Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
At 05:10 PM Saturday 5/6/2006, The Fool wrote: [snipped] Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions like the truth or rational thinking and behavior) that you are _for_? --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions like the truth or rational thinking and behavior) that you are _for_? I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions like the truth or rational thinking and behavior) that you are _for_? I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism. *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief? There's a difference between atheism and antitheism. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
Charlie Bell escreveu: I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism. *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief? By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc] exists. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
On 07/05/2006, at 10:05 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell escreveu: I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism. *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief? By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc] exists. So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist, there's no scripture or dogma. It might be a belief, it might even be strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
Charlie Bell wrote: *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief? By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc] exists. So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist, there's no scripture or dogma. Yes, there are. Das Kapital and the dogma that there ain't no such thing as a Dog. It might be a belief, it might even be strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief. No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all religions put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6 months ago. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
Alberto wrote: It might be a belief, it might even be strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief. No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all religions put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6 months ago. Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though? Atheism != Communism. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
On 07/05/2006, at 10:40 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief? By rejecting any possibility that God [or gods, or The Devil, etc] exists. So? Non-belief in the supernatural can't be fundamentalist, there's no scripture or dogma. Yes, there are. Das Kapital and the dogma that there ain't no such thing as a Dog. Still no. Lack of belief in x does not equal belief in not x. Active disbelief in a god or gods is a belief, but it's not dogma. It might be a belief, it might even be strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief. No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all religions put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6 months ago. I've seen that argued before, and it's bunk. It's not the atheism that killed people, it's the psychopaths in charge. In fact, the USSR was not officially atheist at all. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs (was: Blog entry with interesting comment)
Ten or fifteen years ago, I gave Kiersey style Myers-Briggs tests to dozen people I knew. And anecdotal evidince has what value in science? Well, you need not pay any attention to my report. My experience was that when I gave a test to a dozen people, I found that a bit more than half the results matched the categories into which I fit people in other ways. Moreover, since I myself did the experiment and followed the reasoning, I had an internal experience that I found convincing to myself. Guardians of birthdays, holidays and celebrations, Virgo's are generous entertainers. They enjoy and joyfully observe traditions and are liberal in giving, especially where custom prescribes. All else being equal, Virgo's enjoy being in charge. They see problems clearly and delegate easily, work hard and play with zest. Virgo's, bear strong allegiance to rights of seniority. They willingly provide service (which embodies life's meaning) and expect the same from others. vrs Pices's are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them. Precise about their descriptions, Pices's will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off. While annoying to the less concise, this fine discrimination ability gives Pices's so inclined a natural advantage as, for example, grammarians and linguists. Reads like an astrology collumn in the newspaper. Doesn't to me, unless of course, you pay attention to the names (like Pices and Virgo). To me, Forer's text as given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect sounds much more like an astrology column. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
On 07/05/2006, at 10:49 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Alberto wrote: It might be a belief, it might even be strident and loudly held, but it's a slightly different class of belief. No, it's not, and this belief may have killed more people than all religions put together - you missed this same discussion we had here about 6 months ago. Wern't those people killed in the name of communism though? Atheism != Communism. Indeed. It wouldn't have made a difference whether the lunatics in charge believed in the Easter Bunny - they believed in planned economies under police states and THAT'S what killed people. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
Charlie Bell wrote: On 07/05/2006, at 3:37 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Fool, I'm just curious. Most of the articles you post are ones claiming that there are problems with this, that, and the other. Can you give us some examples of something concrete (not abstractions like the truth or rational thinking and behavior) that you are _for_? I'm no Fool, but he admires Windows 2000 and NTFS. I also think he admires one religion, fundamentalist atheism. *wry smile* How can one be fundamentalist to a lack of belief? There's a difference between atheism and antitheism. I think militant atheism is a better description of the philosophy apparently espoused by The Fool. There is no text from which to be fundamentalist for atheism, as far as I know. Militant is a reasonably accurate adjective to denote the passion with which this philosophy appears to be held. If anyone is going to be militant regarding religious attitude, I would prefer to engage in debate with a militant agnostic above all other militants, personally. (I don't know and you don't either! You're right, I don't know. Let's go have some lemonade together, OK? Unless you're allergic to citrus or something.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: I think militant atheism is a better description of the philosophy apparently espoused by The Fool. Certainly is. There is no text from which to be fundamentalist for atheism, as far as I know. Militant is a reasonably accurate adjective to denote the passion with which this philosophy appears to be held. Precisely. If anyone is going to be militant regarding religious attitude, I would prefer to engage in debate with a militant agnostic above all other militants, personally. (I don't know and you don't either! You're right, I don't know. Let's go have some lemonade together, OK? Unless you're allergic to citrus or something.) *chuckle* Of course it's possible to be both agnostic and atheist - to accept that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, while believing that there isn't one. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Myers-Briggs
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 3:57 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs On 07/05/2006, at 11:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: I think militant atheism is a better description of the philosophy apparently espoused by The Fool. Certainly is. There is no text from which to be fundamentalist for atheism, as far as I know. Militant is a reasonably accurate adjective to denote the passion with which this philosophy appears to be held. Precisely. If anyone is going to be militant regarding religious attitude, I would prefer to engage in debate with a militant agnostic above all other militants, personally. (I don't know and you don't either! You're right, I don't know. Let's go have some lemonade together, OK? Unless you're allergic to citrus or something.) *chuckle* Of course it's possible to be both agnostic and atheist - to accept that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, while believing that there isn't one. Well, then it's clearly possible to be an agnostic Christian by that definition. A significant fraction of Christians would be agnostics, by your definition...including me. Even our pastor, who is fairly Evangelical, agrees that there is no proof of the existence of God. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Myers-Briggs
On 08/05/2006, at 12:28 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Well, then it's clearly possible to be an agnostic Christian by that definition. A significant fraction of Christians would be agnostics, by your definition...including me. Even our pastor, who is fairly Evangelical, agrees that there is no proof of the existence of God. Certainly is possible. Huxley coined the term, and while it has come to mean not really sure or believe there's sort of something, it's originally the position that the true nature and existence of the deity is unknowable and unprovable. It's separating what we can know from what we believe. It's probably the only honest philosophy to have if you're a scientist. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: BASIC
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/05/age-of-miracles-wonder.html
Only now it's insufficient. We'd like to make pixels move around on a
simulated CRT screen. And we DON'T want to do it using high-level
complex stuff like VISUAL BASIC. Old fashioned line coding, iterating
to move pixels according to simple algorithms. Is that too much to ask?
(Apparently so. In fact, the number of peopls who (last time) simply
could not even grasp what I was looking for, and kept recommending
complex, high-level stuff, shows what a mental block this is.)
--
I don't get it. QBasic came standard with MS-DOS 5-7. It runs in dos
mode (even in all versions of windows). It does every single thing you
keep asking for, but you keep saying it is incomprehensible. I just
don't get it.
So I just opened it right now and typed:
screen 12
line(0,0)-(10,10)
and hit run.
And guess what happened?
It drew a line from (0,0) to (10,10)
Simple. No high level stuff whatsoever. It Even does line numbers.
When you use the basic PRINT command it, gosh, prints to the screen. I
just dont get it.
When I open up some BASIC programs I wrote in the seventh grade like
this, they just worked:
RANDOMIZE TIMER
SCREEN 12
CLS
CLEAR
WHILE XCBVB 12
'APOCOS1:
X1 = INT(RND * 640 + 1)
Y1 = INT(RND * 480 + 1)
FOR V = 1 TO (INT(RND * 25 + 5))
GOTO A
C:
C1 = INT(RND * 15)
RETURN
A:
'FOR 3D Z1 = INT(RND * 400 + 1)
A1 = INT(RND * 20 + 20)
FOR I = 1 TO A1
GOSUB C
CIRCLE (X1, Y1), I, C1
PAINT (X1, Y1), 0, C1 + 1
NEXT I
NEXT V
WEND
Nothing there that wasn't in apple basic or gwbasic except the line
numbers. Real simple.
Or how about this one (being aware of line wrap around issues from
pasting into an email body):
CLS
CLEAR
RANDOMIZE TIMER
SCREEN 12
WINDOW SCREEN (-200, -200)-(440, 280)
Q: INPUT rotate in XZ or YZ {X,Y}; IN$
DIM R(3, 3)
DIM Z(3, 3)
IF IN$ = X THEN GOTO 1
IF IN$ = Y THEN GOTO 2
GOTO Q
1 :
X = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN X = -X
Y = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN Y = -Y
X1 = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN X1 = -X1
Y1 = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN Y1 = -Y1
Z = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN Z = -Z
Z1 = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN Z1 = -Z1
'CLEAR
X5 = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN X5 = -X5
Y5 = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN Y5 = -Y5
Z5 = INT(RND * 100)
Q = INT(RND * 2 + 1)
IF Q = 2 THEN Z5 = -Z5
FOR I = 0 TO 6.3 STEP .002
C = INT(RND * 15 + 1)
LINE (Z(1, 1) + Z(3, 1) / 10, Z(2, 1) + Z(3, 1)
/ 2.5)-(Z(1, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 10, Z(2, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 2.5), 0
LINE (Z(1, 1) + Z(3, 1) / 10, Z(2, 1) + Z(3, 1)
/ 2.5)-(Z(1, 3) + Z(3, 3) / 10, Z(2, 3) + Z(3, 3) / 2.5), 0
LINE (Z(1, 3) + Z(3, 3) / 10, Z(2, 3) + Z(3, 3)
/ 2.5)-(Z(1, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 10, Z(2, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 2.5), 0
R(1, 1) = (COS(I))
R(1, 2) = (COS(I))
R(1, 3) = (-SIN(I))
R(2, 1) = (COS(I))
R(2, 2) = (SIN(I))
R(2, 3) = (COS(I))
R(3, 1) = (SIN(I))
R(3, 2) = (COS(I))
R(3, 3) = (COS(I))
Z(1, 1) = (R(1, 1) * X + R(1, 2) * Y + R(1, 3) * Z)
Z(1, 2) = (R(1, 1) * X1 + R(1, 2) * Y1 + R(1, 3) *
Z1)
Z(2, 1) = (R(2, 1) * X + R(2, 2) * Y + R(2, 3) * Z)
Z(2, 2) = (R(2, 1) * X1 + R(2, 2) * Y1 + R(2, 3) *
Z1)
Z(3, 1) = (R(3, 1) * X + R(3, 2) * Y + R(3, 3) * Z)
Z(3, 2) = (R(3, 1) * X1 + R(3, 2) * Y1 + R(3, 3) *
Z1)
Z(1, 3) = (R(1, 1) * X5 + R(1, 2) * Y5 + R(1, 3) *
Z5)
Z(2, 3) = (R(1, 1) * X5 + R(1, 2) * Y5 + R(1, 3) *
Z5)
Z(3, 3) = (R(1, 1) * X5 + R(1, 2) * Y5 + R(1, 3) *
Z5)
'IF ABS(SQR(Z(3, 1) ^ 2 + Z(3, 2) ^ 2)) 50 THEN LET C = 13 ELSE C = 4
LINE (Z(1, 1) + Z(3, 1) / 10, Z(2, 1) + Z(3, 1)
/ 2.5)-(Z(1, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 10, Z(2, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 2.5), C
LINE (Z(1, 1) + Z(3, 1) / 10, Z(2, 1) + Z(3, 1)
/ 2.5)-(Z(1, 3) + Z(3, 3) / 10, Z(2, 3) + Z(3, 3) / 2.5), C
LINE (Z(1, 3) + Z(3, 3) / 10, Z(2, 3) + Z(3, 3)
/ 2.5)-(Z(1, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 10, Z(2, 2) + Z(3, 2) / 2.5), C
LET A = (SQR((Z(1, 2) - Z(1, 1)) ^ 2 + (Z(2, 2) - Z(2, 1)) ^ 2 + (Z(3,
2) - Z(3, 1)) ^ 2))
LET B = (SQR((Z(1, 3) - Z(1, 1)) ^ 2 + (Z(2, 3) - Z(2, 1)) ^ 2 + (Z(3,
3) - Z(3, 1)) ^ 2))
LET C = (SQR((Z(1, 2) - Z(1, 3)) ^ 2 + (Z(2, 2) - Z(2, 3)) ^ 2 + (Z(3,
2) - Z(3, 3)) ^ 2))
VIEW PRINT 27 TO 30
LOCATE 27, 1
PRINT A
PRINT B
PRINT C
NEXT I
GOTO Q
2 :
X = INT(RND * 100)
Y = INT(RND * 100)
X1 = INT(RND *
Re: Brin: BASIC
Easy stuff first. I'm an OSX wonk and have been a while -- I participated in the public beta, back before the century turned, when my PowerBook, on its first load of the nascent OS, ran through a series of UNIX (actually Darwin, which is Apple's version of FreeBSD, which is technically not UNIX) style command-line load instructions before presenting me with a UI I'd seen in sccreenshots, but never actually hacked before. It was definitely not pre-X Mac, and it definitely needed work. If you think X.4 is quirky, you should have seen the first version. Oy. So if you need help there, let me know what with. As to the BASIC question: I'll shoot you a counter-question: Why? Assembly is the ultimate line-by-line language, but it's not necessarily the best instruction base for showing a kid how to do things onscreen. If you want to explore that direction, using line code without the benefit of an IDE, consider exploring JavaScript. It gives you the OOP the modern era expects along with options for linear execution, and best of all it runs in a browser layer. (That's best, because it means you can't accidentally include instructions that will, say, format the drive.) It's also eminently portable. The syntax is funky but it follows the C model, which is used by Java, Perl (somewhat) and of course C++. Also, JS is the script engine of choice for Flash, which is (sigh) considered the pre-eminent core to use for multimedia online games, apps and so on. Wanting to work in BASIC to show a kid how to hack code seems a little like trying to introduce a twelve-year-old to the wonders of having a ham radio license by insisting he learn Morse code. Start with world radio, then get him hooked on speaking by voice to human beings on the other side of the planet (unless he has an Xbox), then work *backward* to the understructure. It makes more sense pedagogically to begin with the fun light stuff and work into details as the student requests them. Put another way, if an eight-year-old came to you with a story he'd just written, would you lecture him on syntax and spelling errors, or would you rather praise his imagination and willingness to try at all? BASIC is not necessarily the best beginning for a computer engineering career. The fact is that code is written on a much more abstract level now, one which blurs the line between (for instance) graphics and interpreter commands. In your novel _Earth_ you don't make the ludicrous suggestion that sophisticated avatars are running commands such as 10 seek news; 20 goto 10. They will exist, but they won't be made on the linear programming level; they will be aggregates of pre-assembled, generic objects. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: BASIC
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] As to the BASIC question: I'll shoot you a counter-question: Why? snip JavaSh!t and high level programming Dr. Brin isn't interested in that high level stuff. Too complicated. Not simple enough. Don't bring it up again or he'll start getting, really, really, really whiny (again). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: BASIC
I'll ignore the ad hominem, but point out that OOP frameworks rock tha' hizzouse. That's why I wrote a 500+ page book on the topic for Osborne/McGraw-Hill, after all. On May 7, 2006, at 5:54 PM, The Fool wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] As to the BASIC question: I'll shoot you a counter-question: Why? snip JavaSh!t and high level programming -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Xbox 360
OK, I've had to grudgingly admit there's one MS product that doesn't suck. Since February I've been dabbling in the Dark Side in the form of (1) an original Xbox bought at the request of my surrogate son; and (2) a 360 upgraded to when I had the chance. Damn me, I actually like it. I have to shower each time I do it, but still I come back. I hate marketing, especially when it pushes useless crap on people who need the money to, oh, I don't know, eat maybe, but there's something more than a little addictive to the reality of racing live onscreen with other humans halfway across Earth, and listening to them as they talk and talking with them, and then learning they want to invite you to some other game. I'm not lonesome or anything, but you know, this is pretty fun. Just this weekend I got friends online by doing Halo 2, PGR3 *and* Blazing Angels, all in one night. (Friends being parlance meaning OK to play with -- real human friendships are based in a lot more than game theory. Right?) Actually in BA I chose a Spitfire based on the recommendations of a Cockney eight-year-old or so who was wrong, ultimately, but quite authoritative. I switched eventually to a Corsair and spent most of the game time in blackout as I over-gee'd the stick. Sigh. Spitfire too little, Corsair too much. Something tweenish next time. FWIW my gamertag is mamaEffword. Who else out there has a 360, and do you want to come and play? Now you know whom to address. ;) FWIW, I suck at Halo 2. And, in fact, at all of the games I listed. But that's OK. I suck, but still enjoy playing, and meeting people online, and all the social stuff that -- hey, wonder -- has made the whole Xbox thing a force with which to be, genuinely, reckoned. Jump In is exactly the right tag and attitude for the Xbox 360 commercial team to adopt. And, what's made the system palatable to me, it's very hard to find the Microsoft logo on any part of it. It's there, but it's small and very subtle. If Windows was marketed with this level of finesse, maybe MS would see itself being less generally hated. See? Grudging. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Xbox 360
Actually in BA I chose a Spitfire based on the recommendations of a Cockney eight-year-old or so who was wrong, ultimately, but quite authoritative. I switched eventually to a Corsair and spent most of the game time in blackout as I over-gee'd the stick. Sigh. Spitfire too little, Corsair too much. Something tweenish next time. FW-190A-8 is the magic answer. Small, fairly fast, maneuverable, and armed with FOUR 20mm cannons and a pair of 13mm machine guns...*drool* Note that I am utterly unfamiliar with the game. Mainly speaking from RW knowledge... Of course, I'd want to fly a Regia Aeronautica bf.109G just because I'm a stickler for the underdog... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: EE's BRDM-1 Recce Vehicle -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.4/332 - Release Date: 5/4/2006 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: BASIC
Also, in re Paul Simon. I think _Graceland_ is probably his best work ever. Lasers in the jungle, yes … but his human touch was and is astonishing. The Mississippi Delta was shining like a National guitar … I am following the highway to the cradle of the Civil War is a fantastic entrant verse to a profoundly sweet and intense ballad of self-discovery, combined with a terse mix of language, poetry and lyric that is, in this world of niggas with AKs, sorely hard to find. I can't say for sure, but I bet Huey Freeman would agree. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Xbox 360
On May 7, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: Actually in BA I chose a Spitfire based on the recommendations of a Cockney eight-year-old or so who was wrong, ultimately, but quite authoritative. I switched eventually to a Corsair and spent most of the game time in blackout as I over-gee'd the stick. Sigh. Spitfire too little, Corsair too much. Something tweenish next time. FW-190A-8 is the magic answer. Small, fairly fast, maneuverable, and armed with FOUR 20mm cannons and a pair of 13mm machine guns...*drool* Note that I am utterly unfamiliar with the game. Mainly speaking from RW knowledge... Of course, I'd want to fly a Regia Aeronautica bf.109G just because I'm a stickler for the underdog... I *think* the Focke-Wulf 190 is an option but I don't know if it can get that specific. An interesting idea, though. One of the things the US learned in the Cold War era was that the Soviet MiGs flew like bricks, but had the best guns ANYWHERE. Sometimes maneuverability isn't as important as flying a big fat cannon. I know the FW was fast and light, not as heavy as the ME-109 -- the idea of using one never hit me. Hmm. Armor vs. … hmm. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Xbox 360
On May 7, 2006, at 8:06 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: snip a bit of self-loathing over liking the Xbox (Friends being parlance meaning OK to play with -- real human friendships are based in a lot more than game theory. Right?) Based on some of the threads around here lately, I think there are some who would not accept the existence of friendship without a double-blind test. Dave Land Blinded By Science Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Xbox 360
Yeah, well, fuck 'em. On May 7, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Dave Land wrote: Based on some of the threads around here lately, I think there are some who would not accept the existence of friendship without a double-blind test. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Xbox 360
Not without scientific proof that they are, in fact, my friends. On May 7, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Yeah, well, fuck 'em. On May 7, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Dave Land wrote: Based on some of the threads around here lately, I think there are some who would not accept the existence of friendship without a double-blind test. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Xbox 360
Or, at least, spermicidal condoms. ;) On May 7, 2006, at 10:36 PM, Dave Land wrote: Not without scientific proof that they are, in fact, my friends. On May 7, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Yeah, well, fuck 'em. On May 7, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Dave Land wrote: Based on some of the threads around here lately, I think there are some who would not accept the existence of friendship without a double-blind test. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
