| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
05 Jul 2007 05:11:19 PM |
| Object: |
How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
So, just how many beneficial mutations separate us from our last
common ancestor with the apes? 154. One hundred and fifty four.
According to Ian Musgrave (who apparently has it from: a paper
published on PNAS by Margaret A. Bakewell, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi
Zhang):
http://tinyurl.com/24w4jd
That's it!
154. And how long ago did we separate? Somewhere between about 4 and
about 6 million years ago. Let's say five. Five million years
divided by 154 beneficial mutations.
That means we had to accumulate only one beneficial mutation (assuming
it got passed on down the family line) every 32,000 years or so.
Tell me this you creationists:
What would prevent that?
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
05 Jul 2007 06:15:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:11:19 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
So, just how many beneficial mutations separate us from our last
common ancestor with the apes? 154. One hundred and fifty four.
I didn't know the jury had returned the "beneficial" verdict
already...maybe the other apes are quite happy to have successfully
avoided the mutations we suffer from.
According to Ian Musgrave (who apparently has it from: a paper
published on PNAS by Margaret A. Bakewell, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi
Zhang):
http://tinyurl.com/24w4jd
That's it!
154. And how long ago did we separate? Somewhere between about 4 and
about 6 million years ago. Let's say five. Five million years
divided by 154 beneficial mutations.
That means we had to accumulate only one beneficial mutation (assuming
it got passed on down the family line) every 32,000 years or so.
Tell me this you creationists:
What would prevent that?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
05 Jul 2007 09:16:38 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, (William
Wingstedt) bloodied us up with this:
I didn't know the jury had returned the "beneficial" verdict
already...maybe the other apes are quite happy to have successfully
avoided the mutations we suffer from.
Yup. Look at them. Not one of them is religious.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
05 Jul 2007 06:12:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:11:19 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
So, just how many beneficial mutations separate us from our last
common ancestor with the apes? 154. One hundred and fifty four.
According to Ian Musgrave (who apparently has it from: a paper
published on PNAS by Margaret A. Bakewell, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi
Zhang):
http://tinyurl.com/24w4jd
That's it!
154. And how long ago did we separate? Somewhere between about 4 and
about 6 million years ago. Let's say five. Five million years
divided by 154 beneficial mutations.
That means we had to accumulate only one beneficial mutation (assuming
it got passed on down the family line) every 32,000 years or so.
Tell me this you creationists:
What would prevent that?
Budikka
Two words: Perfect DNA replication. I guess that's three words. Or 5, if
you count each word in the acronym "DNA". But I digress. Let's see,
there are how many base pairs in the human genome? 3 billion? And they
all get copied hundreds of thousands of times in each individual human, of
which there are currently about 6.6 billion? I guess the creationists
think that with all that copying, it is unthinkable that an error would
ever be made, certainly not at the staggering rate of one every 32,000
years! I mean, it's not like our DNA replication mechanisms were
programmed by Microsoft or something!
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
05 Jul 2007 06:49:38 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.05.23.12.46.43637@nowhere.com...
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:11:19 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
So, just how many beneficial mutations separate us from our last
common ancestor with the apes? 154. One hundred and fifty four.
According to Ian Musgrave (who apparently has it from: a paper
published on PNAS by Margaret A. Bakewell, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi
Zhang):
http://tinyurl.com/24w4jd
That's it!
154. And how long ago did we separate? Somewhere between about 4 and
about 6 million years ago. Let's say five. Five million years
divided by 154 beneficial mutations.
That means we had to accumulate only one beneficial mutation (assuming
it got passed on down the family line) every 32,000 years or so.
Tell me this you creationists:
What would prevent that?
Budikka
Two words: Perfect DNA replication. I guess that's three words. Or 5, if
you count each word in the acronym "DNA". But I digress. Let's see,
there are how many base pairs in the human genome? 3 billion? And they
all get copied hundreds of thousands of times in each individual human, of
which there are currently about 6.6 billion? I guess the creationists
think that with all that copying, it is unthinkable that an error would
ever be made, certainly not at the staggering rate of one every 32,000
years! I mean, it's not like our DNA replication mechanisms were
programmed by Microsoft or something!
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1] mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
[1] beneficial to Microsoft.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
06 Jul 2007 12:46:37 AM |
|
|
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2265@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"MarkA" <toor@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.05.23.12.46.43637@nowhere.com...
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:11:19 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
So, just how many beneficial mutations separate us from our last
common ancestor with the apes? 154. One hundred and fifty four.
According to Ian Musgrave (who apparently has it from: a paper
published on PNAS by Margaret A. Bakewell, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi
Zhang):
http://tinyurl.com/24w4jd
That's it!
154. And how long ago did we separate? Somewhere between about 4 and
about 6 million years ago. Let's say five. Five million years
divided by 154 beneficial mutations.
That means we had to accumulate only one beneficial mutation (assuming
it got passed on down the family line) every 32,000 years or so.
Tell me this you creationists:
What would prevent that?
Budikka
Two words: Perfect DNA replication. I guess that's three words. Or 5, if
you count each word in the acronym "DNA". But I digress. Let's see,
there are how many base pairs in the human genome? 3 billion? And they
all get copied hundreds of thousands of times in each individual human, of
which there are currently about 6.6 billion? I guess the creationists
think that with all that copying, it is unthinkable that an error would
ever be made, certainly not at the staggering rate of one every 32,000
years! I mean, it's not like our DNA replication mechanisms were
programmed by Microsoft or something!
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1] mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
[1] beneficial to Microsoft.
Smiler,
The godless one
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
06 Jul 2007 10:59:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2265@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1] mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
07 Jul 2007 12:31:52 AM |
|
|
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89dd8g@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2265@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1] mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
07 Jul 2007 07:16:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:31:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89dd8g@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2265@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1] mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
Unlike CP/M and SailDOS (MSDOS under its real name), which were
written in assembly, Windows is written in C++, and everything is an
object which leads to incredible bloat. CP/M could fit into 2K,
including the BDOS and BIOS. Add PARK's windowing software and you
stretched that out by about 10k.
Writing a windowless utility for Windows these days is almost
impossible in that little space (although I did write a pretty neat
go-to-the-internet, get-data-and-put-it-into-a-database-every-day
utility that's only 68k, and it gets a lot of data).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
07 Jul 2007 08:59:39 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9ra093tun5qf0fvjrsmrsnsbhi3lj6ij42@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:31:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89dd8g@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2265@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1]
mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
Unlike CP/M and SailDOS (MSDOS under its real name), which were
written in assembly, Windows is written in C++, and everything is an
object which leads to incredible bloat. CP/M could fit into 2K,
including the BDOS and BIOS. Add PARK's windowing software and you
stretched that out by about 10k.
Writing a windowless utility for Windows these days is almost
impossible in that little space (although I did write a pretty neat
go-to-the-internet, get-data-and-put-it-into-a-database-every-day
utility that's only 68k, and it gets a lot of data).
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
11 Jul 2007 01:10:10 PM |
|
|
On 8 jul, 03:59, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9ra093tun5qf0fvjrsmrsnsbhi3lj6ij42@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:31:52 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89d...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1]
mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
Unlike CP/M and SailDOS (MSDOS under its real name), which were
written in assembly, Windows is written in C++, and everything is an
object which leads to incredible bloat. CP/M could fit into 2K,
including the BDOS and BIOS. Add PARK's windowing software and you
stretched that out by about 10k.
Writing a windowless utility for Windows these days is almost
impossible in that little space (although I did write a pretty neat
go-to-the-internet, get-data-and-put-it-into-a-database-every-day
utility that's only 68k, and it gets a lot of data).
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
Smiler,
The godless one- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven
Well I started on a mainfraime 128K!
Actually the mainframe is still not using more than 16M nowadays.
but then it is not made by microsoft:)
In order to explain the difference I sometimes tell people
IBM-mainframe is like ID
while windows is like Evolution.
Yes, Evolution is beating ID,
I know it.
I just hope I can reach pensioners age
before ID is dead:)
Peter van Velzen
July 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
12 Jul 2007 07:43:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:10:10 -0700, "pbamvv@worldonline.nl"
<pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
On 8 jul, 03:59, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9ra093tun5qf0fvjrsmrsnsbhi3lj6ij42@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:31:52 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89d...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1]
mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
Unlike CP/M and SailDOS (MSDOS under its real name), which were
written in assembly, Windows is written in C++, and everything is an
object which leads to incredible bloat. CP/M could fit into 2K,
including the BDOS and BIOS. Add PARK's windowing software and you
stretched that out by about 10k.
Writing a windowless utility for Windows these days is almost
impossible in that little space (although I did write a pretty neat
go-to-the-internet, get-data-and-put-it-into-a-database-every-day
utility that's only 68k, and it gets a lot of data).
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
Smiler,
The godless one- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven
Well I started on a mainfraime 128K!
Actually the mainframe is still not using more than 16M nowadays.
but then it is not made by microsoft:)
In order to explain the difference I sometimes tell people
IBM-mainframe is like ID
while windows is like Evolution.
Yes, Evolution is beating ID,
I know it.
I just hope I can reach pensioners age
before ID is dead:)
Peter van Velzen
July 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
You should have gone for a dinosaur/reptile analogy.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
08 Jul 2007 09:40:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:59:39 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
You remind me of my days crunching programs down to fit in a trash-80.
Multiple statements per line, variables starting at A, programs
starting at line 0, increment of 1, subroutines first ... any trick we
could come up with. If we had a program that took 16,385 bytes it
wouldn't fit, so we used shoehorns by the gross.
That was fun programming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
08 Jul 2007 10:00:55 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:087393tcc0bf56anbes0vikp991lh7v8ca@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:59:39 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of
dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
You remind me of my days crunching programs down to fit in a trash-80.
Multiple statements per line, variables starting at A, programs
starting at line 0, increment of 1, subroutines first ... any trick we
could come up with. If we had a program that took 16,385 bytes it
wouldn't fit, so we used shoehorns by the gross.
That was fun programming.
Sure was, especially in assembler - no error messages!
You'd type in a section of code, run it and the machine would crash
spectacularly.
You then had to spend the next 2 days searching for the error, which was
usually a simple typo.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 07:25:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:00:55 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:087393tcc0bf56anbes0vikp991lh7v8ca@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:59:39 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of
dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
You remind me of my days crunching programs down to fit in a trash-80.
Multiple statements per line, variables starting at A, programs
starting at line 0, increment of 1, subroutines first ... any trick we
could come up with. If we had a program that took 16,385 bytes it
wouldn't fit, so we used shoehorns by the gross.
That was fun programming.
Sure was, especially in assembler - no error messages!
You'd type in a section of code, run it and the machine would crash
spectacularly.
You then had to spend the next 2 days searching for the error, which was
usually a simple typo.
There was no assembler on the ZX? I remember generating assembler
errors galore. No live debugger, though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 06:06:56 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:47a493psjsrc262nlfvspquo7bjhjospsf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:00:55 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:087393tcc0bf56anbes0vikp991lh7v8ca@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:59:39 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k
of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of
dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
You remind me of my days crunching programs down to fit in a trash-80.
Multiple statements per line, variables starting at A, programs
starting at line 0, increment of 1, subroutines first ... any trick we
could come up with. If we had a program that took 16,385 bytes it
wouldn't fit, so we used shoehorns by the gross.
That was fun programming.
Sure was, especially in assembler - no error messages!
You'd type in a section of code, run it and the machine would crash
spectacularly.
You then had to spend the next 2 days searching for the error, which was
usually a simple typo.
There was no assembler on the ZX? I remember generating assembler
errors galore. No live debugger, though.
No resident assembler, but I bought a copy of a software assembler/monitor.
It did some basic checking, spotting non-feasable op codes and duplicate or
non-linked label names but that's about all.
It also allowed you to step through a program. That is, of course, if there
was enough room in memory for the assembler and program to co-exist.
Labels were limited to 5 characters.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 08:44:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:06:56 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
It also allowed you to step through a program. That is, of course, if there
was enough room in memory for the assembler and program to co-exist.
Labels were limited to 5 characters.
I remember that one - limited label lengths and no spaces - $ was the
space between words if you wanted one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 09:57:02 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:06:56 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
It also allowed you to step through a program. That is, of course,
if there was enough room in memory for the assembler and program to
co-exist. Labels were limited to 5 characters.
I remember that one - limited label lengths and no spaces - $ was the
space between words if you wanted one.
How about a 20k "core storage" machine where each position could store a
number and two were required for any other character.
Paper tape input and selectric typewriter output.
"If" sense switches with FORTRAN statements that read IF SENSE SWITCH 1 (
do this if true, and do that if false.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 02:57:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:00:55 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:087393tcc0bf56anbes0vikp991lh7v8ca@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:59:39 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
Yep. I started out writing Z80 assembly for the ZX Spectrum 48k (and 7k of
that was screen memory!).
*Every* single bite counted. If I could reduce the code by a couple of
dozen
bytes, that meant there was room for something else.
You remind me of my days crunching programs down to fit in a trash-80.
Multiple statements per line, variables starting at A, programs
starting at line 0, increment of 1, subroutines first ... any trick we
could come up with. If we had a program that took 16,385 bytes it
wouldn't fit, so we used shoehorns by the gross.
That was fun programming.
Sure was, especially in assembler - no error messages!
You'd type in a section of code, run it and the machine would crash
spectacularly.
You then had to spend the next 2 days searching for the error, which was
usually a simple typo.
Smiler,
The godless one
Programming interrupt driven code in assembler, ah, thems were the days.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 08:01:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:57:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
Programming interrupt driven code in assembler, ah, thems were the days.
How about having software generate a hardware interrupt, because table
dispatch is one T-state faster than indirect indexing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 10:05:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:01:09 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:57:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
Programming interrupt driven code in assembler, ah, thems were the days.
How about having software generate a hardware interrupt, because table
dispatch is one T-state faster than indirect indexing?
Was this a defense subcontractor :-)
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
10 Jul 2007 07:38:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:05:00 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:01:09 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:57:29 -0400, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
Programming interrupt driven code in assembler, ah, thems were the days.
How about having software generate a hardware interrupt, because table
dispatch is one T-state faster than indirect indexing?
Was this a defense subcontractor :-)
Hong Kong Space Museum planetarium. Three Z-80s, one for sound
location and diskette, one for mag tape, one for the main system -
console and "dogbone". Based on the Mostek desktop of the time -
1978.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
08 Jul 2007 05:53:01 PM |
|
|
In article <9ra093tun5qf0fvjrsmrsnsbhi3lj6ij42@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:31:52 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89dd8g@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2265@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1]
mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
Unlike CP/M and SailDOS (MSDOS under its real name), which were
written in assembly, Windows is written in C++, and everything is an
object which leads to incredible bloat. CP/M could fit into 2K,
including the BDOS and BIOS. Add PARK's windowing software and you
stretched that out by about 10k.
Well, of course. That way you have to buy more memory than can fit in
your computer so you have to buy a new computer.
Writing a windowless utility for Windows these days is almost
impossible in that little space (although I did write a pretty neat
go-to-the-internet, get-data-and-put-it-into-a-database-every-day
utility that's only 68k, and it gets a lot of data).
I'm sure that next they will be going after open source software
providers and the do it yourselfers.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 04:53:15 PM |
|
|
On Jul 8, 5:53 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <9ra093tun5qf0fvjrsmrsnsbhi3lj6i...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:31:52 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89d...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1]
mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
Unlike CP/M and SailDOS (MSDOS under its real name), which were
written in assembly, Windows is written in C++, and everything is an
object which leads to incredible bloat. CP/M could fit into 2K,
including the BDOS and BIOS. Add PARK's windowing software and you
stretched that out by about 10k.
Well, of course. That way you have to buy more memory than can fit in
your computer so you have to buy a new computer.
Writing a windowless utility for Windows these days is almost
impossible in that little space (although I did write a pretty neat
go-to-the-internet, get-data-and-put-it-into-a-database-every-day
utility that's only 68k, and it gets a lot of data).
I'm sure that next they will be going after open source software
providers and the do it yourselfers.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
It used to be they had those little memory tree dealies where you'd
plug one of them into your memory slot then you could plug two memory
modules into it and effectively have them both working in the one
memory module slot. I don't hear of those any more. I wonder if they
simply don't work now that memory modules have got so huge?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
10 Jul 2007 12:10:02 AM |
|
|
In article <1184017995.177652.73970@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:53 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <9ra093tun5qf0fvjrsmrsnsbhi3lj6i...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:31:52 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <qp3u831gijdmbv79foumccssiaij89d...@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:46:37 -0700, johac
<jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
In article <msfji.30718$KE1.2...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
If they were programmed by Microsoft we'd have 'beneficial'[1]
mutations
every 2 to 4 years.
95, 98(two mutations), 2000, 2003, 2007, etc., etc.
But it would cost us plenty.
At least a body transplant, because the fix would have been too
bloated to work in the current bodies. Can you just imagine Vista
running on a 4.77 MHz 8086? Or should that be "creeping"?
It's getting to be ridiculous. The programmers keep on writing this more
"advanced" software with more bells and whistles than we could ever use,
and when we install it we find that our hardware really isn't
compatible. So we run out and spend a few Kbucks on new hardware just in
time to find that a new upgraded version of the software is available
that requires even more computer. It's a vicious circle.
Unlike CP/M and SailDOS (MSDOS under its real name), which were
written in assembly, Windows is written in C++, and everything is an
object which leads to incredible bloat. CP/M could fit into 2K,
including the BDOS and BIOS. Add PARK's windowing software and you
stretched that out by about 10k.
Well, of course. That way you have to buy more memory than can fit in
your computer so you have to buy a new computer.
Writing a windowless utility for Windows these days is almost
impossible in that little space (although I did write a pretty neat
go-to-the-internet, get-data-and-put-it-into-a-database-every-day
utility that's only 68k, and it gets a lot of data).
I'm sure that next they will be going after open source software
providers and the do it yourselfers.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
It used to be they had those little memory tree dealies where you'd
plug one of them into your memory slot then you could plug two memory
modules into it and effectively have them both working in the one
memory module slot. I don't hear of those any more. I wonder if they
simply don't work now that memory modules have got so huge?
Could be. I haven't seen those memory tree things around for a while
either.
Budikka
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
09 Jul 2007 08:34:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:53:15 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
It used to be they had those little memory tree dealies where you'd
plug one of them into your memory slot then you could plug two memory
modules into it and effectively have them both working in the one
memory module slot. I don't hear of those any more. I wonder if they
simply don't work now that memory modules have got so huge?
Not really.
The way the "trees" worked was that the memory slot could address a
larger memory module than the one you were using - say a 4 meg slot
and you had 1 meg modules. Each slot in the tree was wired to handle
1 meg at a different 1 meg boundary - 0, 1 meg, 2 megs and 3 megs. To
the computer it looked like a 4 meg module.
No one makes the "trees" any more, but the technology should still
work - if the slot can handle 2 gigs, you should be able to put 4-256
meg modules into a tree that makes them look like a 2 gig module.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
10 Jul 2007 01:57:11 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7un5939ptnd7u5mbvjfdet0sqpv4cv5htu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:53:15 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
It used to be they had those little memory tree dealies where you'd
plug one of them into your memory slot then you could plug two memory
modules into it and effectively have them both working in the one
memory module slot. I don't hear of those any more. I wonder if they
simply don't work now that memory modules have got so huge?
Not really.
The way the "trees" worked was that the memory slot could address a
larger memory module than the one you were using - say a 4 meg slot
and you had 1 meg modules. Each slot in the tree was wired to handle
1 meg at a different 1 meg boundary - 0, 1 meg, 2 megs and 3 megs. To
the computer it looked like a 4 meg module.
No one makes the "trees" any more, but the technology should still
work - if the slot can handle 2 gigs, you should be able to put 4-256
meg modules into a tree that makes them look like a 2 gig module.
Now that _would_ be clever!
4 *256Meg = 1Gig...not 2Gig.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
10 Jul 2007 04:46:23 PM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 1:57 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7un5939ptnd7u5mbvjfdet0sqpv4cv5htu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:53:15 -0700, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
It used to be they had those little memory tree dealies where you'd
plug one of them into your memory slot then you could plug two memory
modules into it and effectively have them both working in the one
memory module slot. I don't hear of those any more. I wonder if they
simply don't work now that memory modules have got so huge?
Not really.
The way the "trees" worked was that the memory slot could address a
larger memory module than the one you were using - say a 4 meg slot
and you had 1 meg modules. Each slot in the tree was wired to handle
1 meg at a different 1 meg boundary - 0, 1 meg, 2 megs and 3 megs. To
the computer it looked like a 4 meg module.
No one makes the "trees" any more, but the technology should still
work - if the slot can handle 2 gigs, you should be able to put 4-256
meg modules into a tree that makes them look like a 2 gig module.
Now that _would_ be clever!
4 *256Meg = 1Gig...not 2Gig.
Smiler,
The godless one
You're forgetting about the memory doubler he's going to borrow from
Johnny Mnemonic....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
10 Jul 2007 08:32:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:57:11 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7un5939ptnd7u5mbvjfdet0sqpv4cv5htu@4ax.com...
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:53:15 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
It used to be they had those little memory tree dealies where you'd
plug one of them into your memory slot then you could plug two memory
modules into it and effectively have them both working in the one
memory module slot. I don't hear of those any more. I wonder if they
simply don't work now that memory modules have got so huge?
Not really.
The way the "trees" worked was that the memory slot could address a
larger memory module than the one you were using - say a 4 meg slot
and you had 1 meg modules. Each slot in the tree was wired to handle
1 meg at a different 1 meg boundary - 0, 1 meg, 2 megs and 3 megs. To
the computer it looked like a 4 meg module.
No one makes the "trees" any more, but the technology should still
work - if the slot can handle 2 gigs, you should be able to put 4-256
meg modules into a tree that makes them look like a 2 gig module.
Now that _would_ be clever!
4 *256Meg = 1Gig...not 2Gig.
Ye of little faith ... in my ability to lose track of what I was
saying.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
10 Jul 2007 04:42:29 PM |
|
|
On Jul 9, 8:34 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:53:15 -0700, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
It used to be they had those little memory tree dealies where you'd
plug one of them into your memory slot then you could plug two memory
modules into it and effectively have them both working in the one
memory module slot. I don't hear of those any more. I wonder if they
simply don't work now that memory modules have got so huge?
Not really.
The way the "trees" worked was that the memory slot could address a
larger memory module than the one you were using - say a 4 meg slot
and you had 1 meg modules. Each slot in the tree was wired to handle
1 meg at a different 1 meg boundary - 0, 1 meg, 2 megs and 3 megs. To
the computer it looked like a 4 meg module.
No one makes the "trees" any more, but the technology should still
work - if the slot can handle 2 gigs, you should be able to put 4-256
meg modules into a tree that makes them look like a 2 gig module.
If you can find the trees! These days it's probably cheaper just to
buy a new MB!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: How Many Beneficial Mutations Separate Us From The Apes? |
10 Jul 2007 08:35:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:42:29 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
If you can find the trees! These days it's probably cheaper just to
buy a new MB!
Today it's sometimes cheaper to buy a new computer. The last one I
was going to build would have run around $900 - I bought one a little
faster for $850.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
