING about IR in the > documentation... can you comment on this ? no ir on the 49 > Please comment on the Connectivity Kit F1897A........do I or do I not need it Get Conn4x (Debug4x has this also) instead from HPCalc. Very similar. Conn4x uses xModem which is faster. Connectivity Kit uses Kermit. Try them both and see what you like? > The 49G comes with a serial adapter piece that plugs into a PC serial port..... > and there is conectivity software file on the web.... > > so WHY would HP tell me in the manual that I need a connectivity kit They used to sell the connectivity kit separately. Now you get the cable and can download the software! -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Graves RKBA! bgraves@ix.netcom.com ==== > > the SX and GX communicate fine over the infrared link. And, by the way, they communicate even faster over a wired link, if you get or make the appropriate cable or adapters. > although the 49G has an IR window, there is NOTHING about IR in the > documentation... can you comment on this ? It might look sort of like a window, but it seems to be quite opaque and doesn't have any IR transmitter or receiver behind it. I suppose that they considered it best not to even mention that bad news. > however, the 49G and 48GX communicate well over the wire link... but its slower > than the IR. Slower than the IR? If you've managed to communicate with the 49G by IR, then please let us know how to do it. If you mean slower than communicating between two 48s, well, perhaps if you used binary transfer between the 48s but ASCII with the 49G, or weren't using 9600 bps with the 49G, but otherwise, I find it just a bit difficult to believe, but perhaps possible; the 49G is indeed slower than the 48GX at some things. > Please comment on the Connectivity Kit F1897A........do I or do I not need it > ????????????? No, you don't need it. You need a connection between the calculator and your PC, and the freely available software needed for communications. For that matter, you really don't even need to connect with anything at all if you don't want to; any of these calculators is quite functional all by itself, although being able to communicate with other devices certainly has advantages