From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and
after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations
going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and
after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/


Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a
crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell
them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of
the design and then gone crazy from there.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2026-04-12 10:16:45 +0000, scole said:

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and
after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations
going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/

Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell
them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of
the design and then gone crazy from there.

The "20th Anniversary Mac" was released in 1997, a year late, so you
might get a "50th Anniversary Mac" next year. ;-)


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:16:45 +0100, vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole)
wrote:

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s ><super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and
after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations
going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/

Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th >Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a >crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell
them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of
the design and then gone crazy from there.

Hmmm: M23 chip with 257 cores and 876 TB of onboard RAM. GPU with
1,267 cores. 76 Yottabyte SSD with secondary 1,278 Zettabyte spinny
rust drive. All onboard chips and buses to be 32,768 bits wide with a
32,768 bit wide Operating System. Multiple connections to that there interwebby, combining to about twenty-seven peta*BYTES* per second. 38
inch screen with a resolution of 28,000 by 21,000 pixels and eight
thousand million shades, hues and colours. Portable. Multi-laser
interference projection mode to display 3D holograph-style motion
images with more resolution than the screen.

Of course, user upgradable. :)

No "A.I.", no Siri. No "remote telemetry".

Powered by a nuclear battery pack.

Scrollable into a 3" indestructible tube.

Priced at ten thousand dollars USAlien or fifty pounds UKlander (to
UKlander citizens only, geographical region limited.)

Oh, and don't forget to include the very best in sound cards and
speakers. Together with super-tech headset and V.R. piped directly to
the users' optic nerves. :)

J.

p.s. Anything I've forgotten? No, it should not include a stardrive,
that's an additional peripheral. :)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:26:33 +0100, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:16:45 +0100, vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole)
wrote:

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s >><super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and
after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations >>> going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/

Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th >>Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a >>crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell >>them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of
the design and then gone crazy from there.

Hmmm: M23 chip with 257 cores and 876 TB of onboard RAM. GPU with
1,267 cores. 76 Yottabyte SSD with secondary 1,278 Zettabyte spinny
rust drive. All onboard chips and buses to be 32,768 bits wide with a
32,768 bit wide Operating System. Multiple connections to that there >interwebby, combining to about twenty-seven peta*BYTES* per second. 38
inch screen with a resolution of 28,000 by 21,000 pixels and eight
thousand million shades, hues and colours. Portable. Multi-laser
interference projection mode to display 3D holograph-style motion
images with more resolution than the screen.

Of course, user upgradable. :)

No "A.I.", no Siri. No "remote telemetry".

Powered by a nuclear battery pack.

Scrollable into a 3" indestructible tube.

Priced at ten thousand dollars USAlien or fifty pounds UKlander (to
UKlander citizens only, geographical region limited.)

Oh, and don't forget to include the very best in sound cards and
speakers. Together with super-tech headset and V.R. piped directly to
the users' optic nerves. :)

J.

p.s. Anything I've forgotten? No, it should not include a stardrive,
that's an additional peripheral. :)

"no A.I., no SIRI", well, you did specify "ridiculous".
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2026-04-13 13:26:33 +0000, John said:

On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:16:45 +0100, vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole)
wrote:

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and
after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations
going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/



Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th >> Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a
crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell
them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of
the design and then gone crazy from there.

Hmmm: M23 chip with 257 cores and 876 TB of onboard RAM. GPU with
1,267 cores. 76 Yottabyte SSD with secondary 1,278 Zettabyte spinny
rust drive. All onboard chips and buses to be 32,768 bits wide with a
32,768 bit wide Operating System. Multiple connections to that there interwebby, combining to about twenty-seven peta*BYTES* per second. 38
inch screen with a resolution of 28,000 by 21,000 pixels and eight
thousand million shades, hues and colours. Portable. Multi-laser
interference projection mode to display 3D holograph-style motion
images with more resolution than the screen.

Of course, user upgradable. :)

No "A.I.", no Siri. No "remote telemetry".

Powered by a nuclear battery pack.

Scrollable into a 3" indestructible tube.

Priced at ten thousand dollars USAlien or fifty pounds UKlander (to
UKlander citizens only, geographical region limited.)

Oh, and don't forget to include the very best in sound cards and
speakers. Together with super-tech headset and V.R. piped directly to
the users' optic nerves. :)

J.

p.s. Anything I've forgotten? No, it should not include a stardrive,
that's an additional peripheral. :)

Personal jetpack, Star Trek-style transporter, ... ;-)

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2026-04-13 13:28:12 +0000, John said:

On Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:26:33 +0100, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:16:45 +0100, vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole)
wrote:

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and >>>> after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations >>>> going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/

Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th >>> Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a >>> crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell
them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of
the design and then gone crazy from there.

Hmmm: M23 chip with 257 cores and 876 TB of onboard RAM. GPU with
1,267 cores. 76 Yottabyte SSD with secondary 1,278 Zettabyte spinny
rust drive. All onboard chips and buses to be 32,768 bits wide with a
32,768 bit wide Operating System. Multiple connections to that there
interwebby, combining to about twenty-seven peta*BYTES* per second. 38
inch screen with a resolution of 28,000 by 21,000 pixels and eight
thousand million shades, hues and colours. Portable. Multi-laser
interference projection mode to display 3D holograph-style motion
images with more resolution than the screen.

Of course, user upgradable. :)

No "A.I.", no Siri. No "remote telemetry".

Powered by a nuclear battery pack.

Scrollable into a 3" indestructible tube.

Priced at ten thousand dollars USAlien or fifty pounds UKlander (to
UKlander citizens only, geographical region limited.)

Oh, and don't forget to include the very best in sound cards and
speakers. Together with super-tech headset and V.R. piped directly to
the users' optic nerves. :)

J.

p.s. Anything I've forgotten? No, it should not include a stardrive,
that's an additional peripheral. :)

"no A.I., no SIRI", well, you did specify "ridiculous".

Few people care. AI is really a silly waste of time and money that has
been created simply to sell more newer devicies to people with more
money than sense because the tech companies can't actually come up with anything new that is useful.



--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2026-04-14 04:28:04 +0000, Your Name said:

On 2026-04-13 13:26:33 +0000, John said:

On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:16:45 +0100, vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole)
wrote:

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and >>>> after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations >>>> going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/



Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th >>> Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a >>> crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell
them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of
the design and then gone crazy from there.

Hmmm: M23 chip with 257 cores and 876 TB of onboard RAM. GPU with
1,267 cores. 76 Yottabyte SSD with secondary 1,278 Zettabyte spinny
rust drive. All onboard chips and buses to be 32,768 bits wide with a
32,768 bit wide Operating System. Multiple connections to that there
interwebby, combining to about twenty-seven peta*BYTES* per second. 38
inch screen with a resolution of 28,000 by 21,000 pixels and eight
thousand million shades, hues and colours. Portable. Multi-laser
interference projection mode to display 3D holograph-style motion
images with more resolution than the screen.

Of course, user upgradable. :)

No "A.I.", no Siri. No "remote telemetry".

Powered by a nuclear battery pack.

Scrollable into a 3" indestructible tube.

Priced at ten thousand dollars USAlien or fifty pounds UKlander (to
UKlander citizens only, geographical region limited.)

Oh, and don't forget to include the very best in sound cards and
speakers. Together with super-tech headset and V.R. piped directly to
the users' optic nerves. :)

J.

p.s. Anything I've forgotten? No, it should not include a stardrive,
that's an additional peripheral. :)

Personal jetpack, Star Trek-style transporter, ... ;-)

How about some way for computer data to be absorbed into the human
body. Several years ago I was transferring data to a newer computer
using external drives and online storage and in the midst of the
activity I was halfway across the room before I realized I couldn't do
a command-C text grab on the old computer and a command-V on the new
one. Technology hadn't advanced that far yet.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 12:28:47 -0500, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2026-04-14 04:28:04 +0000, Your Name said:

On 2026-04-13 13:26:33 +0000, John said:

On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:16:45 +0100, vintageapplemac@gmail.com (scole)
wrote:

In article <10qmb9u$298lm$1@dont-email.me>, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

I saw this as a brief headline on the BBC's news streaming channel and >>>>> after googling it it seemed to be a pretty big affair with celebrations >>>>> going on all across the globe, and with none other than Sir Paul
McCartney performing in Cupertino.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/03/apple-hosts-50th-anniversary-celebrations-around-the-world/



Wouldn't it have been wonderul for them to have released a ridiculous 50th >>>> Anniversary Macintosh, like the 20th Anniversary Macintosh? Like, just a >>>> crazy looking acid-trip of a design? Make 10,000 of the things and sell >>>> them by ballot/lottery so everyone's got a fair shot of snagging one.

Personally, I'd have taken the 20th Anniversary machine as the basis of >>>> the design and then gone crazy from there.

Hmmm: M23 chip with 257 cores and 876 TB of onboard RAM. GPU with
1,267 cores. 76 Yottabyte SSD with secondary 1,278 Zettabyte spinny
rust drive. All onboard chips and buses to be 32,768 bits wide with a
32,768 bit wide Operating System. Multiple connections to that there
interwebby, combining to about twenty-seven peta*BYTES* per second. 38
inch screen with a resolution of 28,000 by 21,000 pixels and eight
thousand million shades, hues and colours. Portable. Multi-laser
interference projection mode to display 3D holograph-style motion
images with more resolution than the screen.

Of course, user upgradable. :)

No "A.I.", no Siri. No "remote telemetry".

Powered by a nuclear battery pack.

Scrollable into a 3" indestructible tube.

Priced at ten thousand dollars USAlien or fifty pounds UKlander (to
UKlander citizens only, geographical region limited.)

Oh, and don't forget to include the very best in sound cards and
speakers. Together with super-tech headset and V.R. piped directly to
the users' optic nerves. :)

J.

p.s. Anything I've forgotten? No, it should not include a stardrive,
that's an additional peripheral. :)

Personal jetpack, Star Trek-style transporter, ... ;-)

How about some way for computer data to be absorbed into the human
body. Several years ago I was transferring data to a newer computer
using external drives and online storage and in the midst of the
activity I was halfway across the room before I realized I couldn't do
a command-C text grab on the old computer and a command-V on the new
one. Technology hadn't advanced that far yet.

The physics of an ST-transporter are impossible. It is simple
arithmetic. 10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a
bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

It's a non-starter. I did the maths decades ago.

Also, it's murder. The landed object is not a living human being, it
would, were it to be possible, which it is *not*, be a copy, a
facsimile, a dead man walking. Why is this certain? Okay, consider a
case where we disassemble a human then do not bother connecting up the re-assembly beam. Time for wills and lawyers.

Personal jet-packs are easy. Indeed, they are quite common. Their
drawbacks are two-fold: fuel and fire. Humans can't carry sufficient
fuel to power the buggers for more than a few seconds and the hot jets
tend to cook the dangly bits.

Real-world Physics is an uncompromising bitch but she *works*. :)

J.




N.B.: *LEGS*!!! The backs of the legs. What we need is a cool jet
ejected from a nuclear-powered pack. Preferably one that has a power
plant that lasts for more than a century.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[...]

10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

...but apart from that, is there any reason why it couln't be done?
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:40:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[...]

10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a
bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of
death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

...but apart from that, is there any reason why it couln't be done?

We.eee...ee.llllll, if we assume that we want Human-A on the planet
and she's supposed to be the same person as Human-B who stood upon the processing plate, with a complete continuation of her thoughts, then
we'd need to "store her in the buffer" rapidly enough that every
single particle and its every single and conjugated energy state and
quantum level would be moved from pad to planet simultaneously, with
no errors, no slippages, no distortions and no lacunae, as one entire
unit. Not an energy matrix formed from the original B but the original
B itself, complete with muscles, blood cells, internal gases,
lymphatic fluids, 30,000 hairs, lipstick and chewing gum. Every atom,
every molecule, every protein, every electron being in A as it was in
person B.

This needs to take place well within a Plank unit of time so there is absolutely no discontinuity of existence.

And Human-A, when rebuilt, must have the very same particles, down to
the gluons, quarks and energy fields, that were once Human-B. Not
remade bits from an energy beam but the very same ones, having
continuously existed from pad to planet.

The fax machine in Tokyo does not eject the *same* paper as was put
into the fax machine in London.

With 19th Century facsimile copying machinery and their descendants,
we *know* that two copies exist. With 23rd Century "Star Fleet"
technologies, the original is destroyed to avoid legal wrangling. It
is murder.

But the real issue is the energy level. When I calculated the power
of the scanning beam necessary to pin-point the precise positions and
momenta of every particle of a human body, I was exceedingly
conservative. I assumed that the beam would take an origin point and
would refer all locations to that point, to save in descriptive
information. That maybe a kilobyte would be needed to locate a
particle, and maybe another to describe its momentum and that the body contained about ten to the twenty-fifth power of particles. Avogadro's
number times a couple of magnitude to allow for 100 kilograms of mass.
I also assumed one second for the scan, which is a horrendously
ludicrous amount of time. So many things move around in that much
interval that the scan would resemble half-digested pea soup and the
rebuild would be jam, if it even resembled anything solid.

I also assumed that technology would someday be available to lens and
focus photons with individual energies comparable to the mass of a
cannon ball, which is what would be the power of a beam with a
frequency needed to scan the subject rapidly enough for the technology
to have some vague chance of reading it. Note that such a photon, if
bounced off of a particle, would not sense it, it would simply
annihilate it. There is no compromise energy level between not
disturbing the particles and reading them rapidly enough for the
process to be useful, no mini-max, no best-magnitude. Atoms,
molecules, cells, fluids, gases and sub-atomic bits are simply too
small for rapid scanning of 10*25 of them to be feasible in a human
timescale. The numbers don't work.

19th Century facsimile machines can read pages very slowly because
pages just sit there. The ink stays still as it rolls through the
drive. Humans are *far* messier. Make one error in transcription and
the human is dead, different or deformed. Or, realistically, soup and
vapours.

StarFleet transporters can not happen. Simple arithmetic forbids it
and legally they are murdering machinery.

Now, "StarGate" jump rings, those may be possible. Those wrap the
body in a bubble of sub-space and send the entire package, like an
email with headers, footers and routing information, to the target
ring set through sub-space. Carter was wrong. The gate does not "demolecularise" anything. Every StarGate technology sends the
complete object as a sub-space package. That is why hyperdrives,
StarGates, jump-rings and Asir beaming technologies all work and all
work in a similar fashion.

For Ancient tech to work, all we need is a sub-space and a way to
make bubbles out of it.

The lovely and creative Mr. Rodenberry gave us transporters to save
on the crews leaping into and out of shuttles fifty times per episode.
It was a brilliant plot-device. Unfortunaeatly Physics and Arithmetic
hate it.

J.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:46:47 +0100, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:40:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[...]

10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a
bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of
death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

...but apart from that, is there any reason why it couln't be done?

We.eee...ee.llllll, if we assume that we want Human-A on the planet
and she's supposed to be the same person as Human-B who stood upon the >processing plate, with a complete continuation of her thoughts,

Of course, we don't *have* *to* assume any such thing. If we take the practical, unethical approach then we could just nominate the rebuild
as the original, legally and for all purposes and continue from there.
That would make the two "Rikers" both "Riker", legally, morally and
for purposes of the StarFleet service records and it wouldn't matter,
to anyone save the Rikers which stayed on Enterprise and which went
walkies into the great beyond.

If we don't care about human life, then we could make transporter
copies of blondes, torture them, drop them into a transporter with no
target location and blend ourselves another toy to play with.

We could have our wife staying 23 years of age forever. Not the same
wife and we'd need one of those memory implanters to feed the "newer"
one the last year's worth of news but who cares?

We could have real "action movies", where the actors really bleed and
die. Real wars as spectator events but no permanent harm to anyone;
the casualties get rebuilt from *before* their suffering and death.

No, Picard wouldn't take such an approach .........

....... but Tuvix-killer Janeway might. :)




I need to get out more.

I did get out today. I went to a spa. Had hot bubbles time. I was sad
because I couldn't have an ice-cream.

This is all highly [OT], isn't it?

J.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:40:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[...]

10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a
bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of
death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

...but apart from that, is there any reason why it couln't be done?

Wait ...

I've had time to eat, sleep, get tired again, wake up, have a cup of
tea and digest the reply above ...

It's a jesting response, yes?

You were gently jocularly pointing out that I have been a bit
fannish, geekish, off-topic and irritating and that I should have
stopped at 50,000 pages in each of eight hundred posts, yes? Or maybe
*before* that?

Oh. Right. You are correct. When I get into teacher mode, I really
like it and can't stop.

It's one of many, many reasons why I was never employed as a
full-time teacher and yet could teach friends, family and colleagues.
It is both a flaw and a .........

Oh, bugger ... I'm doing it again, aren't I? :)

J.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:40:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[...]

10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a
bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of
death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

...but apart from that, is there any reason why it couln't be done?

Wait ...

I've had time to eat, sleep, get tired again, wake up, have a cup of
tea and digest the reply above ...

It's a jesting response, yes?

Yes.


[...Sorry]
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 21:51:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:40:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[...]

10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a
bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of
death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

...but apart from that, is there any reason why it couln't be done?

Wait ...

I've had time to eat, sleep, get tired again, wake up, have a cup of
tea and digest the reply above ...

It's a jesting response, yes?

Yes.

[...Sorry]

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 21:51:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:40:10 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

[...]

10**25 particles in a human body can not be scanned by
anything less than a gamma-ray burst that would volatilise the human
and bore a hole in the ship a yard wide from the emitters past the
hull. The beam would go on to fry a moving circular spot on the
surface of the nearby planet. The storage-in-the-buffer would take a
bandwidth of truly astronomical magnitude and more computing power
than could be created were the observable universe full of chips made
from single particles. The reconstruction would take a similar beam of
death-rays and years, probably more years than the current age of the
cosmos.

...but apart from that, is there any reason why it couln't be done?

Wait ...

I've had time to eat, sleep, get tired again, wake up, have a cup of
tea and digest the reply above ...

It's a jesting response, yes?

Yes.

Cool! I *knew* I was right! I'm ever so happy, now. :)

It's even slightly not windy, rainy and cold, today, which makes it
better.

[...Sorry]

No, no, No, NO, *N*O*!, you should be all happy. You are nice. You
should *always* be happy. And you did a good thing. You made a funny
and yours *was* funny. [This is still Off Topic, isn't it?] [Bummer.]
Now, the main two hundred and forty-seven thousand reasons why "SIRI"
and that decision-tree-and-look-up-table mess they mis-label as "A.I."
can never again be left off of new model machinery are ..........

J.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2