Re: Br!n: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps there's a 'How things ought to work' collory to the 'Golden age' meme. In my experience, oughts, shoulds and their ilk are the seeds of resentment. I guess we agree on this. Actually I was mostly just trying to criticize his remarks about how Mr. Gates is taking away the ability of future entrepreneurs to do what Mr. Gates himself did (Qbasic shipped windows with up till win98SE), which is the same kind of argument as the 'golden age' meme. Not sure I caught that in the thread, but I do think Microsoft has been predatory for quite a while now. But Bill's orientation has always been to package innovation (anyone's) to maximize market share -- he's never thought of that as predatory. He's got a blind spot there, in my experience, so I think David has it right. Well He said: My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing of any programming language from personal computers. I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON! It has taken 2 years, and I hope to get an old pentium machine soon with DOS 6.2 and BASIC aboard, so I can teach him the fundamentals of moving a dot via a simple algorithm. Silently, unnoticed, this has happened and a new generation will be able to make web pages and fancy Flash digitals... but without any grasp of the line coding underneath. And: I think you all miss the point. I have dozens of old books with simple BASIC programs in them that tell the computer to compute or to move a dot in ways that show the vital importance of a simple algorithm at creating what appears on the screen. If I had BASIC I could sit with my son and type in these examples and swiftly establish a sense of power at the gut level of the machine. Most of the languages you mention are much higher level. Some involve GUI drag and drop methods that bear NO relation to what I'm talking about. Certainly none of them enable a dad to use the mountains of past experience sitting right here on our shelves. Thanks. But the only hope I seem to have is if this guy I know gets around to giving us an old machine with DOS aboard. Utterly pathetic. And: 1. I already know BASIC, so sitting with my son with BASIC would be a straightforward thing. Any reasonable man would expect to be allowed/able to do so. 2. I am awash in books that offer simple line-by-line tutorial programs. 3. All the rich guys at Microsoft got there via a path that they have now closed to another generation. It is insane that ANYONE should have to go hunting and downloading in order to do simple things that anyone with a PC could do ten years ago. I shall probably hunt/download python sometime... and I deeply resent that I must at my age learn a new language that will be obsolete in no time, just to replicate WHAT ALREADY EXISTED VASTLY MORE CONVENIENTLY. Again, this has been a 2 year search. If you do not see the irony and frustration, please do not ridicule me for seeing it. And: But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and all the others, I do not expect much success. All were created by techies who suffer from techie-disease... an absolute assumption that everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly and miraculously know how to use it. The manuals are gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple place to write line by line code and simply typr run. ... Thanks also for that. But I did try to explain my frustration. I already know BASIC. I have books. I have a zillion sample programs that are EXACTLY what I want to teach. Logo looks nice but I do not have the time to learn another language and it definitely looks higher than the algorithm-based level that I have wanted to show to my son. I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z. I want to move a DOT using a simple mathematicall algorithm. I have examples in books. Why can I not show this to my son? It is EXACTLY what Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Wozniak did. Maybe that's why they have ensured that no one else can. All before I said a word. Then he continues with: In fact, I simply wanted to show my son the relationship between math and the location of the myriad dots on a computer screen. By letting HIM create a program that uses an algorithm to achieve results, I hope to demystify computers and coding and show that it all comes down to lines of code. You may choose to interpret this as the past is better. But since, as you say, this is diametrically opposite to my philosophy, an honorable approach might have been to take that interpretation and contemplate the wise words: I might be mistaken. And: The goal of teaching my children the relationship between mathematical algorithms and effects upon a screen would seem eminently desireable and obvious. So obvious that I find it hilarious that you assume your lack of comprehension is MY problem. Never considering the possibility that it is yours. As for QBasic, I
Re: Br!n: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing of any programming language from personal computers. Heck, I work with guys who lament the silent, unnoticed vanishing of assembly from personal computers. 1. I already know BASIC, so sitting with my son with BASIC would be a straightforward thing. Any reasonable man would expect to be allowed/able to do so. Is this the father-son bonding of the future? No more cute, fuzzy animals or fish need to die in order for a man and his child to share a moment of communion! 2. I am awash in books that offer simple line-by-line tutorial programs. Half-Price Books ;) But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and all the others, I do not expect much success. All were created by techies who suffer from techie-disease... an absolute assumption that everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly and miraculously know how to use it. The manuals are gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple place to write line by line code and simply typr run. I haven't been following this, but what about Perl? As a person who learned BASIC and C and whatnot (and did a few tutorials in assembly and Cobol, Just Because) its a joyfully dexterous language. -k- __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
How statisticians amuse themselves
It is rare to find such a thorough debunking of another statistician's report in an official document. Dr. Lott is thoroughly exposed as a lying, incompetent, partisan boob. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/appendix/app10.htm This was not the first time Dr. Lott has been exposed. His book More Guns, Less Crime immediately made him a darling of the GOP right and earns him a lucretive position on one of those tax-free conservative think tanks. The problem is that analysis has been debunked several times and Lott, after changing his story several times over the years, can now can produce no survey data, or even evidence that a survey even took place, to support his main claims. http://slate.msn.com/id/2078084/ He was also exposed by a fellow conservative and blogger for creating a female online persona to fawn admiration on himself and swiftly attack any criticism of his work. And then exposed as either writing or having his 13-year old son write a glowing review of his book. http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/02/04/16500296;mode=nested The reward for this dishonesty and incompetence? A prominent place as a leading conservative commentator. http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm However, how nerdy is it I find amusement in reading about faulty SPSS models? Probably about as nerdy as my fascination with Who is the sexiest female sci-fi character of all time? http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30500-13185278,00.html Gary -- #2 on google for liberal news I don't try harder ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How statisticians amuse themselves
At 02:10 PM Saturday 8/14/04, Gary Denton wrote: It is rare to find such a thorough debunking of another statistician's report in an official document. Dr. Lott is thoroughly exposed as a lying, incompetent, partisan boob. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/appendix/app10.htm This was not the first time Dr. Lott has been exposed. His book More Guns, Less Crime immediately made him a darling of the GOP right and earns him a lucretive position on one of those tax-free conservative think tanks. The problem is that analysis has been debunked several times and Lott, after changing his story several times over the years, can now can produce no survey data, or even evidence that a survey even took place, to support his main claims. http://slate.msn.com/id/2078084/ He was also exposed by a fellow conservative and blogger for creating a female online persona to fawn admiration on himself and swiftly attack any criticism of his work. And then exposed as either writing or having his 13-year old son write a glowing review of his book. http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=03/02/04/16500296;mode=nested The reward for this dishonesty and incompetence? A prominent place as a leading conservative commentator. http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm However, how nerdy is it I find amusement in reading about faulty SPSS models? Isn't the whole point of SPSS and similar packages to create reams of impressive-looking computer printouts to hide the fact that either the data or the reasoning (or both) can't stand up to scrutiny, so you bury them under all that output? -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How statisticians amuse themselves
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't the whole point of SPSS and similar packages to create reams of impressive-looking computer printouts to hide the fact that either the data or the reasoning (or both) can't stand up to scrutiny, so you bury them under all that output? S. As a management consultant _and_ a political scientist, I think I'm professionally obligated to have a hit put out on anyone who makes that statement twice over... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Flame Warriors!
Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html A broad (and pretty funny) categorization of the assorted net discussion group personality archetypes puzzled look Does anybody on the List fit any of these sketches? * * trying very hard to keep from smirking ear-to-ear Debbi Causes, Cats and Coffee-klatch Community Maru;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fw: [resnick] BBQ in a Flash!
- Original Message - From: Bob Faw Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:01 AM Subject: BBQ in a Flash! Engineer Humor: Our subject today is lighting charcoal grills. One of our favorite charcoal grill lighters is a guy named George Goble (really!!), a computer person in the Purdue University engineering department. Each year, Goble and a bunch of other engineers hold a picnic in West Lafayette, Indiana, at which they cook hamburgers on a big grill. Being engineers, they began looking for practical ways to speed up the charcoal-lighting process. We started by blowing the charcoal with a hair dryer, Goble told me in a telephone interview. Then we figured out that it would light faster if we used a vacuum cleaner. If you know anything about (1) engineers and (2) guys in general, you know what happened: The purpose of the charcoal-lighting shifted from cooking hamburgers to seeing how fast they could light the charcoal. From the vacuum cleaner, they escalated to using a propane torch, then an acetylene torch. Then Goble started using compressed pure oxygen, which caused the charcoal to burn much faster, because as you recall from chemistry class, fire is essentially the rapid combination of oxygen with a reducing agent (the charcoal). We discovered that a long time ago, somewhere in the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (or something along those lines). By this point, Goble was getting pretty good times. But in the world of competitive charcoal-lighting, pretty good does not cut the mustard.Thus, Goble hit upon the idea of using -- get ready -- liquid oxygen. This is the form of oxygen used in rocket engines; it's 295 degrees below zero and 600 times as dense as regular oxygen. In terms of releasing energy, pouring liquid oxygen on charcoal is the equivalent of throwing a live squirrel into a room containing 50 million Labrador retrievers. On Gobel's World Wide Web page http://ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/*, you can see actual photographs and a video of Goble using a bucket attached to a 10-foot-long wooden handle to dump 3 gallons of liquid oxygen (not sold in stores) onto a grill containing 60 pounds of charcoal and a lit cigarette for ignition. What follows is the most impressive charcoal-lighting I have ever seen, featuring a large fireball that according to Goble, reached 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The charcoal was ready for cooking in--this has to be a world record--3 seconds. There's also a photo of what happened when Goble used the same technique on a flimsy $2.88 discount-store grill. All that's left is a circle of charcoal with a few shreds of metal in it. Basically, the grill vaporized, said Goble. We were thinking of returning it to the store for a refund. Looking at Goble's video and photos, I became, as an American, all choked up with gratitude at the fact that I do not live anywhere near the engineers' picnic site. But also, I was proud of my country for producing guys who can be ready to barbecue in less time than it takes for guys in less-advanced nations, such as France, to spit. Will the 3-second barrier ever be broken? Will engineers come up with a new, more powerful charcoal-lighting technology? It's something for all of us to ponder this summer as we sit outside, chewing our hamburgers, every now and then glancing in the direction of West Lafayette, Indiana, looking for a mushroom cloud... * Bobnote: Apparently Purdue U. was not amused and have taken down poor George's website. Pictures and commentary can still be found here: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/Ambrosia_Times/September_95/2.5HowTo.html and here: http://home.att.net/~purduejacksonville/grill.html xponent Burger Dust Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cellular number porting
- Original Message - From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 5:18 PM Subject: Cellular number porting Has anyone had any good or bad experiences with number porting (changing your cell number to a new carrier)? I recently ported my cell phone number from Verizon to Nextel, and the reliability of my phone went from 99.9% to less than 50%. After many hours of discussions with Nextel tech support, it seems that routing problems are not terribly uncommon when a number is ported. The problems I experienced after the number port were calls going directly to voicemail without ringing the phone and lost or seriously delayed text messages. Apparently, the routing for a ported number is fairly complex, similar to DNS routing on the internet. If any particular carrier doesn't have the updated routing information, calls and text messages end up in digital hell. Any thoughts or experiences? _ When a defining moment comes along, you can do one of two things. Define the moment, or let the moment define you. -From the movie Tin Cup Yeh gary I know what you are talking about. However I would also like to point out that most people that work call centres are just tring to make the customer go away so that they get good handle times. Also right now there is no reason why you cant take your home phone number with you, if say you moved say to eastren canada. However local teleco wont allow it. but it is possible. I think its Vancouver that has a Wireless company that is porting your home number up to your cell phone. Nick wireless lidster --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.733 / Virus Database: 487 - Release Date: 8/2/2004 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws
kerry miller wrote: 1. I already know BASIC, so sitting with my son with BASIC would be a straightforward thing. Any reasonable man would expect to be allowed/able to do so. Is this the father-son bonding of the future? No more cute, fuzzy animals or fish need to die in order for a man and his child to share a moment of communion! It gets worse: I am planning a large-scale battle of Go-go's against Plastic Soldiers with Bernardo, using tables with To-Hit, Damage, and Hit Points. Alberto where is that book 'Satanism for dummies'? Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws
The Fool wrote: And anyone who dares to point out errors / failings of the never wrong Dr. Brin doesn't use honorable approach['s] and their criticisms are mistaken and have a lack of comprehension. You really _did_ miss the point, didn't you? His complains are _always_ magnifications of Reality, or Reality pushed to the border of plausibility. Or do you take literally when He writes that Bush is a payed lackey of the Saudi Princes? But when you accuse Him of the things that He, in joke or exageration, said were His flaws, it seems like you are trying to look good in His expenses. Just to mention one example: So in short, Dr. Brin is suffering from Golden Age Meme with touches of Elitist Arrogance meme. ... not to mention Contempt for the Masses [the 1 billion chinese that would join the SINUX plot], etc. _Of course_ He complains that He can't waste 30 hours to learn qbasic; it's the same thing I said about gimp a little over an year ago [I was trying to draw something with gimp, and I failed miserably. Then my then-9-y-o daughter was visiting my work, and she succeeded in using gimp. I commented with a workmate that I can't use gimp, a program that even a child can use!. And he replied: Even a mongoloid child can use it!. I leave as an exercise what was my reply] I'm sure an intelligent person can see the Irony in that. Yes, and you seem to miss it in your eagerness to point our His inconsistencies! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 02:03:43 +, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It gets worse: I am planning a large-scale battle of Go-go's against Plastic Soldiers with Bernardo, using tables with To-Hit, Damage, and Hit Points. Alberto where is that book 'Satanism for dummies'? Monteiro Will this one do? http://www.pegasuspublishing.com/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=17542cat=281page=1 The picture isn't all that great, but it's the cover for Necronomicon for Dummies. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
