From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: bda4de328f,e67cdb1dcad3c668
X-Google-Attributes: gidbda4de328f,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!exi-transit.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!exi-spool.telstra.net!exi-reader.telstra.net!not-for-mail
From: "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
   <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4bbb2246$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <m2tyrnjc5f.fsf@pushface.org>
       <4bbdf5c6$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <f5a9304e-e6eb-40b2-8944-a6ca4bc92b1b@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
       <4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <hugevn02qfb@news5.newsguy.com>
       <op.vdv17504z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
       <4c0cc11c$0$56569$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <huiia5$2k1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
       <op.vdxjxcnqule2fv@garhos>       <874gafFcadU1@mid.individual.net>
       <4c0e282d$0$56573$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
       <4c0f7204$2$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
       <4c0f9b82$0$56567$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4c0fa318$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:54:25 +1000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Message-ID: <4c1029bd$0$56577$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.135.104.8
X-Trace: 1276127677 exi-reader.telstra.net 56577 149.135.104.8:1048
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12516 comp.lang.fortran:26633
 comp.lang.pl1:1573
Date: 2010-06-10T09:54:25+10:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4c0fa318$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...
| In <4c0f9b82$0$56567$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/09/2010
|   at 11:47 PM, "robin" <robin51@dodo.com.au> said:
|
| >They were a cheap but fast random access mass-storage device,
|
| Not if you compared them to anything used for mass storage.

In the early 1950s, what other random-access mass storage was available?

| >providing the equivalent storage of 256 mercury delay lines
|
| Those were not used for mass storage.

No-one said they were.

That was to provide an idea of their relative capacities.