 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Did you know that
- the telegram service in the US was discontinued on January 2006.
- the last direct-current distribution in the US by Con Edison was shut down
on November 2007.
- Intel ceased the production of the 80386 processor on September 2007.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:17:35 -0400, Warp wrote:
> - the telegram service in the US was discontinued on January 2006.
That's not entirely correct. Western Union discontinued their telegram
service in January of 2006, but there are other companies that still have
it - iTelegram and Globegram offer telegraph service in the US and Canada.
Not directly related (since you say "in the US"), but Sweeden's company
Telia (or TeliaSonera) still offers telegraph service in Sweeden.
Arguably, it is not used for mass communication like it once was - but
even prior to Western Union stopping their telegram service, it had
significantly declined. WU's primary income, as I understand it, comes
from processing money transfer and money orders.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:17:35 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > - the telegram service in the US was discontinued on January 2006.
> That's not entirely correct. Western Union discontinued their telegram
> service in January of 2006, but there are other companies that still have
> it - iTelegram and Globegram offer telegraph service in the US and Canada.
So it seems the telegram technology is more persistent than I thought. :)
> WU's primary income, as I understand it, comes
> from processing money transfer and money orders.
I wonder how many % of those go to Nigeria. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:37:38 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:17:35 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > - the telegram service in the US was discontinued on January 2006.
>
>> That's not entirely correct. Western Union discontinued their telegram
>> service in January of 2006, but there are other companies that still
>> have it - iTelegram and Globegram offer telegraph service in the US and
>> Canada.
>
> So it seems the telegram technology is more persistent than I thought.
> :)
A bit more, yeah. :-)
>> WU's primary income, as I understand it, comes from processing money
>> transfer and money orders.
>
> I wonder how many % of those go to Nigeria. ;)
As do I. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> - the telegram service in the US was discontinued on January 2006.
And AT&T shut down their last telegraph customer some time after 1991,
also. They announced they're exiting, and finally closed down the last
customer a few years later.
http://www.baudot.net/docs/att--exits-telegraph-biz.pdf
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Did you know that
>
> - the telegram service in the US was discontinued on January 2006.
>
Dang you, now I can't remember the name of that old song the had western
union in it. All I remember is Western Unionnn dut de dut dut de....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Da! The name was Western Union by the Five Americans 1967.
I'm glad I got that out of my system!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> - Intel ceased the production of the 80386 processor on September 2007.
The primary reason that old processors stay in production, even the (by
today's standards) ancient 386, is probably because of institutions that
buy proprietary-design items for their use and keep them in service for
many years. The US military has a lot of old technology in its
equipment; electronic equipment designed in the 50's often lasted well
into the 80's.
At times a company will adopt a certain software package, become highly
dependent on it, and find that newer hardware will not run it. For a
while, using old technology is cheaper than buying the new.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The primary reason that old processors stay in production, even the (by
> today's standards) ancient 386, is probably because of institutions that
> buy proprietary-design items for their use and keep them in service for
> many years. The US military has a lot of old technology in its
> equipment; electronic equipment designed in the 50's often lasted well
> into the 80's.
>
> At times a company will adopt a certain software package, become highly
> dependent on it, and find that newer hardware will not run it. For a
> while, using old technology is cheaper than buying the new.
The way I heard it, old CPUs never die, they just move down the food chain.
You know what the world's most popular CPU is? Apparently it's the Z80.
They put it on toasters, washing machines and other devices that you
don't even think of as "computers". It's a known design that you can
cheaply buy off the shelf, it's more than adaquat to run a toaster,
there are huge amounts of library code available off the shelf, and lots
of developers that know how to target it.
The printer we have at work? It's powered by a Pentium-III. No sane
person would put one in a *computer*, but in a printer? Well, it only
needs to run a PostScript interpretter and the robotics of the printer.
(And the front-panel display.) It's actually overkill - I mean, until
some mad bugger asks it to procedurally draw a Mandelbrot set image...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > - Intel ceased the production of the 80386 processor on September 2007.
> The primary reason that old processors stay in production, even the (by
> today's standards) ancient 386, is probably because of institutions that
> buy proprietary-design items for their use and keep them in service for
> many years. The US military has a lot of old technology in its
> equipment; electronic equipment designed in the 50's often lasted well
> into the 80's.
Once I was thinking: Given that the 386 was so popular well into the
2000's, couldn't they just design a *new* 386 using modern technology
and start selling that? In other words, a processor which is otherwise
completely identical to the old 386, except that it consumes one tenth
of the watts and emits one tenth of the heat, and thus is much cheaper
and can be used in a wider range of applications.
I believe that the answer is: Intel *already* has the pipelines to
produce 386 processors, from the 80's. Basically they don't have to
do anything but (simplifying a bit) put the raw material in from one
end, and 386 processors pop out on the other end. The only costs are
the raw materials and the maintenance of the pipeline hardware. In
other words, it's very cheap for them to do this.
Designing a completely *new* 387 using modern technologies would cost
them a whole lot of money. Countless man hours would be spent into the
design, and a completely new pipeline would need to be constructed.
Why spend all that money and go through all that trouble when the existing
hardware is doing just fine, and selling well?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
