Linux-Advocacy Digest #764, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
You're stealing my money (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer") (.)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (mlw)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Mike)
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses ("mmnnoo")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Arthur Frain)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Arthur Frain)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: C# (Craig Kelley)
Re: What does IQ measure? (J Sloan)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: You're stealing my money
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:56:10 GMT
It has come to my attention that, in spite of the simple
terms of the EULA below (in the signature line), that
certain people, in replying to my messages, are quoting
my words. Please remember that these words are my
intellectual property, and I have the right of due
recompense for your usage of my words, notwithstanding
that quoting the message can be construed as not
making a copy, but merely a quote; and notwithstanding
that some of my words may convey incorrect opinions that
may be construed as analogous to bugs; however, I insist
that the copying of any of my words be accompanied by
a transmittal of funds to my account in the amount
of US$ 49.99 per message quoted.
Please note that my lawyers will be monitoring
for compliance using a newsgroup filter.
Have a nice day.
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:00:19 GMT
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> Brock Hannibal wrote:
>
> > Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> > > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > > > That would sort of be like saying F=ma is not true
> > > > because you've redefined a to be something other
> > > > than acceleration.
>
> > > Well, the fact is F=ma isn't true if dm/dt != 0 [1].
> > > The assumptions you're making about IQ are in the same
> > > league as assuming that dm/dt can always be ignored,
> > > when in the Real World (tm) it can't be (rockets burning
> > > fuel or space debris hitting the atmosphere for example).
MY DISSERTATION FAILURE
I said it was a glorious day/
When Newton wrote "F = ma"/
Alas, he did not/
He said "F is p-dot"/
And my doctorate drifted away/
.
F = p
Note that p-dot is shorthand for dp/dt. p is momentum, and
thus mass is eliminated from the equation.
You all are the biggest dumb fucks this side of the
Pecos, I swear <grin>.
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:09:14 +1300
> What is mode co80?
A command that changes the screen mode to color, 80 column mode.
In win95, at the 'safe to turn off' screen, dos was still actually
running in the background, at a dos prompt, so you could type mode co80
and get a dos screen after shutting down windows. For windows 98, for
some unknown reason, they killed this.
> You can still both to dos first, and go into windows if you type win, by
> editing a file called msdos.sys (IIRC)
Yep, you can (put BootGUI=0 in MSDOS.SYS), but the original
query/misunderstanding/whatever was whether the mode co80 trick worked on
anything other than Win95.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:11:34 +1300
> How can you tell that a compiler is better if you don't examine the
> machine language produced?
>
> How can you tell which way rearranging your source code will be more
> efficient if you don't examine the resulting machine code?
>
> How can you tell that a high level language is better than another if
> you don't look at the resulting machine code?
>
> You're clutching at straws, or you have a point I'm missing?
Although I mostly agree with your point of view, I would have to say that
there's nothing to stop him profiling the resulting executables. He wont
know for sure that one compiler is better than the other, but he can make
an educated guess about it.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:17:52 +1300
> > Basically all I have said is that anyone who believes blindly in IQ tests
> > is a moron, and needs their head examined.
>
> That's something a stupid person says.
Actually, a stupid person can't ackowledge the fact that they might be
wrong. I regularly score 130-140 in these IQ tests, so you either
believe in them totally, or call me stupid for being open to the fact
that they might not actually indicate what you think (and contradict your
own belief in IQ tests simultaneously).
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:20:26 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > This is a real possibility, right now!!
>
> Where is it? Where? Where?
Take your pick of Linux distributions.
>
> > Imagine most, if not all, office workers in a company using Linux with KDE or
> > Gnome.
>
> Imagine all the bug reports... 8)
Fewer than those that get send to Microsloth.
>
> > Most corporate infrastructures are 100 BaseT networks on a switched backbone.
>
> Ah, there you've got me. Ours is still 10 BaseT. 100 BaseT coming soon!
Perhaps yours, but all of the companies I deal with are upgraded.
>
> > Imagine 25, 100, or 1000s of office workers connected to a central backbone.
>
> Can you imagine the network traffic?
A switched backbone negates most traffic.
>
> > The research department can use the cumulative processing power of these
> > machines to process information.
>
> I'm not sure I'd like a myseterious research group to hijack my machine
> and use it for their purposes!
There is where we disagree. Most office workers don't care, and wouldn't even
notice. As long as the spreadsheet, word processor, and e-mail work, they'd
never know.
>
> > The IT department can use the various clustering and remote access technologies
> > to manage all the machines as a whole or individually.
>
> Ah yes... here we go. Centralised management. That has been tried before.
> I saw it at Digital. They had clusters, they had shared disks... it
> worked, after a fashion.
The tools were quite primitive 10 years ago.
>
> Here's a "rule of thumb" for you.
>
> For every system you introduce to fix problems, the new system brings
> with it it's own set of problems.
Perhaps, but tried and true technology as MPI and the UNIX clustering tools are
pretty well tested.
>
> That's not to say try something new, but... we've swung from individual
> machines, through centralised ones, now individual again, and... where's
> the fashion going now?
huh?
>
> > The possibilities are amazing. We need to break this whole, stupid, DOS
> > mentality that wastes billions of dollars of computing power. Sun has it right,
> > the network "IS' the computer, but more to the point, the corporate
> > infrastructure can be the computer.
>
> If you're talking about making computers be a network device you need one
> thing first. A fast reliable network. That can happen in the office.
Not a "network device" a stand-alone computing node. There is a big difference.
>
> Where it won't happen is in the home. There are _still_ a lot of people
> dialling up with 56k modems. Can you imagine having a diskless machine as
> it tries to download an app across a 56k link? Or maybe you'll try
> running X across such a link? Sluggish, did you say?
Who said ANYTHING about diskless? No one but you. A modem connected unit would
not be part of the cluster, but certainly remote adminstratable.
>
> > Windows computers, for all the bluster from Microsoft, are still no more
> > innovative than the CP/M on which they were based. So what? They play sounds
> > and put up pretty pictures. UNIX can do that and more.
>
> Please! There's a big difference between Windows and CP/M.
The mentality is very similar. A small island onto itself. UNIX the idea has
always been grouping the power of the computers.
>
> As for UNIX being able to do, why aren't they doing it, why aren't they
> the leading force on the desktop?
The reason for that has a lot to do with AT&T, Microsoft's monopoly, etc.
Anyone sufficiently educated with the history of the PC and modern operating
systems could conclude it isn't because Microsoft did anything well.
>
> > Sure there are more "applications" for Windows, but there are few applications
> > available for Windows which do not have an equivalent in the UNIX world, i.e.
> > there are very few innovative applications for Windows.
>
> What's the UNIX equivalent of Corel Draw?
There are several packages, what did you have in mind for particular features?
> Microsoft Word? (Star Office
> is close but not quite there).
Do tell, why isn't Star Office "there" yet? I have been using it over a year,
before that I was using Applix.
Tell me what isn't "there" yet about these packages?
> I'm sorry but the number of desktop
> applications on Windows easily outstrips those on UNIX.
Number, yes, unique to a task, no.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:18:25 -0800
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Arthur Frain wrote:
>>
>> Brock Hannibal wrote:
>>
>> > Arthur Frain wrote:
>>
>> > > Brock Hannibal wrote:
>> > > > That would sort of be like saying F=ma is not true
>> > > > because you've redefined a to be something other
>> > > > than acceleration.
>>
>> > > Well, the fact is F=ma isn't true if dm/dt != 0 [1].
>> > > The assumptions you're making about IQ are in the same
>> > > league as assuming that dm/dt can always be ignored,
>> > > when in the Real World (tm) it can't be (rockets burning
>> > > fuel or space debris hitting the atmosphere for example).
>
>MY DISSERTATION FAILURE
>
>I said it was a glorious day/
>When Newton wrote "F = ma"/
>Alas, he did not/
>He said "F is p-dot"/
>And my doctorate drifted away/
>
> .
>F = p
>
>Note that p-dot is shorthand for dp/dt. p is momentum, and
>thus mass is eliminated from the equation.
>
>You all are the biggest dumb fucks this side of the
>Pecos, I swear <grin>.
>
>Chris
I'm wishing physics cancer with my mind.
Mike
Catch the Monkey! http://www.pat-acceptance.org
See PAT's pedposts! http://www.pat-acceptance.org/Pedposts/pedpost.html
See P-P-P-P-P-PAT THE MOVIE! http://www.pat-acceptance.org/PAT.html
Download P-P-P-P-P-PAT THE MOVIE! http://www.pat-acceptance.org/Pat.exe
What's this DEATHSTAR thingie? http://www.pat-acceptance.org/deathstar/deathstar.html
LAX???!???!!!?? http://www.pat-acceptance.org/lax/laxspin.html
Who's PAT-THETIC??? http://www.pat-acceptance.org/PAT-thetic/spin.html
Who *really* killed Richie? http://www.pat-acceptance.org/richie.html
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:19:15 GMT
No offense, Charlie, but you're starting to scare me a little.
The large numbers of separate posts with links and no
comment.... on another day, ranting... all caps...
and now 'MAFAM's?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is is that everytime the subject of Linux comes up in an office,
> about 25 middle aged fat asses fly into the conversation to profess the
> advocacy of using Windows powered boxes.
>
> Windows boxes are so easy to install. I tried to install Linux and it
> was SOO DIFFICULT! Every PC crashes, so why pick the OS which is
> hardest to install! Oh my!
>
> They are so concerned about install and setup they forgot the REASON
> this BECAME IMPORTANT! It BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE,,,, MIDDDLE AGGGED
> FATTTASS MAN ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME HERE,,,, IT BECAME IMPORTANT
> BECAUSE WINDOWS IS AN UNRELIABLE PEICE OF SHIT OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH
> ISN'T CAPABLE OF UPTIMES EXCEEDING A WEEK! IT'S THE FUCKING OPERATING
> SYSTEM WHICH HAS MADE THIS RE-INSTALLATION ISSUE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO
> YOU!
>
> The next concern MIDDLE AGED FAT ASS MAN has is that Linux doesn't have
> Microsoft Office. MAFAM can't use a computer unless it has his
> favorite! MAFAM, use Star Office or Gnome or KDE office. Use Evolution!
> Do not rely on MAFAM products from Micro-crash anymore.
>
> There must be a device which uses centrifical force or some other means
> which will transfer MAFAM's brain from this lower extremeties back up to
> his cranium where it belongs.
>
> MAFAM also has this terrible difficulty in understanding why it's
> important to know LINUX is ready for business when you refer to the
> largest super computer clusters being built from Linux. MAFAM thinks
> that's GEEK BRAINS STUFF and that doesn't APPLY TO MAFAM WORLD!
>
> Nothing in MAFAM's world needs to have GEEK BRAINS stuff as long as you
> have a GOOD PLAN!
>
> MAFAM lives by the GOOD PLAN philosophy.
>
> See you all on the wide track MAFAM'S!
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:21:24 -0800
Brock Hannibal wrote:
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
> > coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
> > impress a physicist, I'm sure.
> Let's consider a case of a frequency modulated waveform as used in
> FM radio. How correlated is the resultant waveform to either the
> carrier frequency or the frequency of the modulating audio
> information? It's certainly less than 1, wouldn't you say, and yet
> we are able to almost completely separate the mixed waveforms.
Makes no difference what the correlation is because
there's a deterministic (ie causal) relationship
between the audio and the complete waveform. Same as
there's poor correlation between plain text and cipher text
for good encryption methods. So what? Determinism works?
I already knew that - it's the inverse of the point I'm
making.
Let me give you a simple example: assume the correlation
between IQ and marital stability is .4. This proves
what? It proves the correlation is .4 - nothing more
and nothing less, unless you have some model that
describes how IQ is a factor that determines (causes)
marital stability (beyond specious idle speculation
about how "smart people" might behave). You have no
mechanism for demodulating the audio (marital stability)
from the carrier (IQ score), so for practical purposes
you have nothing but noise. It's not evidence of anything.
Even if it's 1.0, it still proves nothing without some
basis in causation.
Children with big feet are better spellers - the correlation
between foot size and spelling accuracy is probably at least
.8 or .9. Do you know why?
> It's obvious your understanding of the uses of correlation is
> extremely lacking.
Could be, but my ignorance doesn't validate your argument.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:21:36 -0800
Brock Hannibal wrote:
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > > Arthur Frain wrote:
> > > > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > > > > That would sort of be like saying F=ma is not true
> > > > > because you've redefined a to be something other
> > > > > than acceleration.
> > > > Well, the fact is F=ma isn't true if dm/dt != 0 [1].
> > > > The assumptions you're making about IQ are in the same
> > > > league as assuming that dm/dt can always be ignored,
> > > > when in the Real World (tm) it can't be (rockets burning
> > > > fuel or space debris hitting the atmosphere for example).
> > > That's dodging the analogy you stupid fucking idiot.
> >
> > Nah, it's just demonstrating the analogy is flawed.
> No it's arguing about something that has nothing to do with the
> analogy.
Hey - you're catching on. When you reach the point where
you realize that what I mostly did was offer a different
analogy I'll be really impressed.
> > > If you redefine any term in an equation the equation loses
> > > validity as you take great lengths to show later.
> >
> > But I'm not redefining terms - dp/dt is *the* definition
> > of F. F = ma is a special case of that, where someone has
> > assumed/defined dm/dt = 0.
> >
> > > If you redefine mass as a changing amount instead of a
> > > constant F=ma does not apply. My analogy works with that
> > > too, you arrogant twit.
> >
> > If your analogy works, then you really are arguing about nothing.
> No, YOU were arguing about a nit and choosing to ignore or actually
> missing the real point of the analogy.
Choosing to ignore. But I don't think it's a nit - yours
was a poor analogy because it ignores the fact that there
are significant situations where F != ma, without changing
the definition of 'a'. Use Ohm's Law next time - it works
better, even under relativistic conditions.
> > > I think you are very confused. At any instant in time F=ma always
> > > holds.
> > Nope - F = ma only holds if dm/dt = 0 and dv/dt != 0 - if velocity
> > isn't changing there is no 'a', but there could be an F due to
> > dm.
> > The math is pretty simple. Bonus points for examples - I can
> > think of at least two.
> I can think of a lot of examples but you've missed the whole point
> which was about changing the meaning of an equation by redefining
> the variables or defining constants as variables.
Well, I liked my point better.
> I am sorry that my lack of the correct fonts and little hat symbols
> is confusing you. I thought mentioning the vector equation would
> clue you in. They didn't cover vector calculus at your high school
> evidently.
Perhaps - I just thought you were impressed by the
word "vector".
> I was writing the same equation as you.
Does that mean I was right all along?
> > > No I don't think so. It too loses validity
> > > at near light speed, another condition that's unrealizable in your
> > > Real World, dumbfuck.
> > Gee, that must be why Newtonian mechanics is so successful
> > at describing atomic level kinetics.
> Well, it's not. Quantum mechanics is much better. Consider how you
> calculate the energy level of an electron and its distance from the
> center of the atom. Since it does not vary in a continuous manner
> but in discrete steps the same calculus you use in Newtonian
> mechanics is useless.
> > Oh, sorry, nuclear
> > physics must not be part of the Real World (tm).
> Only in your weird view of the "Real World." In nuclear physics the
> newtonian axiom of conservation of mass no longer holds, because
> some mass is converted directly to energy.
I'll add <sarcasm> tags next time. But it does seem
you changed your position as to what conditions are
"unrealizable" in the Real World (tm).
Nice to see your Tourette's syndrome in remission.
Arthur
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:02:46 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> >
> > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> >
> > > Arthur Frain wrote:
> >
> > > > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > > > > That would sort of be like saying F=ma is not true
> > > > > because you've redefined a to be something other
> > > > > than acceleration.
> >
> > > > Well, the fact is F=ma isn't true if dm/dt != 0 [1].
> > > > The assumptions you're making about IQ are in the same
> > > > league as assuming that dm/dt can always be ignored,
> > > > when in the Real World (tm) it can't be (rockets burning
> > > > fuel or space debris hitting the atmosphere for example).
>
> MY DISSERTATION FAILURE
>
> I said it was a glorious day/
> When Newton wrote "F = ma"/
> Alas, he did not/
> He said "F is p-dot"/
> And my doctorate drifted away/
>
> .
> F = p
>
> Note that p-dot is shorthand for dp/dt. p is momentum, and
> thus mass is eliminated from the equation.
>
> You all are the biggest dumb fucks this side of the
> Pecos, I swear <grin>.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
What constitutes an illegal copy of a message like yours that is
copied to a bunch of different servers by the very nature of posting
to usenet? Dumbfuck. <grin>
What a bunch of dumbfucks we are for realizing that momentum = mass
times velocity. Notice that my statement does not disallow either
changes in mass or changes in velocity over time, and applies at a
particular moment in time. so actually p dot is just shorthand for
d(mv)/dt which is the product of the partials dm/dt times dv/dt(I
can't turn on the greek letters in this tool) and since in most
situations mass doesn't change or doesn't change rapidly enough to
make any difference then F=m(dv/dt) and since a = dv/dt then F=ma.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:18:17 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> Brock Hannibal wrote:
>
> > Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> > > Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
> > > coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
> > > impress a physicist, I'm sure.
>
> > Let's consider a case of a frequency modulated waveform as used in
> > FM radio. How correlated is the resultant waveform to either the
> > carrier frequency or the frequency of the modulating audio
> > information? It's certainly less than 1, wouldn't you say, and yet
> > we are able to almost completely separate the mixed waveforms.
>
> Makes no difference what the correlation is because
> there's a deterministic (ie causal) relationship
> between the audio and the complete waveform. Same as
> there's poor correlation between plain text and cipher text
> for good encryption methods. So what? Determinism works?
> I already knew that - it's the inverse of the point I'm
> making.
If the correlation was zero we could not separate the waveforms.
> Let me give you a simple example: assume the correlation
> between IQ and marital stability is .4. This proves
> what? It proves the correlation is .4 - nothing more
> and nothing less, unless you have some model that
> describes how IQ is a factor that determines (causes)
> marital stability (beyond specious idle speculation
> about how "smart people" might behave).
It certainly gives me something to investigate, as to causality, and
when I see a whole bunch of good actions and outcomes that are
positively correlated to high IQ and a whole bunch of bad actions
and outcomes that are correlated to low IQ, it is pretty good
evidence that IQ is measuring something beyond test taking ability.
For instance the correlation between scoring less than 50 on IQ
tests and requiring care 24 of 7 is very close to one.
> You have no
> mechanism for demodulating the audio (marital stability)
> from the carrier (IQ score), so for practical purposes
> you have nothing but noise.
There is correlated noise and random noise. We use correlation to
investigate the non-random noise to see if it is signal.
> It's not evidence of anything.
It's evidence(weak at this stage) that their MIGHT be a causal
relationship between marital stability and intelligence.
> Even if it's 1.0, it still proves nothing without some
> basis in causation.
Correlation studies often turn up causes. Correlation gives you some
place to start looking for causation.
> Children with big feet are better spellers - the correlation
> between foot size and spelling accuracy is probably at least
> .8 or .9. Do you know why?
They're older and thus in a higher grade level. So the correlation
gave us a reason to go look for the cause.
> > It's obvious your understanding of the uses of correlation is
> > extremely lacking.
>
> Could be, but my ignorance doesn't validate your argument.
Which is? That a lot of correlations of positive things to high IQ
tests make me think that IQ tests measure something real, like, say,
intelligence and are at least good evidence of it.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: 11 Mar 2001 18:39:29 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What are you using to execute your java applications?
> >
> > A Java virtual machine with JIT compiling.
>
> And a yugo with a JATO unit is still a yugo, designed to be a yugo, and
> grossly inefficient as high speed vehicle.
So?
> The language was not designed with JIT in mind.
Pardon me? Was C++ designed to run Windows?
No.
> > Why do you think Microsoft wants to copy this cool technology?
>
> Uhh.. JITing has been around since the 70's. Ever heard of a language
> called SmallTalk? That's the way .NET works, rather than the way Java (even
> with JIT) works.
And here I thought .NET was just a SOAP implementation...
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a PCI slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:42:07 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> MY DISSERTATION FAILURE
>
> I said it was a glorious day/
> When Newton wrote "F = ma"/
> Alas, he did not/
> He said "F is p-dot"/
> And my doctorate drifted away/
>
> .
> F = p
Excellent observation!
Most techs forget their math/science after a few years....
jjs
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:23:17 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
"." wrote:
>
> > > Picking questions with only one correct answer doesn't even start to deal
> > > with the point I was making.
> >
> > Oh, so your dealing with problems that don't have a best solution
> > then. I see. Well if they don't have a best solution what makes you
> > think you can determine which of several solutions is a "better"
> > solution?
>
> Problem with a 'best' solution != problem with only one solution.
> The use of the word 'best' may be misleading... all we know for sure is
> that the smarter person is more likely to choose a better solution if
> it's available. It's always possible there is an even better solution,
> sometimes due to advances in technology or research.
>
> > Whatever. Sounds to me like you haven't thought through the
> > consequences of your off the cuff statements.
>
> By all means, make me aware of these consequences I have missed.
>
> Basically all I have said is that anyone who believes blindly in IQ tests
> is a moron, and needs their head examined.
Oh, I see. Hmmm. A major back-pedal by adding the word "blindly."
OK, you can be granted your new statement. It's certainly true that
believing "blindly" in anything is stupid. For instance, believing
"blindly" that IQ tests are not measuring cognitive ability.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:43:41 GMT
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:43:08 GMT, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>LShaping wrote:
>> And so can buying a better compiler, and so can rearranging your
>> source code, and so can using a better high level language.
>
> How can you tell that a compiler is better if you don't examine the
> machine language produced?
Why, you ask the salesman of course!
> How can you tell which way rearranging your source code will be more
> efficient if you don't examine the resulting machine code?
You try things at random until it seems to go faster. Then you whine
about your 60-hour work weeks and "not having enough time".
> How can you tell that a high level language is better than another if
> you don't look at the resulting machine code?
Ask the salesman again!
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
