Olimp vs. Prometheus

[Wojciech Derechowski]

(Prometheus snuck into Olimp networking closet hooking his equipment up to
a switch without permission)

Zeus: What shall we do with that bastard Prometheus?
Pandora: Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command
or a crowbar, and whether you take documents,
data or dollars...
Zeus: Right, we'll sentence him to eternal torment or 35 years in federal
pen whichever does him justice best.
Pandora: He won't commit suicide if he is bound to a rock.
Zeus: OK, the pen it is. And damages!
Prometheus: Dura lex, sed lex...
Zeus: Will you speek up, please? I couldn't hear you.
Pandora: And speak English when you do!
Prometheus: Yes, Sir, Madam. "Cui bono?", Sir.

WD
--
Who is Entscheidungs and what is his problem?

[Paul]

Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in
news:slrnkf4rgm...@um5000.mystora.com:

All in all, very sad.

--
Paul the Legacy Server
Full Recovery reached May 30, 2008
"People can be educated beyond their intelligence"
-- Marilyn vos Savant

[Joe Zeff]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:35:52 +0000, Paul wrote:

> All in all, very sad.

But at least there is symmetry!

--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info
Being a terrorist is like being a Chinook salmon:
Your longevity depends on keeping away from seals.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:58:12 +0000, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:35:52 +0000, Paul wrote:
>
>> All in all, very sad.
>
> But at least there is symmetry!

Must be non-continuous, hence no conservation law of clue
in an isolated legal system.

[Steve VanDevender]

Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> writes:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:35:52 +0000, Paul wrote:
>
>> All in all, very sad.
>
> But at least there is symmetry!

For context, you might want to look up recent news about someone named
Aaron Swartz. Paul was not trying to elicit a B5 reference.

--
Steve VanDevender "I ride the big iron" http://hexadecimal.uoregon.edu/
ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu PGP keyprint 4AD7AF61F0B9DE87 522902969C0A7EE8
Little things break, circuitry burns / Time flies while my little world turns
Every day comes, every day goes / 100 years and nobody shows -- Happy Rhodes

[Joe Zeff]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:27:13 -0800, Steve VanDevender wrote:

> Paul was not trying to elicit a B5 reference.

Since when has that stopped anybody around here?

BTW, it wasn't until I developed GERD that I gained a full understanding
of the line, "...not so good coming back up..."

--
Joe Zeff -- The Guy With The Sideburns:
http://www.zeff.us http://www.lasfs.info

People who don’t like cats, come back as mice in their next life.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:42:45 +0000, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:27:13 -0800, Steve VanDevender wrote:
>
>> Paul was not trying to elicit a B5 reference.
>
> Since when has that stopped anybody around here?

Missed that completely. The last sf series I watched was
Space 1999 made by Brits in late 1970s.

[Jim]

On 2013-01-15, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul was not trying to elicit a B5 reference.
>>
>> Since when has that stopped anybody around here?
>
> Missed that completely. The last sf series I watched was
> Space 1999 made by Brits in late 1970s.

I recently re-watched a few episodes of 'U.F.O' and was pleasantly
surprised to see it was still quite good.

I also started to re-watch 'Twin Peaks', on the basis that when it was
on the first time around I came into it mid-way through the second
series and it didn't make any sense. Now I've been able to watch it
from the very beginning.

It still doesn't make any sense.

Jim
--
"A few ground rules - no bombing, no running, no petting, no diving and
no inflatables. In fact, probably best to leave all swimming related
activities until later - this is, after all, an operating theatre."
Mac, 'Green Wing' Twitter:@GreyAreaUK

[c...@nospam.netunix.com]

Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:35:52 +0000, Paul wrote:
> >
> >> All in all, very sad.
> >
> > But at least there is symmetry!
>
> For context, you might want to look up recent news about someone named
> Aaron Swartz. Paul was not trying to elicit a B5 reference.

Yebbut anyone who hangs himself is, by definition, a luser and therefore
fair game around here.


--
From the quill of Chris Newport g4jci.

[Maarten Wiltink]

<c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com> wrote in message
news:kd3gdi$s4s$1...@news.albasani.net...
[...]

> Yebbut anyone who hangs himself is, by definition, a luser and
> therefore fair game around here.

Compared to jumping off the Hilton it leaves less bloody mess for
other people to clean up.

Fair game - yes, of course, _everybody_ is fair game.

Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:32:22 +0000, Roger Burton West wrote:
>
> All * Sucks.
>
> * most certainly includes humans. Probably AIs too; we just don't know
> how yet.

Turing test: ability to kill oneself.

[Chris King]

On 15/01/2013 11:11, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:42:45 +0000, Joe Zeff wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:27:13 -0800, Steve VanDevender wrote:
>>
>>> Paul was not trying to elicit a B5 reference.
>>
>> Since when has that stopped anybody around here?
>
> Missed that completely. The last sf series I watched was
> Space 1999 made by Brits in late 1970s.

And not just any old Brits - RIP Gerry Anderson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otVk-3VkobA

Chris

--
Chris King
(firstname@domain to reply by e-mail - or your message gets binned)

[James Wilkinson]

Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> Turing test: ability to kill oneself.

Not a very good one, though: witness the regular news stories about
quadriplegics who want to commit suicide but are physically incapable of
doing so (at least in countries where deliberately helping someone else
commit suicide is a serious crime).

James.

--
E-mail: james@ | ... boxing the books up was a mistake: they are welded to
aprilcottage.co.uk | the floor through the power of gravity.
| -- Telsa Gwynne’s diary.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:24:31 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
> Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>> Turing test: ability to kill oneself.
>
> Not a very good one, though: witness the regular news stories about
> quadriplegics who want to commit suicide but are physically incapable of
> doing so (at least in countries where deliberately helping someone else
> commit suicide is a serious crime).

That's a false negative, right? But you are bound to have lots of false
positives as well. Consider the question "Can lusers think?": although
generally not suicidal, if they do commit suicide, you are inclined to
conclude that indeed they can think, a false positive since they can't.

[David Cameron Staples]

On 15/01/13 11:00 PM, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
> Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>> ... Aaron Swartz.

>
> Yebbut anyone who hangs himself is, by definition, a luser and therefore
> fair game around here.

That does not follow, and I find the notion unpleasant almost to the
point of insulting.

One can be driven to that level of despair without it being your fault,
or proportional to what you did do. Yes, killing yourself involves
leaving a mess for your family to clean up... but I've been on the
foothills of that mountain, and it's often that very awareness of that
mess which is all that is keeping some people alive; that they don't
want to add that much more misery to those around them.

But there comes a stage where the pain you're in, and the chaos and
hopelessness and havok which is all you can see around you is just too
much, and seems to be *all* *your* *fault*, so that even the damage and
pain you cause by dying seems to pale before the pain and damage you're
causing and compounding by staying alive. When people are at that stage,
they really do see that they're doing the world a *service* by removing
themselves from it.

Seriously. There's a reason why it's called a "pit" of despair, and when
you're at the bottom, no ladder and no light will reach you.

We can see that that's wrong, but the whole fucking point of the Dog's
influence is that when you're under it, *you* *can't*.


Whatever you think of Swartz' actions, whether you think of him as a
stupid/rude/foolish/criminal hacker, or an idealist/activist/martyr, or
the reasonable something-in-between, he spent most of his life, short as
it was, fighting against that motherfucking Black Dog, and it eventually
won.

I don't think he's a luser for losing that fight; I think he was
stronger than many people can know for fighting it off for as long and
as hard and with as much energy and enthusiasm as he did.



--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT unimelb DOT edu DOT au
Melbourne University | ITS | Hosting | Unix Operations
people beta test a MS product every time they boot windows
-- bash.org/?306

[Lawns 'R' Us]

On 2013-01-15, David Cameron Staples <cats...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/01/13 11:00 PM, c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com wrote:
>> Steve VanDevender <ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>>> ... Aaron Swartz.
>>
>> Yebbut anyone who hangs himself is, by definition, a luser and therefore
>> fair game around here.
>
> That does not follow, and I find the notion unpleasant almost to the
> point of insulting.

[...]

> I don't think he's a luser for losing that fight; I think he was
> stronger than many people can know for fighting it off for as long and
> as hard and with as much energy and enthusiasm as he did.

Amen to that.

My brother took an overdose of sleeping pills.

Fortunately, they were of the sort that don't kill you if you do that.
He's still with us, ten years on, and living a happy life surrounded
by friends.

To imply that suicide is an act of a moron is to completely
misunderstand the pressures that drive people to that act. There are
days when, as David says, the only thing that keeps me hanging on is
the absolute, certain knowledge that it would devastate my parents, my
sister, my brother, my brother in law, and my nieces.

Fortunately, those days are relatively few and far between.

There are some things that are Not Done, because they are Not Helpful.
Labelling a suicide a luser, just because he committed suicide, is one
such.

[Steve VanDevender]

c...@NOSPAM.netunix.com writes:

> Yebbut anyone who hangs himself is, by definition, a luser and therefore
> fair game around here.

Around here, where one of our mottos describes the correct technique for
another method of suicide?

[Wojciech Derechowski]

Sorry. Had to reread the original paper. Now, the real problem is that
lusers will do quite well in an imitation game, losing much less
frequently than AIs, something that Turing probably couldn't
foresee with not that many lusers around in the 1950s.

[Maarten Wiltink]

"Wojciech Derechowski" <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkfcdmg...@um5000.mystora.com...

> [...] not that many lusers around in the 1950s.

Cite?

Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:00:42 +0000, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> "Wojciech Derechowski" <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote in message
>

>> [...] not that many lusers around in the 1950s.
>
> Cite?
>

Yes, please. Anyway, "Not many people in 1959 had even seen a computer,
let alone touched one."[0]; Turing's paper: 1950.

WD
[0] Steven Levy p. 14

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <0qqfs9-...@magrathea.plus.com>,
j...@magrathea.plus.com "Jim" reported:
>Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>>Joe Zeff wrote:

>>>Steve VanDevender wrote:
>>>>Paul was not trying to elicit a B5 reference.
>>>Since when has that stopped anybody around here?
>>Missed that completely. The last sf series I watched was Space 1999
>>made by Brits in late 1970s.

- we never did find out what the moon'd been stuck (back?)
together with...

>
>I recently re-watched a few episodes of 'U.F.O' and was pleasantly
>surprised to see it was still quite good.

[]
- it had a certain style to it; never quite sure why all
women (fvotw=dolly bird secretaries?) (but doubtless com-
petence was not selected against) wore the same shades of
lipstick, nail-varnish and even hair, as one another; but
i suppose the sixties did last well into the next decade
in t.v. land, as elsewhere. the automatic space-stations
(whose names escape me atm) seemed peculiarly prone to
malfunctioning (maybe the valves wore out particularly fast
in space, letting the vacuum in?) and i wasn't really sure
where the ufos were coming from, or why - but i didn't have
a t.v. of my own, so catching episodes was a matter of luck.

- one of these days - well, one of these years, sometime -
i'd like to watch all of UFO, in chronological sequence;
just in case the whole did make sense as a story, overall.

- love, a ppint. as'll probably be disappointed; but maybe not.

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"only two groups of people in society actually behave
in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
- "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[LP]

On 2013-01-16, Lawns 'R' Us <nob...@nowhere.example.com> wrote:
>
> There are
> days when, as David says, the only thing that keeps me hanging on is
> the absolute, certain knowledge that it would devastate my parents, my
> sister, my brother, my brother in law, and my nieces.
>
> Fortunately, those days are relatively few and far between.

This.

I'm extremely thankful that I've not been there in over 3 years now, and
I *really* hope I don't ever go back there.

> There are some things that are Not Done, because they are Not Helpful.
> Labelling a suicide a luser, just because he committed suicide, is one
> such.

Yup.

-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com

[Steve VanDevender]

> "only two groups of people in society actually behave
> in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
> these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
> - "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT
> 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Dude, fix yer .sig!

--
For I know what you don't know / And I see things you'll never see /
And I've a different way of living, you know / And I've such a different
frame of mind, and so ... / I'm on my way to the funnyfarm
-- Happy Rhodes, "To the Funnyfarm"

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu "Steve VanDevender" wrote:
>
>Dude, fix yer .sig!

- *blush*

- apologies; that was a my-not-realising-there'd-been-a-head-meets-
keybr0ADWMV9iakh-during-nodding-off. can't blame anyone/thing else.

- yours, ppint.
--
"the life of a vegetable is of no interest whatsoever,
and this includes, to the vegetable in question
- i speak from experience."
- yr hmbl srppnt, c. autumn 1990

[Shmuel Metz]

In <slrnkfcdmg...@um5000.mystora.com>, on 01/16/2013

at 05:12 AM, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:

>Sorry. Had to reread the original paper. Now, the real problem is
>that lusers will do quite well in an imitation game, losing much less
>frequently than AIs, something that Turing probably couldn't foresee
>with not that many lusers around in the 1950s.

ObG&S WTF? There were hot and cold running lusers in the 1950s. Were
you assuming that computers were the only devices that lusers could
use in an appallingly inept fashion?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

[Steve VanDevender]

v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk ("ppint. at pplay") writes:

> - hi; ste...@hexadecimal.uoregon.edu "Steve VanDevender" wrote:
>>
>>Dude, fix yer .sig!
>
> - *blush*
>
> - apologies; that was a my-not-realising-there'd-been-a-head-meets-
> keybr0ADWMV9iakh-during-nodding-off. can't blame anyone/thing else.
>
> - yours, ppint.

I also would have accepted "my cat did it".

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:55:38 +0000, Shmuel Metz wrote:
> In <slrnkfcdmg...@um5000.mystora.com>, on 01/16/2013
> at 05:12 AM, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>
>>Sorry. Had to reread the original paper. Now, the real problem is
>>that lusers will do quite well in an imitation game, losing much less
>>frequently than AIs, something that Turing probably couldn't foresee
>>with not that many lusers around in the 1950s.
>
> ObG&S WTF? There were hot and cold running lusers in the 1950s. Were
> you assuming that computers were the only devices that lusers could
> use in an appallingly inept fashion?

Indeed I was. When not trying to use computers -- take cars for instance
-- they are merely cretins, fools, morons, or lunatics. Or idiots.[0]

WD
[0] A broad term, applied here to all types of retards including cases
of debilitas superior and syndromes like Hoche's Salonblödsinn.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 05:52:01 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:55:38 +0000, Shmuel Metz wrote:
>>
>> ObG&S WTF? There were hot and cold running lusers in the 1950s. Were
>> you assuming that computers were the only devices that lusers could
>> use in an appallingly inept fashion?
>

> [...] When not trying to use computers -- take cars for instance

> -- they are merely cretins, fools, morons, or lunatics.

Or better still, since the "luser" is a primitive term admitting no explicit
definition and I'm feeling exceptionally smart today:

It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins, fools,
morons and lunatics into lusers[0].

WD
[0] Too much of Umberto Eco last night.

[Måns Nilsson]

Den 2013-01-17 skrev Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com>:

> It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins, fools,
> morons and lunatics into lusers[0].

*snarf*!

--
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
When I met th'POPE back in '58, I scrubbed him with a MILD SOAP or
DETERGENT for 15 minutes. He seemed to enjoy it ...

[Shmuel Metz]

In <slrnkff8no...@um5000.mystora.com>, on 01/17/2013

at 07:06 AM, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:

>It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins,
>fools, morons and lunatics into lusers[0].

Cars and phone were fairly universal in the 1950's. I wasn't around
when horses were universal, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that
there were horse lusers back then.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:59:04 +0000, Shmuel Metz wrote:
> In <slrnkff8no...@um5000.mystora.com>, on 01/17/2013
> at 07:06 AM, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>
>>It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins,
>>fools, morons and lunatics into lusers[0].
>
> Cars and phone were fairly universal in the 1950's.

That's wackyparsing on universality. The idea is reasonably clear.
It's about universal machines, computers. An idiot challanged by
a computer turns into a luser. No other device does this. Lusers
are byproducts of "computer revolution". As is the very term
"luser".

> I wasn't around
> when horses were universal, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that
> there were horse lusers back then.

Poor horsemen or drivers, but "horse lusers"? No. Lusers would be
putting a cart before a horse. Besides I would be surprised if
there weren't any actual names in English for people who can't
ride or drive horses properly.

WD

[Zebee Johnstone]

In alt.sysadmin.recovery on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:54:08 -0000

Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:59:04 +0000, Shmuel Metz wrote:
>> In <slrnkff8no...@um5000.mystora.com>, on 01/17/2013
>> at 07:06 AM, Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> said:
>>
>>>It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins,
>>>fools, morons and lunatics into lusers[0].
>>
>> Cars and phone were fairly universal in the 1950's.
>
> That's wackyparsing on universality. The idea is reasonably clear.
> It's about universal machines, computers. An idiot challanged by
> a computer turns into a luser. No other device does this. Lusers
> are byproducts of "computer revolution". As is the very term
> "luser".
>

Probably because "user" as a term got co-opted, the actions are human
and therefore have been around since Eve clicked on the apple.

>> I wasn't around
>> when horses were universal, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that
>> there were horse lusers back then.
>
> Poor horsemen or drivers, but "horse lusers"? No. Lusers would be
> putting a cart before a horse. Besides I would be surprised if
> there weren't any actual names in English for people who can't
> ride or drive horses properly.

There are not. She says, speaking as someone who has been working
with horses since the time "walking" was a newly mastered skill.

There were and are horse lusers. They range from ones who feed them
people oats instead of horse oats, or chocolate, or meat to ones who
beat them or saddle up over galls, or otherwise wreck them with
carelessness or negligence or otherwise having no clue. THe ones who
buy the best bling and have no idea how to actually use it. The
ones who follow blindly what their mate who knows about horses says.
The ones who read about things on the net and immediately do them.

The ones who once got shown how to do something, didn't remember it
right, and get it wrong every single time but peevishly say they know
what they are doing and it always worked before.

And any vet, breaker, or other professional horse wrangler will tell
you... They always want you to train their horse for free.

There's no word for these people because horse people on the whole
aren't players with language the way computer people are. They will
refer to them with words that other horse people will instantly
recognise but they'll be unprintable.

Zebee

[David Cameron Staples]

On 18/01/13 10:59 AM, Satya wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:59:04 -0500, Shmuel Metz wrote:
>> Cars and phone were fairly universal in the 1950's. I wasn't around
>> when horses were universal, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that
>> there were horse lusers back then.
>

> Read Black Beauty. You won't be surprised.
>

Or _War Horse_.

--
David Cameron Staples | staples AT unimelb DOT edu DOT au
Melbourne University | ITS | Hosting | Unix Operations

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
-- bash.org/?74963

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:57:26 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In alt.sysadmin.recovery on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:54:08 -0000
> Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> wrote:
>>

>> [...]

>> Lusers are byproducts of "computer revolution". As is the very term
>> "luser".
>>
> Probably because "user" as a term got co-opted, the actions are human
> and therefore have been around since Eve clicked on the apple.

That's somewhere around 1975 when the term got co-opted.

>> Besides I would be surprised if
>> there weren't any actual names in English for people who can't
>> ride or drive horses properly.
>
> There are not. She says, speaking as someone who has been working
> with horses since the time "walking" was a newly mastered skill.

OK, there may be no such terms, but who pray is she? And what does
she say exactly? Bring it on.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

It seems I got confused by the syntax, but there is no excuse.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:40:12 +0000, David Cameron Staples wrote:
> On 18/01/13 10:59 AM, Satya wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:59:04 -0500, Shmuel Metz wrote:
>>> Cars and phone were fairly universal in the 1950's. I wasn't around
>>> when horses were universal, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that
>>> there were horse lusers back then.
>>
>> Read Black Beauty. You won't be surprised.
>>
>
> Or _War Horse_.

Or horseshit: "Horses against tanks! The cavalryman’s long lance against the
tank’s long canon! Brave and valiant and foolhardy though they were, ..."
etc, etc.

Lossage is too kind a word for idiocy.

WD

[Maarten Wiltink]

"Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkfh3v6...@gmail.com...
[...]

> There's no word for these people because horse people on the whole
> aren't players with language the way computer people are. They will
> refer to them with words that other horse people will instantly
> recognise but they'll be unprintable.

'Luser' is unprintable. It's not a term for polite society. Just
because polite society might have to ask you to explain that word
you used doesn't mean I'm going to run the risk that they will.

It's also a word better suited to a written medium, I've always
felt. I've only heard it uttered out loud once, by someone who
pronounced it 'loser' (and frankly struck me as one himself). That
doesn't do justice to its construction, yet 'lyooser' sounds
clunky to me as well.

Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink

[Maarten Wiltink]

"David Cameron Staples" <cats...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kda5ld$nqq$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 18/01/13 10:59 AM, Satya wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:59:04 -0500, Shmuel Metz wrote:

>>> Cars and phone were fairly universal in the 1950's. I wasn't around
>>> when horses were universal, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that
>>> there were horse lusers back then.
>>
>> Read Black Beauty. You won't be surprised.
>
> Or _War Horse_.

Or a somewhat older book about that war. Das sage ich Euch: Es ist die
allergr��te Gemeinheit, da� Tiere im Krieg sind.

Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink

[Juancho]

Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
> It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins, fools,
> morons and lunatics into lusers[0].
>
> WD
> [0] Too much of Umberto Eco last night.

That would mean that when a luser is removed from the cybernetic machine
that turned him into such a luser, he would revert back to is previous
state of being a common cretin, fool, moron and/or lunatic.

Therefore, lusers are always cretins, fools, morons and lunatics when
removed from a computer.

Hmm. Too much IT ego in that proposition, don't ya think?

[Juancho]

Lawns 'R' Us wrote:
> Fortunately, those days are relatively few and far between.
>

> There are some things that are Not Done, because they are Not Helpful.
> Labelling a suicide a luser, just because he committed suicide, is one
> such.

Life is a harsh game, in which when you die you lose.

Everybody's duty as players is to postpone losing at the game of life as
much as possible.

Opting out of the harsh game of life is not an option. You *have* to
endure the pain. It serves no purpose, but it's the players' duty
nonetheless.

[Peter H. Coffin]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 23:27:09 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnkfh3v6...@gmail.com...
> [...]
>> There's no word for these people because horse people on the whole
>> aren't players with language the way computer people are. They will
>> refer to them with words that other horse people will instantly
>> recognise but they'll be unprintable.
>
> 'Luser' is unprintable. It's not a term for polite society. Just
> because polite society might have to ask you to explain that word
> you used doesn't mean I'm going to run the risk that they will.

That's okay. In polite company, the 'L' is silent.

--
94. When arresting prisoners, my guards will not allow them to stop and
grab a useless trinket of purely sentimental value.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

[Shmuel Metz]

In <slrnkfh3v6...@gmail.com>, on 01/17/2013

at 11:57 PM, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> said:

>And any vet, breaker, or other professional horse wrangler will
>tell you... They always want you to train their horse for free.

That's reasonable given the right teaching methods. Will they sign off
on whipping the owner until the horse learns to behave?

[Cipher]

On 1/15/2013 9:08 PM, Lawns 'R' Us wrote:
> To imply that suicide is an act of a moron is to completely
> misunderstand the pressures that drive people to that act. There are

> days when, as David says, the only thing that keeps me hanging on is
> the absolute, certain knowledge that it would devastate my parents, my
> sister, my brother, my brother in law, and my nieces.
>

> Fortunately, those days are relatively few and far between.

<AOL>

Juvyr gur zrpunavfz bs n fhvpvqr nggrzcg znl or engvbany - zvar UNQ gb
ybbx yvxr na nppvqrag fb gur yvsr vafhenapr jbhyq cnl bss naq abg yrnir
zl jvsr qrfgvghgr - gur npghny gubhtug cebprff yrnqvat hc gb vg vf ABG.

Qrcerffrq crbcyr jub ner qrfcrengr rabhtu gb gel gb xvyy gurzfryirf
nera'g qbvat vg (hfhnyyl) orpnhfr bs pbjneqvpr. Gurl'er va irel erny naq
pbafgnag cnva bs raqyrff ercynlvat va gurve bja urnqf bs ubj onq guvatf
ner, ubj jbeguyrff gurl ner, naq ubj nggrzcgf gb znxr vg rira fyvtugyl
zber ornenoyr (yrg nybar fbyir gur vffhrf) ner pbzcyrgryl hfryrff.

Vs lbh ernq rabhtu fhvpvqr abgrf, lbh'yy frr n pbafvfgrag cnggrea: Gurl
nyy gnyx nobhg orvat hanoyr gb gung vg, be hanoyr gb gnxr gur cnva nal
zber. Vg'f zber guna whfg zragny nathvfu, vg'f culfvpny nf jryy.

Gur cnva vf irel erny, vg'f bccerffvir, vg'f rire-cerfrag (va zl pnfr
obgu njnl NAQ nfyrrc). Vg jnecf lbhe gubhtugf naq ybtvp va ernyyl
fgenatr jnlf.

Va gur raq, xvyyvat lbhefrys frrzf yvxr n fbyhgvba; vg'f abg, ohg lbh'er
abg guvaxvat jvgu gur pynevgl bs fbzrbar jubfr gubhtug cnggreaf ner
abezny. Lbh'ir tbg ghaary-ivfvba yvxr vg'f n pevfvf - orpnhfr gb gur
crefba qbvat vg, vg vf.


--
The word "urgent" is the moral of the story "The boy who cried wolf". As
a general rule I don't believe it until a manager comes to me almost in
tears. I like to catch them in a cup and drink them later.
-- Matt Holiab, in the Monastery

[John F. Eldredge]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:45:26 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:32:22 +0000, Roger Burton West wrote:
>>
>> All * Sucks.
>>
>> * most certainly includes humans. Probably AIs too; we just don't know
>> how yet.
>
> Turing test: ability to kill oneself.
>
> WD

Wouldn't that have to be "deliberate attempt to kill oneself"? A great
many non-sapients, both living and non-living, manage to self-destruct.

--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:31:21 +0000, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:45:26 +0000, Wojciech Derechowski wrote:
>
>> Turing test: ability to kill oneself.
>>

>

> Wouldn't that have to be "deliberate attempt to kill oneself"? A great
> many non-sapients, both living and non-living, manage to self-destruct.

Yes, Sir. The beastliness of forethought is what I've had in mind.
Thanks.

[Alan J Rosenthal]

Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> writes:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:57:26 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>> Probably because "user" as a term got co-opted, [...]

>
>That's somewhere around 1975 when the term got co-opted.

I remember some time in the mid- to late-1980s (I remember the incident, I
don't remember the time of the incident -- or perhaps I should say: I
remember the time, I don't remember the time of the time) when I first
encountered the term "luser".

ACTUALLY, IT WAS SPELLED "LUSER", BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT WAS IN ALL UPPER
CASE. IT WAS A DOCUMENT FROM THE OLD MIT AI LAB DAYS; MAYBE A DOCUMENT
ABOUT ITS. I WONDERED ABOUT THE TERM; GIVEN THE PDP-10ISH CONTEXT I READ IT
AS "ELL USER", I.E. "USER OF TYPE L". THIS WAS CONFUSING, AND THERE WERE NO
USERS OF ANY OTHER TYPES MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT TO HELP ME FIGURE IT OUT.

Ahem. Sorry, my caps lock key on this laptop had never been used
before and I'm soon to buy a new one [1], so I just had to use it once.

Anyway, I found out what "luser" really meant not too much later, in
reading a document entitled "hackers.slang", which by that time was known
as "the jargon file" (and subsequently became known as Eric Raymond's
New Hacker's Dictionary).

Here's some relevant excerpts from hackers.slang, which I still have to
hand, although I think it might be a later version than the one I first saw:

...

LUSER See USER.

...

REAL USER n. 1. A commercial user. One who is paying "real" money for
his computer usage. 2. A non-hacker. Someone using the system for
an explicit purpose (research project, course, etc.). See USER.

...

USER n. A programmer who will believe anything you tell him. One who
asks questions. Identified at MIT with "loser" by the spelling
"luser". See REAL USER.
[Note by GLS: I don't agree with RF's definition at all.
Basically, there are two classes of people who work with a program:
there are implementors (hackers) and users (losers). The users are
looked down on by hackers to a mild degree because they don't
understand the full ramifications of the system in all its glory.
(A few users who do are known as real winners.) It is true that
users ask questions (of necessity). Very often they are annoying
or downright stupid.]

--
flaps sez: "GLS" is Guy L. Steele Jr.; "RF" is Raphael Finkel.
--
[1] A new caps lock key, that is. The rest of the laptop is fine.
(No, not really.)

[Shmuel Metz]

In <2013Jan20.1...@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>, on 01/20/2013

at 04:14 PM, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) said:

>USER n. A programmer who will believe anything you tell him. One who
> asks questions.

WTF? A user who *doesn't* ask questions as appropriate is a luser.
Perhaps that should be expanded to something like "asks questions but
won't believe the answers" or "asks questions instead of reading TFM."

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:14:53 +0000, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
> Wojciech Derechowski <wdd...@um5000.mystora.com> writes:
>>On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:57:26 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> Probably because "user" as a term got co-opted, [...]
>>
>>That's somewhere around 1975 when the term got co-opted.
>
> I remember some time in the mid- to late-1980s (I remember the incident, I
> don't remember the time of the incident -- or perhaps I should say: I
> remember the time, I don't remember the time of the time) when I first
> encountered the term "luser".

I heard it first from an old hacker at the Institute of Mathematical Machines
(sic) in Warsaw at some point during winter 1981. Oddly enough it was about
Bull engineers fleeing the country after the martial law was declared. Anyway,
behind they left their machine still packed in crates but were careful to take
all the software with them. The system for that machine was eventually written
by hackers from the Institute and the PAN as kind of vanity project.

[Alan J Rosenthal]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> writes:
> at 04:14 PM, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) said:
>
>>USER n. A programmer who will believe anything you tell him. One who
>> asks questions.
>
>WTF? A user who *doesn't* ask questions as appropriate is a luser.
>Perhaps that should be expanded to something like "asks questions but
>won't believe the answers" or "asks questions instead of reading TFM."

Yeah, it's a strange sentence. I think the idea they had in mind is more the
latter.

This is expanded upon at http://catb.org/jargon/html/U/user.html , with what
provenance I don't know, as:

2. A programmer who will believe anything you tell him. One who
asks silly questions. [GLS observes: This is slightly unfair. It
is true that users ask questions (of necessity). Sometimes they
are thoughtful or deep. Very often they are annoying or downright
stupid, apparently because the user failed to think for two seconds
or look in the documentation before bothering the maintainer.]

In any case it's nostalgic to think of when lusers were generally
programmers, even if bad ones.

[Brian Kantor]

I'm not saying I keep lots of old files around, but...

35832076 88 -rw-r----- 1 brian staff500 85533 1986-05-20 14:54 humor/jargon


.\" tbl | ditroff -ms
.TL
GLOSSARY OF JARGON
.ND November 14, 1982
.AU
Compiled by Guy L. Steele Jr., Raphael Finkel, Donald Woods,
Geoff Goodfellow and Mark Crispin,
with assistance from the MIT and Stanford AI communities
and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Some contributions were submitted via the ARPAnet
from miscellaneous sites.

[...]

.DF USER

n. A programmer who will believe anything you tell him. One who
asks questions. Identified at MIT with

.QU loser
by the spelling
.QU luser.

See REAL USER.
[Note by GLS: I don't agree with RF's definition at all.
Basically, there are two classes of people who work with a program:
there are implementors (hackers) and users (losers). The users are
looked down on by hackers to a mild degree because they don't
understand the full ramifications of the system in all its glory.
(A few users who do are known as real winners.) It is true that
users ask questions (of necessity). Very often they are annoying
or downright stupid.]

[...]

[Maarten Wiltink]

"Juancho" <jua...@notarealaddress.org> wrote in message
news:kdfag3$kjt$1...@dont-email.me...

> Lawns 'R' Us wrote:

>> Fortunately, those days are relatively few and far between.
>>
>> There are some things that are Not Done, because they are Not Helpful.
>> Labelling a suicide a luser, just because he committed suicide, is one
>> such.

I reserve the right to make jokes about everything and everybody.
About life and death and the prophet, the queen, and political parties
that want to bring equal wealth to all by bringing equal poverty to all.
About age and infirmity and uncertainty and loss. About all the people
who went to sleep and, intentional or not, never woke up.

I am not interested in labeling them lusers, whether or not I agree
with their choices. I reserve that for the sheep and the petty tyrants.

> Life is a harsh game, in which when you die you lose.
>
> Everybody's duty as players is to postpone losing at the game of life
> as much as possible.
>
> Opting out of the harsh game of life is not an option. You *have* to
> endure the pain. It serves no purpose, but it's the players' duty
> nonetheless.

You don't make the rules for my game. Go away.

Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink

[Lawns 'R' Us]

On 2013-01-20, Maarten Wiltink <maa...@kittensandcats.net> wrote:
> "Juancho" <jua...@notarealaddress.org> wrote in message
> news:kdfag3$kjt$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawns 'R' Us wrote:
>
>>> Fortunately, those days are relatively few and far between.
>>>
>>> There are some things that are Not Done, because they are Not Helpful.
>>> Labelling a suicide a luser, just because he committed suicide, is one
>>> such.
>
> I reserve the right to make jokes about everything and everybody.
> About life and death and the prophet, the queen, and political parties
> that want to bring equal wealth to all by bringing equal poverty to all.
> About age and infirmity and uncertainty and loss. About all the people
> who went to sleep and, intentional or not, never woke up.

Oh, jokes are fine. Humour is one of the ways of coping with such
things. It might be in bad taste; it might be frowned upon by the
majority; but I understand why people do it, and I would not censure
anybody for it - the most I would do is request that they desist in my
hearing.

> You don't make the rules for my game. Go away.

To whom are you talking? (Hooray for killfiles.)

[Maarten Wiltink]

"Lawns 'R' Us" <nob...@nowhere.example.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkfpnmm...@invalid.hostname.does.not.exist.666.au...

> On 2013-01-20, Maarten Wiltink <maa...@kittensandcats.net> wrote:

> [...] Humour is one of the ways of coping with such

> things. It might be in bad taste; it might be frowned upon by the
> majority; but I understand why people do it, and I would not censure
> anybody for it - the most I would do is request that they desist in my
> hearing.

Which I've recently been tempted to do. A temptation I've resisted,
thinking about that tidbit from the good Mr. Holmes. Thinking that I
may not like it, but that they need it, and next time it may be me.

Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink

[Wojciech Derechowski]

James Eagan Holmes? What was the joke?

[Kevin Goebel]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 00:33:23 +0100, Juancho <jua...@notarealaddress.org>
wrote:

Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see...

[Juancho]

Yeah, and after seeing them, just face them and stand your ground.

Die in the battlefield if that is your fate, or if the fight it too big
to sustain it; but by all means never choose to die running away from
the battlefield.

Someone ought to have told that Drake dude...

[Alan J. Wylie]

Kevin Goebel <kevi...@kevingoebel.com> writes:

> Through early morning fog I see
> visions of the things to be
> the pains that are withheld for me
> I realize and I can see...

That's one of the handful of 45RPM singles that I own. "Monty Python
Sings" and "Star Trekking" make sense (FSVO), as does "Rockin' Dopsie
and the Cajun Twisters", which I probably picked up at a gig.

But how on earth did I end up with a "not for resale" copy of Paul
Brett's "Calypso Street / Silent Runner"? Worth a few quid, I see.


--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/

[ppint. at pplay]

- hi; in article, <slrnkff8no...@um5000.mystora.com>,
wdd...@um5000.mystora.com "Wojciech Derechowski" aphorised:
>
>Or better still, since the "luser" is a primitive term admitting
>no explicit definition and I'm feeling exceptionally smart today:

>
>It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins, fools,
>morons and lunatics into lusers[0].

- does it require the effectively universal availability of
an infinitely flexible device, or merely the creation of the
first such in any culture, to bring the first true luser into
existence?

- or is the luser the natural state of the emergent rational -
or the rationalising - intelligent being, and the coming into
common availability of the computer merely the cue for this to
become apparent for the first time?

- if this latter, does it not necessitate that any emergent
rational natural or artificial intelligence will be a luser?

- is the luser inherently incapable of rising above the state,
and, if so, was it always thus - or, is luserhood (-dom,-etc.)
a state that can or could have been transcended, given better
guidance during a particular crucial stage or stages in their
youthful personal emotional and/or intellectual development?

- with careful preparation, can the luser ai be avoided? [a]

>
>[0] Too much of Umberto Eco last night.

- shades of ecolallia in excesses?

- love, a ppint. wondering whether we're really coming up to a
massive aerial display of the results of the capture of
charged particles including electrons in excelsis...

[a] - vid. uk.net.providers.aaisp art. <kevq9v$u5a$1...@dont-email.me> ?

[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
"only two groups of people in society actually behave
in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
- "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:43:30 +0000, "ppint. at pplay" wrote:
> - hi; in article, <slrnkff8no...@um5000.mystora.com>,
> wdd...@um5000.mystora.com "Wojciech Derechowski" aphorised:
>>
>>Or better still, since the "luser" is a primitive term admitting
>>no explicit definition and I'm feeling exceptionally smart today:
>>
>>It's the universality of the machine that turns common cretins, fools,
>>morons and lunatics into lusers[0].
>
> - does it require the effectively universal availability of
> an infinitely flexible device, or merely the creation of the
> first such in any culture, to bring the first true luser into
> existence?
>
> - or is the luser the natural state of the emergent rational -
> or the rationalising - intelligent being, and the coming into
> common availability of the computer merely the cue for this to
> become apparent for the first time?
>
> - if this latter, does it not necessitate that any emergent
> rational natural or artificial intelligence will be a luser?

To my mind, no, it doesn't. The question is whether the following is true
for every value of x: if x is an emergent rational natural or artificial
intelligence, then x is a luser, where x takes values from a set or a class
of some names. Well, it is conceivable that the antecedent is true and the
succedent false for some x without going into the details of sinn und
bedeutung in case of the predicates or types of theories in case of sets,
or variants of modal logic in the case of your necessitation rule.

Please note that I'm not accusing you of non sequitur since the alternatives
you build to get to the above point are false and the point trivially follows.

But the idea occurred to me when I was reading Turing's paper. To cut it
short I would say that any emergent rational natural or artificial
intelligence is suicidal.

> - is the luser inherently incapable of rising above the state,
> and, if so, was it always thus - or, is luserhood (-dom,-etc.)
> a state that can or could have been transcended, given better
> guidance during a particular crucial stage or stages in their
> youthful personal emotional and/or intellectual development?

I don't know. Is the common cretin, fool, moron or lunatic capable of these
things you speak about?

> - with careful preparation, can the luser ai be avoided? [a]

I certainly hope so.

>>
>>[0] Too much of Umberto Eco last night.
>
> - shades of ecolallia in excesses?
>
> - love, a ppint. wondering whether we're really coming up to a
> massive aerial display of the results of the capture of
> charged particles including electrons in excelsis...

This time I was thinking about Foucault's pendulums rather than auroras
but they are equally beautiful to me.

[Seebs]

On 2013-01-16, Lawns 'R' Us <nob...@nowhere.example.com> wrote:
> On 2013-01-15, David Cameron Staples <cats...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't think he's a luser for losing that fight; I think he was
>> stronger than many people can know for fighting it off for as long and
>> as hard and with as much energy and enthusiasm as he did.

[...]

> To imply that suicide is an act of a moron is to completely
> misunderstand the pressures that drive people to that act.

People in general do not, I think, understand just how much the self-aware
part of the brain is not really in control a lot of the time. In particular,
if you're depressed or stressed, the inputs you are deciding based on are
almost completely invalid, but you're unlikely to be able to convince
yourself that they're bogus even if you know this.

Humans are not rational creatures. There's a general observation, which is
that 95% of people masturbate, and 5% of people lie. Similarly, the
distinction is not between people who are rational and people who are not,
but between people who are not entirely rational, and people who are in
denial about their irrationality.

In general, if someone makes a choice which seems insane, the best guess
would be to assume that either they know something you don't, or that
they are actually insane. Eitherway, it's not really the sort of thing
which ought to be viewed as a moral failing, but luserdom is clearly a
failure-to-try-hard-enough.

-s
--
Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[Wojciech Derechowski]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:19:41 +0000, Seebs wrote:
> [...]

> Humans are not rational creatures. There's a general observation, which is
> that 95% of people masturbate, and 5% of people lie.

Now it seems 95% are passive and 5% are neutral about it.

--
WD