On 2022-03-19 4:36 p.m., David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-03-18 5:10 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
>>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little
>>> problem out
>>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I
>>> should hope.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
>> when he was Obama's vice president.  That tells you what Biden thought
>> as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.
>
> I bet you also wonder why Obama took so long to mobilize the USAF to
> stop the 9/11 attacks.
>
>
>

Beat you to it... 😉

On 3/19/2022 5:16 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
>>>>>> anything for it ?
>>>
>>>>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
>>>>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
>>>>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
>>>>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
>>>>> Russia as any kind of threat.
>>>
>>>> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
>>>> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
>>>> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
>>>>
>>>> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
>>>> not do for Trump, by the way.)
>>>
>>> That's a good question.
>>>
>>> But it does have an answer:
>>>
>>> a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest that not everyone
>>> knows it; he has to at least *look* like he's looking out for America's
>>> interests, not Russia's.
>>>
>>> b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become well-armed. However,
>>> it _would_ be in Russia's interests for America to withdraw from NATO, so
>>> that the countries of Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
>>> weapons.
>>>
>>> If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an excuse to do just
>>> that, there is no contradiction between that and Trump advancing Russia's
>>> interests.
>>>
>>> This also can address another issue.
>>>
>>> I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events in Ukraine.
>>>
>>> I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine with the
>>> near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since 2008 preferaly, and
>>> just before Russia invaded at the least.
>>>
>>> Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the U.S.
>>> with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it didn't.
>>>
>>> Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was also formerly
>>> part of the Soviet Union. So events in Ukraine do raise... some room for
>>> doubt as to whether or not NATO commitments will be fully honored in
>>> the event of a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
>>>
>>> It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're doomed if
>>> a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just if Putin conquers the
>>> world.
>>>
>>> But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too cautious to invade
>>> a NATO member under current circumstances.
>>>
>>> Well, then, we're OK, right?
>>>
>>> Oh, dear, no.
>>>
>>> The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be emotionally unappealing
>>> to Americans, causing at least a slight fall in his popularity, and remember how
>>> close the 2016 and 2020 elections were?
>>>
>>> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President, Putin
>>> wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
>>> around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course that remark
>>> seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
>>> up more unbelievable things he has said.
>>>
>>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
>>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little problem out
>>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
>> when he was Obama's vice president. That tells you what Biden thought
>> as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.
>
> Even I knew that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the early/mid 1990s, and a brief web search confirmed that.
>
> Does reality not matter to you?
>
> William Hyde

Sure. Got URL to back that up ?

Lynn

On 2022-03-19 5:57 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/19/2022 5:16 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about
>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>> anything for it ?
>>>>
>>>>>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in
>>>>>> November of 2024,
>>>>>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as
>>>>>> the Ukraine
>>>>>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from
>>>>>> his most recent
>>>>>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it
>>>>>> seriously that he sees
>>>>>> Russia as any kind of threat.
>>>>
>>>>> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
>>>>> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
>>>>> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
>>>>> not do for Trump, by the way.)
>>>>
>>>> That's a good question.
>>>>
>>>> But it does have an answer:
>>>>
>>>> a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest that not
>>>> everyone
>>>> knows it; he has to at least *look* like he's looking out for America's
>>>> interests, not Russia's.
>>>>
>>>> b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become well-armed.
>>>> However,
>>>> it _would_ be in Russia's interests for America to withdraw from
>>>> NATO, so
>>>> that the countries of Europe would lose the protection of American
>>>> nuclear
>>>> weapons.
>>>>
>>>> If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an excuse to
>>>> do just
>>>> that, there is no contradiction between that and Trump advancing
>>>> Russia's
>>>> interests.
>>>>
>>>> This also can address another issue.
>>>>
>>>> I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events in Ukraine.
>>>>
>>>> I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine with the
>>>> near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since 2008 preferaly, and
>>>> just before Russia invaded at the least.
>>>>
>>>> Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the U.S.
>>>> with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was also
>>>> formerly
>>>> part of the Soviet Union. So events in Ukraine do raise... some room
>>>> for
>>>> doubt as to whether or not NATO commitments will be fully honored in
>>>> the event of a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're doomed if
>>>> a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just if Putin conquers the
>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>> But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too cautious to
>>>> invade
>>>> a NATO member under current circumstances.
>>>>
>>>> Well, then, we're OK, right?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, dear, no.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be emotionally
>>>> unappealing
>>>> to Americans, causing at least a slight fall in his popularity, and
>>>> remember how
>>>> close the 2016 and 2020 elections were?
>>>>
>>>> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President,
>>>> Putin
>>>> wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
>>>> around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course
>>>> that remark
>>>> seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
>>>> up more unbelievable things he has said.
>>>>
>>>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin
>>>> invades
>>>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little
>>>> problem out
>>>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I
>>>> should hope.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
>>> when he was Obama's vice president. That tells you what Biden thought
>>> as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.
>>
>> Even I knew that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the early/mid
>> 1990s, and a brief web search confirmed that.
>>
>> Does reality not matter to you?
>>
>> William Hyde
>
> Sure.  Got URL to back that up ?

You're kidding?

You really can't check on it yourself?

Fine.

'The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three
identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in
Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by
its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and
Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the
Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and
France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and
the United States from threatening or using military force or economic
coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other
agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.'

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances>

On 3/19/2022 6:01 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 21:10:29 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, the " PRINT *," part looks familiar. The last line would
>>>> look more so if it was preceded by six blanks.
>>>
>>> What, no sequence number?
>>
>> I don't know of any version of FORTRAN that used sequence numbers.
>
> Pretty much every mainframe version of FORTRAN used sequence
> numbers. Take a look at any FORTRAN coding form from the
> era - columns 73 through 80 are the sequence number. It's
> what you sorted on when you dropped your card deck.
>
> Most other mainframe languages also used sequence numbers at
> one end or the other of the line (e.g. COBOL, BPL, et alia),
> mainly for the same reason (they weren't goto targets).

We did not use sequence numbers on our Fortran code which dates back to
1965 or so. Just numeric labels in columns 1 to 5 as needed. We used
columns 73-80 for a date code as to when that line of code was last
modified. When we moved to the Prime 450 in 1977 ???, we added the
programmer's login name to columns 82 - 90 by modifying the system
editor source code.

Lynn

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 12:47:51 PM UTC-6, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 16.16, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> >
> >> How did Germany find the money to build the armaments with
> >> which it started World War II, after Hitler took power because of the
> >> Great Depression?
> >
> > By issuing MeFo bills, which were off-the-record bonds whose
> > payback date was pushed along until the war made payback
> > unnecessary. They were also used to hide public expenditure
> > used for rearmament from the Allies.
> >
> > If they had ever been redeemed, catastropic inflation would
> > have occurred. As it turned out, the war made this point moot,

> I thought that Germany *did* have catastrophic inflation between the
> two wars. Suitcases full of million-Mark notes and such.

Yes, it did, but how is that a contradiction to anything in his post?

He is saying that catastrophic inflation would have occured again,
under the Nazis, as a result of their economic scheme, had there not
been a war.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 3:48:14 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> I don't know of any version of FORTRAN that used sequence numbers.

Sequence numbers weren't part of the FORTRAN language. What _was_
part of the FORTRAN language was that statements could not extend past
column 72.

That meant you could punch anything you liked in columns 73 to 80.

Often, people chose to put seqence numbers there.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 6:59:41 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> 'The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three
> identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in
> Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by
> its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and
> Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
> The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the
> Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and
> France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
>
> The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and
> the United States from threatening or using military force or economic
> coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other
> agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus,
> Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.'
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances>

So since the United States didn't invade Ukraine, _it_ is not in violation
of the Budapest Memorandum; it was _not_ required to defend the Ukraine
if someone else, including one of the other signatories to the Budapest
Memorandum, invaded it.

John Savard

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 8:57:32 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/19/2022 5:16 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you thought about taking
> >>>>>> anything for it ?
> >>>
> >>>>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected in November of 2024,
> >>>>> my homeland, Canada, will be in essentially the same position as the Ukraine
> >>>>> just prior to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his most recent
> >>>>> bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is difficult to take it seriously that he sees
> >>>>> Russia as any kind of threat.
> >>>
> >>>> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he berate
> >>>> Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more for its defense?
> >>>> Would it be in Russia's interest to have a well-armed Germany?
> >>>>
> >>>> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what Merkel would
> >>>> not do for Trump, by the way.)
> >>>
> >>> That's a good question.
> >>>
> >>> But it does have an answer:
> >>>
> >>> a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest that not everyone
> >>> knows it; he has to at least *look* like he's looking out for America's
> >>> interests, not Russia's.
> >>>
> >>> b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become well-armed. However,
> >>> it _would_ be in Russia's interests for America to withdraw from NATO, so
> >>> that the countries of Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
> >>> weapons.
> >>>
> >>> If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an excuse to do just
> >>> that, there is no contradiction between that and Trump advancing Russia's
> >>> interests.
> >>>
> >>> This also can address another issue.
> >>>
> >>> I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events in Ukraine.
> >>>
> >>> I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine with the
> >>> near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since 2008 preferaly, and
> >>> just before Russia invaded at the least.
> >>>
> >>> Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the U.S.
> >>> with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it didn't.
> >>>
> >>> Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was also formerly
> >>> part of the Soviet Union. So events in Ukraine do raise... some room for
> >>> doubt as to whether or not NATO commitments will be fully honored in
> >>> the event of a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're doomed if
> >>> a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just if Putin conquers the
> >>> world.
> >>>
> >>> But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too cautious to invade
> >>> a NATO member under current circumstances.
> >>>
> >>> Well, then, we're OK, right?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, dear, no.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be emotionally unappealing
> >>> to Americans, causing at least a slight fall in his popularity, and remember how
> >>> close the 2016 and 2020 elections were?
> >>>
> >>> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were President, Putin
> >>> wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would know that Trump doesn't fool
> >>> around. (Ivana might tell you differently, of course.) Of course that remark
> >>> seems ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have lapped
> >>> up more unbelievable things he has said.
> >>>
> >>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin invades
> >>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little problem out
> >>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.
> >>>
> >>> John Savard
> >> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
> >> when he was Obama's vice president. That tells you what Biden thought
> >> as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.
> >
> > Even I knew that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the early/mid 1990s, and a brief web search confirmed that.
> >
> > Does reality not matter to you?
> >
> > William Hyde
> Sure. Got URL to back that up ?

Yep. And I bet you could find a few if you just looked.

But you won't, because if you look you might find something you don't want to believe.

It seems that only partisanship matters to you.

William Hyde

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 15:22:26 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
>>> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
>>> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
>>> President of the United Staes of America.
>>
>>You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
>>Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
>
>You're trying to have a discussion of US Presidential elections with
>someone who clearly has not read the Constitution and does not
>understand how they work.

Well why not? I'm not an American and I'm pretty sure I do know how it
works. Which is reasonable since the world as a whole does well when
the United States does well and suffers when you folks suffer.

In other words the process is pretty important.

On 2022-03-19 5:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-19 4:36 p.m., David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-03-18 5:10 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin
>>>> invades
>>>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little
>>>> problem out
>>>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I
>>>> should hope.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>
>>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from Ukraine
>>> when he was Obama's vice president.  That tells you what Biden
>>> thought as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of Ukraine.
>>
>> I bet you also wonder why Obama took so long to mobilize the USAF to
>> stop the 9/11 attacks.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Beat you to it... 😉

Just to the facts, not to the joke.

On 2022-03-19 9:45 p.m., David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-03-19 5:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-03-19 4:36 p.m., David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-18 5:10 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_ Putin
>>>>> invades
>>>>> Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK to get that little
>>>>> problem out
>>>>> of Putin's way? No, _those_ orders likely would not be obeyed, I
>>>>> should hope.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Savard
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons from
>>>> Ukraine when he was Obama's vice president.  That tells you what
>>>> Biden thought as he put in ZERO guarantees for the protection of
>>>> Ukraine.
>>>
>>> I bet you also wonder why Obama took so long to mobilize the USAF to
>>> stop the 9/11 attacks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Beat you to it... 😉
>
> Just to the facts, not to the joke.

Really?

I made precisely the same joke:

'He probably believes that Obama should have prevented 9/11, too.'

:-)

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 3:48:14 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
>> I don't know of any version of FORTRAN that used sequence numbers.
>
> Sequence numbers weren't part of the FORTRAN language. What _was_
> part of the FORTRAN language was that statements could not extend past
> column 72.
>
> That meant you could punch anything you liked in columns 73 to 80.

The ISPF editor added sequence numbers by default for you there,
for FB80 files at least. It also didn't display them because they
were obviously irrelevant, right?

Unless you ran LaTeX and found it complaning about garbage
following the \documentstyle command (in those days, before
\documentclass). Cost me some time to figure that out.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 23:01:17 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 21:10:29 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, the " PRINT *," part looks familiar. The last line would
>>>>look more so if it was preceded by six blanks.
>>>
>>>What, no sequence number?
>>
>>I don't know of any version of FORTRAN that used sequence numbers.
>
>Pretty much every mainframe version of FORTRAN used sequence
>numbers. Take a look at any FORTRAN coding form from the
>era - columns 73 through 80 are the sequence number. It's
>what you sorted on when you dropped your card deck.
>
>Most other mainframe languages also used sequence numbers at
>one end or the other of the line (e.g. COBOL, BPL, et alia),
>mainly for the same reason (they weren't goto targets).

I remember those and always being aware that was an option but not
required on the compilers I used. In my undergraduate days my usual
mainframe was an Amdahl clone of the IBM 370. I guess I've just dated
myself eh?

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote in
news:138638cc-710c-4e95-aece-51a638344090n@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 8:57:32 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
> wrote:
>> On 3/19/2022 5:16 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas
>> >>> Koenig wrote:
>> >>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>> >>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn
>> >>>>> McGuire wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you
>> >>>>>> thought about taking anything for it ?
>> >>>
>> >>>>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected
>> >>>>> in November of 2024, my homeland, Canada, will be in
>> >>>>> essentially the same position as the Ukraine just prior
>> >>>>> to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his
>> >>>>> most recent bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is
>> >>>>> difficult to take it seriously that he sees Russia as any
>> >>>>> kind of threat.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he
>> >>>> berate Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more
>> >>>> for its defense? Would it be in Russia's interest to have
>> >>>> a well-armed Germany?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what
>> >>>> Merkel would not do for Trump, by the way.)
>> >>>
>> >>> That's a good question.
>> >>>
>> >>> But it does have an answer:
>> >>>
>> >>> a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest
>> >>> that not everyone knows it; he has to at least *look* like
>> >>> he's looking out for America's interests, not Russia's.
>> >>>
>> >>> b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become
>> >>> well-armed. However, it _would_ be in Russia's interests
>> >>> for America to withdraw from NATO, so that the countries of
>> >>> Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
>> >>> weapons.
>> >>>
>> >>> If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an
>> >>> excuse to do just that, there is no contradiction between
>> >>> that and Trump advancing Russia's interests.
>> >>>
>> >>> This also can address another issue.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events
>> >>> in Ukraine.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine
>> >>> with the near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since
>> >>> 2008 preferaly, and just before Russia invaded at the
>> >>> least.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the
>> >>> U.S. with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it
>> >>> didn't.
>> >>>
>> >>> Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was
>> >>> also formerly part of the Soviet Union. So events in
>> >>> Ukraine do raise... some room for doubt as to whether or
>> >>> not NATO commitments will be fully honored in the event of
>> >>> a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
>> >>>
>> >>> It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're
>> >>> doomed if a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just
>> >>> if Putin conquers the world.
>> >>>
>> >>> But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too
>> >>> cautious to invade a NATO member under current
>> >>> circumstances.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, then, we're OK, right?
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh, dear, no.
>> >>>
>> >>> The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be
>> >>> emotionally unappealing to Americans, causing at least a
>> >>> slight fall in his popularity, and remember how close the
>> >>> 2016 and 2020 elections were?
>> >>>
>> >>> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were
>> >>> President, Putin wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would
>> >>> know that Trump doesn't fool around. (Ivana might tell you
>> >>> differently, of course.) Of course that remark seems
>> >>> ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have
>> >>> lapped up more unbelievable things he has said.
>> >>>
>> >>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_
>> >>> Putin invades Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK
>> >>> to get that little problem out of Putin's way? No, _those_
>> >>> orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.
>> >>>
>> >>> John Savard
>> >> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons
>> >> from Ukraine when he was Obama's vice president. That tells
>> >> you what Biden thought as he put in ZERO guarantees for the
>> >> protection of Ukraine.
>> >
>> > Even I knew that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the
>> > early/mid 1990s, and a brief web search confirmed that.
>> >
>> > Does reality not matter to you?
>> >
>> > William Hyde
>> Sure. Got URL to back that up ?
>
> Yep. And I bet you could find a few if you just looked.

According to Wikipedia (and literally every other source), Ukraine
agreed to give up its nuclear weapons (and became a signatory to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1994). The last ones
were transferred to Russian within two years.

In 1994, Bill Clinton was President, and Al Gore was Vice
President.

Is your dick too small to admit you made a stupid mistake? Or do
you have some magic source that conclusive proves that *every*
*other* *source* is wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine#Denuclear
ization

https://tinyurl.com/3rz98vkd
>
> But you won't, because if you look you might find something you
> don't want to believe.
>
> It seems that only partisanship matters to you.
>
I know you are, but what am I?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 16:45:57 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> I bet you also wonder why Obama took so long to mobilize the USAF to
>> stop the 9/11 attacks.

Heh heh - well at least Obama got bin Laden at the end.

I really appreciated Bush 43's comment on that one. He said 3 things
that night:
1) wish it could have been on my watch
2) glad Obama carried it through
3) (about 80% of his comment) praise for the troops who successfully
carried out a tough mission

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 19:25:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 6:59:41 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:
>
>> 'The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three
>> identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in
>> Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by
>> its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and
>> Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
>> The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the
>> Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and
>> France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
>>
>> The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and
>> the United States from threatening or using military force or economic
>> coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other
>> agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus,
>> Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.'
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances>
>
>So since the United States didn't invade Ukraine, _it_ is not in violation
>of the Budapest Memorandum; it was _not_ required to defend the Ukraine
>if someone else, including one of the other signatories to the Budapest
>Memorandum, invaded it.

The Budapest Memorandum doesn't require anybody to defend anything
under any circumstance. All that it requires is that somebody
complain to the UN, which is only slightly more beneficial than
complaining to their cat.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 21:14:30 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 15:22:26 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:19:08 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/17/2022 11:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 23:07:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>> rOn Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:00:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/2022 11:26 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:njdk2hdupos5se1md...@4ax.com:
>>>> Under /no/ circumstances is a mere plurality enough. And even a
>>>> majority of the popular vote does /not/ determine who becomes
>>>> President of the United Staes of America.
>>>
>>>You forgot about the independents such as Ross Perot who got Bill
>>>Clinton elected by siphoning votes from George H. W. Bush.
>>
>>You're trying to have a discussion of US Presidential elections with
>>someone who clearly has not read the Constitution and does not
>>understand how they work.
>
>Well why not? I'm not an American and I'm pretty sure I do know how it
>works. Which is reasonable since the world as a whole does well when
>the United States does well and suffers when you folks suffer.
>
>In other words the process is pretty important.

And the process does not require majorities.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 19:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 3:48:14 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
>> I don't know of any version of FORTRAN that used sequence numbers.
>
>Sequence numbers weren't part of the FORTRAN language. What _was_
>part of the FORTRAN language was that statements could not extend past
>column 72.
>
>That meant you could punch anything you liked in columns 73 to 80.
>
>Often, people chose to put seqence numbers there.

While you could put anything you wanted there, if you ran IEBPUNCH
with the sequencing option you would lose whatever was there and if
you ran the deck through the sequencer Hilarity might Ensue. Putting
stuff past column 72 that is not sequence numbers can have unexpected
consequences.

Note that this is not specific to Fortran. C and C++ on Z/OS have the
same limitation in the default configuration--both, and FORTRAN VS 2
can be set to accept free-format input and LRECL longer than 80. We
don't do that for production code because it has to be accepted by
JCLs that were set up in the distant past, but it is is an option that
we use for code that will not be shared outside our area.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 15:22:00 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 13:24:10 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> And I have written almost a thousand lines of new Fortran code in the
>>>> last two weeks. I plan to write more Fortran this week too.
>>>
>>> Is FORTRAN still being used in the science + engineering world? I
>>> found it much easier to read than most of the languages that succeeded
>>> it but in fairness it's been 20 years since I've read source code.
>>
>>My software dates back to 1969. I have 850,000 lines of Fortran code
>>and 500,000 lines of C++ code.
>>
>>I doubt that any new projects are being written in Fortran. Most new
>>stuff is written in C and C++.
>>
>My high school class was class of 73 and my first exposure to FORTRAN
>was 74 + 75. I did pure math at university (bad idea - it's the 'arts'
>area of the science faculty for employability) but later did an MBA
>which was helpful but certainly didn't involve writing tons of code.
>At grad school I hung around the data center enough that they gave me
>an APL manual and an account but that was an extracurricular compared
>to my regular work load so while interesting was never enough time to
>master it.
>
>Later it was mostly spreadsheets which are not really programming and
>discovering the BBS scene which preceded the Internet as we know it.
>(Well not technically but for the average computer oriented Joe and
>Jane it was)
>
>40 years later here we are :)

APL and a math degree, how did you not end up an actuary?

On 19/03/2022 15.45, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2022-03-19, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought that Germany *did* have catastrophic inflation between the
>> two wars. Suitcases full of million-Mark notes and such.
>
> That was in 1923.

Only one year? I had the impression that it was much more protracted.
Well, I've learned something new today.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 1:34:06 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:138638cc-710c-4e95...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 8:57:32 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
> > wrote:
> >> On 3/19/2022 5:16 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> >> > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On 3/17/2022 11:26 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> >>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 7:11:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas
> >> >>> Koenig wrote:
> >> >>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> >> >>>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:28:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn
> >> >>>>> McGuire wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>> Dude, you really have a bad case of TDS. Have you
> >> >>>>>> thought about taking anything for it ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> If Trump, de Santis, or someone of that ilk gets elected
> >> >>>>> in November of 2024, my homeland, Canada, will be in
> >> >>>>> essentially the same position as the Ukraine just prior
> >> >>>>> to the invasion... given that Trump was rescued from his
> >> >>>>> most recent bankruptcy by Russian oligarchs, it is
> >> >>>>> difficult to take it seriously that he sees Russia as any
> >> >>>>> kind of threat.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Assuming Trump is indeed in Russia's pocket, why did he
> >> >>>> berate Germany (and Merkel personally) for not doing more
> >> >>>> for its defense? Would it be in Russia's interest to have
> >> >>>> a well-armed Germany?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> (Scholz, Merkel's successor, has now agreed to do what
> >> >>>> Merkel would not do for Trump, by the way.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That's a good question.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But it does have an answer:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> a) If Trump is a Russian asset, it's in Russia's interest
> >> >>> that not everyone knows it; he has to at least *look* like
> >> >>> he's looking out for America's interests, not Russia's.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> b) It isn't in Russia's interests for Germany to become
> >> >>> well-armed. However, it _would_ be in Russia's interests
> >> >>> for America to withdraw from NATO, so that the countries of
> >> >>> Europe would lose the protection of American nuclear
> >> >>> weapons.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If one views Trump's berating of Merkel as setting up an
> >> >>> excuse to do just that, there is no contradiction between
> >> >>> that and Trump advancing Russia's interests.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This also can address another issue.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I've been pessimistic about the consequences of the events
> >> >>> in Ukraine.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think the U.S. should have, on its own, provided Ukraine
> >> >>> with the near equivalent of Article 5 protection... since
> >> >>> 2008 preferaly, and just before Russia invaded at the
> >> >>> least.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Since it didn't, Russia had the opportunity to threaten the
> >> >>> U.S. with nuclear attack if it interfered... and so it
> >> >>> didn't.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Latvia is as far away from the U.S. as Ukraine, and it was
> >> >>> also formerly part of the Soviet Union. So events in
> >> >>> Ukraine do raise... some room for doubt as to whether or
> >> >>> not NATO commitments will be fully honored in the event of
> >> >>> a Russian invasion of this NATO member.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It doesn't even really matter if I'm wrong, because we're
> >> >>> doomed if a global thermonuclear war starts too, not just
> >> >>> if Putin conquers the world.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But the situation is not binary. Putin may indeed be too
> >> >>> cautious to invade a NATO member under current
> >> >>> circumstances.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Well, then, we're OK, right?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Oh, dear, no.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The fact that Ukraine fell under Biden's watch will be
> >> >>> emotionally unappealing to Americans, causing at least a
> >> >>> slight fall in his popularity, and remember how close the
> >> >>> 2016 and 2020 elections were?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I mean, Donald Trump just recently stated that if he were
> >> >>> President, Putin wouldn't have invaded, because Putin would
> >> >>> know that Trump doesn't fool around. (Ivana might tell you
> >> >>> differently, of course.) Of course that remark seems
> >> >>> ludicrous to sensible people, but Trump's supporters have
> >> >>> lapped up more unbelievable things he has said.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So first the Ukraine war gets Trump re-elected, and _then_
> >> >>> Putin invades Latvia. Maybe Trump nukes France and the UK
> >> >>> to get that little problem out of Putin's way? No, _those_
> >> >>> orders likely would not be obeyed, I should hope.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> John Savard
> >> >> BTW, Biden negotiated the removal of the nuclear weapons
> >> >> from Ukraine when he was Obama's vice president. That tells
> >> >> you what Biden thought as he put in ZERO guarantees for the
> >> >> protection of Ukraine.
> >> >
> >> > Even I knew that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in the
> >> > early/mid 1990s, and a brief web search confirmed that.
> >> >
> >> > Does reality not matter to you?
> >> >
> >> > William Hyde
> >> Sure. Got URL to back that up ?
> >
> > Yep. And I bet you could find a few if you just looked.
> According to Wikipedia (and literally every other source), Ukraine
> agreed to give up its nuclear weapons (and became a signatory to
> the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1994). The last ones
> were transferred to Russian within two years.
>
> In 1994, Bill Clinton was President, and Al Gore was Vice
> President.

That is indeed my point (see above). You are confusing me with Lynn.
> >
> I know you are, but what am I?

A troll. That facts don't matter to your persona is a feature, not a bug. But Lynn is not a troll.

Or at least he doesn't claim to be one.

"But then, he never claimed not to be a troll. Circumstances being what they were, neither admission could be of any benefit. Silence, though, could.

William Hyde

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dive3h5j8mnm0eugbtc7oa75a4l8a4bfpk@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 19:25:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 6:59:41 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> 'The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises
>>> three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE
>>> conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide
>>> security assurances by its signatories relating to the
>>> accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on
>>> the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum
>>> was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian
>>> Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China
>>> and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in
>>> separate documents.
>>>
>>> The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United
>>> Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using
>>> military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus,
>>> and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the
>>> memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and
>>> Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.'
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_
>>> Assurances>
>>
>>So since the United States didn't invade Ukraine, _it_ is not in
>>violation of the Budapest Memorandum; it was _not_ required to
>>defend the Ukraine if someone else, including one of the other
>>signatories to the Budapest Memorandum, invaded it.
>
> The Budapest Memorandum doesn't require anybody to defend
> anything under any circumstance. All that it requires is that
> somebody complain to the UN, which is only slightly more
> beneficial than complaining to their cat.

I would argue that it's much less beneficial than complaining to
the cat. I wouldn't want the UN to fall asleep in my lap. Though I
suppose they are less likely to claw the furniture.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:22:38 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>You're trying to have a discussion of US Presidential elections with
>>>someone who clearly has not read the Constitution and does not
>>>understand how they work.
>>
>>Well why not? I'm not an American and I'm pretty sure I do know how it
>>works. Which is reasonable since the world as a whole does well when
>>the United States does well and suffers when you folks suffer.
>>
>>In other words the process is pretty important.
>
>And the process does not require majorities.

With all due respect I come from a country (Canada) where our prime
minister failed to even get PLURALITIES in the last TWO federal
elections. I think I understand how that can happen...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Canadian_federal_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election

On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 16:00:39 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 15:22:00 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>>
>>Later it was mostly spreadsheets which are not really programming and
>>discovering the BBS scene which preceded the Internet as we know it.
>>(Well not technically but for the average computer oriented Joe and
>>Jane it was)
>>
>>40 years later here we are :)
>
>APL and a math degree, how did you not end up an actuary?

Heh heh - because the third part of that equation says MBA which pays
better.

(Along the way to that degree I also got an MRS so not too shabby a
deal - I finished the degree in December and married the following
August)

In article <t183p9$d04$1@dont-email.me>,
"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/03/2022 15.45, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > On 2022-03-19, Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I thought that Germany *did* have catastrophic inflation between the
> >> two wars. Suitcases full of million-Mark notes and such.
> >
> > That was in 1923.
>
> Only one year? I had the impression that it was much more protracted.
> Well, I've learned something new today.

1923 was much worse than 1919-1922 combined.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com