> Recently, our chase plane pilot Mike Melville has also flown the > EZ-Rocket. His first words after shutting the engines down were "That > was a real kick in the pants!" > ... > Does it make a lot of noise?
> Yes. Our sound level meter goes off the scale of 138 dBA at 10 > meters. However, during test flights people on the ground have noted > that it is quieter than many jet aircraft they have heard.
I saw it flying at EAA Airventure in Oshkosh, WI, in July. It's certainly pretty loud -- those rocket streams are coming out at around 2.5 km/sec after all -- but it didn't make you want to instantly put your fingers in your ears like the F15 that flew just before it. Or, worse, the Harrier doing its hovering act.
Erik Naggum wrote: > People can be jugded by what they expect of others.
People can be judged all sorts of ways. People can be judged by their choice of language on Usenet. People can be judged by the way they dance when the troll calls the tune.
> I expect you to think.
I expect you to dance.
Dance, monkey, dance!
> Should I expect something else of you since you > are not going to do what is expected of you?
* Bijan Parsia | The problem with this dictum, I've found, is that it tends to elide the | possibility of malicous stupidity (or of culpable stupidity of a sort | that entails something of the same order as malice).
I quite agree. /Everything/ can be explained by stupidity. One would have to perform an exhaustive search of all other possible explanations and determine whether they are less adequate than stupidity to say that something can be adequately explained by stupidity, so it is a silly rule to begin with. It only says that people are not evil, they are stupid, but this is wishful thinking; it pretends that people will change their mind sooner if they are believed to act from stupidity than from malice. There is no evidence that this is true.
However, if people are believed to act from /ignorance/ or /unawareness/ in preference to either stupidity or malice (which would exclude willful ignorance and unawareness), they usually listen to facts and pointers to more information.
Some invariably believe that if they should have known and that this is communicated by giving them information they obviously missed, it is instead an accusation of stupidity and/or malice, in which case that is precisely what it turns out to be.
| (Of course, the "adequately" is supposed to cover some of this, but, in | general, I prefer *best* (available) explanations rather than merely | adequate ones.)
I make it this simple: Willful stupidity is ipso facto malicious.
Errare humanum est. We cannot escape not knowing enough and it is impossible to cover every possible angle, but once notified of knowledge or angles that are important to the argument at hand, failure to adapt the argument accordingly is therefore willful, therefore malicious.
People have asked for the root of all evil for eons. One of the reasons that many have been afraid to name the obvious candidate is that they would like to defend some other things that also follow from the same root and would be hard to defend if this rule was made hard and fast: The root of all evil is the failure to think.
(For that matter, the root of all stupidity is the failure to think, too.)
In my personal view, stupidity is tantamount to malice, anyway. The only hope for someone who missed the obvious or important is to claim simple unawareness -- in which case the person should be happy to be informed of whatever they missed and there should be no hint of an accusation until they fight back against what was never there.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
>>...When >>they see people who praise Common Lisp beyond everything else, who are >>extremely defensive of "their baby", and who attack everyone who is not >>"enlightened" yet (and who therefore ridicule what they don't >>understand), they will almost inevitably think that we're just a bunch >>of idiots and will probably back out....
> Why "therefore"?
> Is it absolutely necessary to ridicule anything you don't understand?
No. It's just what many people do. When you ridicule something you objectify it, as opposed to letting it disturb you. Many people prefer not to be disturbed. Note that I don't mean to defend such a behavior.
> Is it possible that the "attack" is not upon the person, nor upon the > lack of enlightenedness, but is directed against either the ridicule, > or even the "therefore"?
Of course.
Obviously my wording was ambiguous. Perhaps I should have said "When they believe to see people who...". I think that we can influence the impression we make on other people.
Pascal
-- Given any rule, however ‘fundamental’ or ‘necessary’ for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
> arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> wrote in message <news:MPG.1825d8727c944a82989782@news.adl.ihug.com.au>... > > In article <8z0oufbs....@ccs.neu.edu>, j...@ccs.neu.edu says... > > > Before a program can run, the various components of it have to be > [snip] > > > C and C++ produce files that rely solely upon the OS linking > > > mechanism. > [snip] > > > Java defines a `virtual machine' that abstracts away the operating > > > system. > [snip] > > > In Lisp, linking is delayed until the last possible moment: just > > > before a function is called. > [snip][snip][snip]
> > Thankyou thankyou! > > This is sort of what I have been looking for all along. I don't > > completely understand it, but it gives me a *feel* for what is going on. > > Now I know what I need to further understand, and this fills the big > > grey area for me.
> This is, I think, your problem. I fail to understand how you can post > something like the above statement. "I don't understand it, but you've > been nice to me" (or atleast haven't used any words that I may > misinterpret as an insult), therefore it is a good answer.
Okay, I'll explain to you in detail: yes I do understand it to a degree. But I don't understand it to the depth that I would like, however it provides an explanation that I needed to help differentiate between the languages.
> The answer > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it > formally,
Who said I was *good* at java?
> then you should already know about the need for JVM, why the > .class files and their CAFEBABEs are used.
of course I know about JVM, and .class files etc. However I don't totally understand the explanation about lisp (which is hardly expected, since I have only just started learning the language), and how "linking is delayed until the last possible moment". However it is enough for me to realise *what* is happening, even though I don't understand *how* it is happening.
> > For all the abusive people, this is an example of a *nice* reply! > > :)
> I've spent the last 1.5 hrs or so, reading only this post, and from > what I've observed, you drew first blood.
Excuse me, I *still* don't know what I've supposedly done that is sooooooo bad. All I know is that I asked a newbie question and got attacked.
> Erik is of the belief that > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
> He has said elsewhere that being > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice > does not realize the import of what she has done.
What the....? Just where has he got this shit from?
> You took insult to > his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed > that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills).
A spelling mistake is not a crime!
> When I > read that post of his, I found no insult in it, implied or otherwise > (that's probably because I am not a woman). Cockroaches, cows, and > sheep learn from their mistakes,
er......I don't know about cockroaches and cows, but sheep are very very dumb. They don't learn anything, they just follow each other. Sounds like some of the people who *follow* erik.
> and therefore, we being the most > superior species on the planet purely because of our intellectual > capacity (there is some evidence to the contrary on this thread > though) should learn from our mistakes.
I believe though you should *allow* people to learn from their mistakes, you don't force them too. However, I'm still at my wit's end of these *mistakes* I'm supposed to have made.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> writes: > In article <1eaf81aa.0210282353.600f2...@posting.google.com>, > vij...@lycos.com says... > > He has also pointed that you need to improve your reading > > comprehension skills. > A spelling mistake is not a crime!
Now this is priceless.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
In article <841y69okmb....@despairon.bofh.org.uk>, pdcaw...@bofh.org.uk says...
> Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > > * arien <spammers_s...@getlost.invalid> > > | You expect me not to get upset when you insult me? Mr Nagger insulted me > > | by suggesting I was dumb. I got upset about that, and I won't apologise > > | for that.
> > But insluting other people is perfectly acceptable for you? I must admit > > to some fascination with the kinds of people that make up this world, but > > one of the saddest things is that I begin to understand how the American > > people could have "elected" George W. Bush.
I can't understand how Australian people could have *elected* George W. Bush either :)
> Generalizing from a small sample to an entire population, the majority > of whom didn't vote for the asshole in question? I expected better > from you.
This is one thing I dislike about these *professional* programmers. They are so stuck up that they no longer have any personality.
> > | Just because a newbie says "I heard that lisp is an interpreted > > | language", doesn't mean they are a troll!
> > Yes, unfortunately, it does. You do not get to make these rules.
> Last I heard, 'troll' implied a calculated attempt on the part of the > troll to invoke flames. But to do that Mel would have had to read the > FAQ, maybe done a bit of googling for similar questions to hers and > generally have got a feel for the group before posting.
I am not a troll, I came here asking a genuine question. It shows how bad the behaviour is of this group for it to disintegrate to this.
> Maybe she has, maybe this is all a calculated ploy from someone with > too much time on their hands,
Nope. Why would I do this? I want to learn about lisp, so wouldn't that be pointless? I wish I had too much time on my hands. I almost certainly wouldn't be here wasting it. I come to newsgroups to find solutions, and I have never seen one behave as badly as this.
> but since I never attribute to malice > what can be adequately explained with stupidity, I'm going with > stupidity. > For the same reason I'm inclined to think that her > continuation is because she has the bit between her teeth,
I won't deny that, yes I have got the bit between my teeth. I don't deny being a headstrong sort of person and I will fight for what I believe in. This is a good quality in me. The action of this group have been disgraceful, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. First I was upset, but I am just angry now. I am astonished, and the more this thread goes on, the more I realise I am right. That there are a few "Nagger Troopers" who have nothing better to do than slag off at newbies, or the slightest sign of opposition. It is true, it is a fact, and all I have to do now is go through the thread and identify those who are members of this pathetic team.
> but can > think of nothing better than puerile misspelling as a way of 'hitting > back'...
....and you just call me dumb? Is that better is it?
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote in message <news:3244955911318942@naggum.no>... > * eriknag...@hotmail.com (Erik Naggum) > | Are you really such an arrogant fuckwad that you think you are the > | only person on the planet named Erik Naggum?
> No. I am the only person so name on the planet.
So much incoherence (not to mention bad grammar) in so few words. Do you think you can try to put together two sentences that don't contradict each other?
> Cease and desist.
I will cease and desist pointing out that you are a moron when you cease and desist acting like one.
> What is /wrong/ with a person who has to such a thing? *sigh*
What is /wrong/ with a person who can't assemble an English sentence with the verbs intact? *sigh*
> Please go back to the first post you found insulting and read it again, > there is not a single mention of your person in it.
Okay I did. Some of the original posts are gone from my newsreader because the date has expired, but I believe this is where is has all started:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Wait until I start on my next assignment, then it'll happen all over | again :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my post, and I was saying it light-heartedly. Each assignment is a new battle that gets harder and harder. You have to go through all the debugging process again (which I have discovered I am not doing it the easy way). And here is our friend here, his nice insulting reply:
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you admit to being learning-impaired or to think that being learning- impaired is a joking matter? --------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you telling me this doesn't mention myself? Or are you going to tell me this is not insulting? Whether he was meant to be insulting or not, this reply is unncessary.
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
Erik Naggum wrote: > * Erik Naggum > | Ah! This yielded some valuable understanding. Clearly, those who enter > | the world of Common Lisp do not have to "face any facts". Amazing.
> * Pascal Costanza > | Of course they have to, but this is trivial.
> The fact that people do not get it strongly suggests otherwise.
It's trivial that they have to face certain facts. It's not trivial for them to actually face these facts. There's a difference.
> * Pascal Costanza > | You still haven't understood what I want to encourage. I don't think that > | you even have any clue.
> * Erik Naggum > | Yes, Pascal, I understand /perfectly/ well what you want to encourage.
> * Pascal Costanza > | No, you don't. Your posting proves this impressively. Would you please just > | stop spreading misinformation about me and/or my motivations?
[...]
> This > is how I can tell that you are completely /unthinking/: The whole point is > that you are a feeling person who does not believe in thinking. The > first, and if your behavior here is indicative, the /only/ thing you do is > check how you feel about something. If and only if you feel sufficiently > well, can you dare to open your eyes and look at the actual contents.
This is an exaggerated portrayal of my point of view, but nevertheless relatively accurate. It's true that I don't value thinking higher than feeling, but I also don't value feeling higher than thinking. I don't believe in thinking insofar that I don't think it is esentially superior to feeling. (Actually, the term "belief" doesn't make any sense in this context.)
Yes, I do check first how I feel about something before I take a closer look at the details. However, this all doesn't make me a "completely unthinking" person. I just think that I have found a better balance between the thinking part and the feeling part (which are just two different sides of the same coin). This has worked extremely well for me, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to work well in the future.
Feelings and intuitions are just extremely useful "tools" to sort out the interesting from the uninteresting "topics". IMHO, they are the only efficient ones to deal with complexity in the real world. The thinking part carries out the details afterwards.
(...of course, there are exceptional cases when it's better to look at the details even if something doesn't feel good. But that's for psychotherapy and doesn't belong in a technical forum.)
As a consequence, I might have misunderstood several of your arguments, and essentially I don't care. Several times, I didn't like what I have felt when I have read your arguments, so I have chosen not to bother about them. It might even be that I have missed some important lessons, but I am sure that I will learn them from other people that I feel more comfortable with when I actually need these lessons. You might regard my behavior as anti-intellectual, but please note that it is only anti-intellectual by your standards.
However, thanks for this portrayal of my point of view. It actually has helped to distill the different axioms that our two different world views are based on. You value thinking higher than feeling, and I don't. (I don't say that you do so in general. I don't know you personally, so I can't draw any conclusions in this respect.)
I only ask you not to judge me and my statements by your standards, but to respect that I don't share your standards. I am willing to do the same. (I admit that I haven't always succeeded to do so in the past, and I am sorry for that.)
(...and please stop trying to provoke me in order to make me switch to the "thinking-is-better-than-feeling" mode. You won't succeed. I have made up my mind long time ago and have very good reasons for my world view. I won't give the details in this forum because this will bore people even more to death than this thread already does.)
[...]
> Now, this is precisely how the majority of people react. There is nothing > special about you at all. There is nothing whatsoever that could prevent > anyone from understanding how these people work. Everywhere, and I really > mean /everywhere/ people are like you, Pascal.
That's fine by me. I don't find this particularly insulting.
[...]
> The masses are stupid by /definition/. The masses is defined by absence. > Be /anything/ and you are not a member of the masses. Hell, even /yearn/ > for anything and you are not a member of the masses.
I think your arguments are based on a (possibly unconsciously made) erroneous assumption. You try to question the masses. However, you can't question the masses.
> Your task here is to destroy every single shred of individuality and real > personality and replace them with your bland niceness and unthinking > masses.
As a sidenote, this is an example of a misrepresentation of my motives.
Pascal
-- Given any rule, however ‘fundamental’ or ‘necessary’ for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
>> The distinction you make between procedural and object-oriented on the >> one hand and imperative and messaging on the other hand is new to me, >> but very interesting. Thanks for that. Where do you have this >> distinction from? (a book, a paper, a link?)
> Most of what know I have picked up in small pieces from different > places and I can hardly remember them all and I am hardly an expert, > but a very nice and brief overview is given here:
I haven't read it yet, but I definitely like the Monty Python reference. :-))
Pascal
-- Given any rule, however ‘fundamental’ or ‘necessary’ for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend
> > The answer > > was a good one, but it is useless if you don't understand it. Why do > > you want to get a "*feel*" of what is going on? Why don't you apply > > something like: "Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and > > study harder." ? If you are so good at Java and have studied it > > formally,
> Who said I was *good* at java?
And here I thought it was safe to conclude that someone who boasted about achieving High Distinctions in Java would be good at it. I guess Down Under, they hand out High Distinctions to anyone who takes the course.
> > > For all the abusive people, this is an example of a *nice* reply! > > > :)
> > I've spent the last 1.5 hrs or so, reading only this post, and from > > what I've observed, you drew first blood.
> Excuse me, I *still* don't know what I've supposedly done that is > sooooooo bad. All I know is that I asked a newbie question and got > attacked.
What you did wrong will be quickly made apparent. If you're pressed for time, you should read the Introduction as well as the section "On Not Reacting Like a Loser". If you have time, read the whole thing. You'll learn a lot and you'll understand why you assume you have been attacked. The document was written for people like you.
> > Erik is of the belief that > > if someone makes a mistake, he (or she, as in you case) shouldn't be > > coddled but rapped on the fingers.
> Oh this is just crap. They outlawed corporal punishment years ago.
You should think twice before equating an analogy with real life. In the Real World™ there is a difference.
> > He has said elsewhere that being > > soft on big mistakes only exarcebates the situation because the novice > > does not realize the import of what she has done.
> What the....? > Just where has he got this shit from?
What kind of shit do you believe?
> > You took insult to > > his message where he refers to cockroaches etc. (He has also pointed > > that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills).
> A spelling mistake is not a crime!
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
> > When I > > read that post of his, I found no insult in it, implied or otherwise > > (that's probably because I am not a woman). Cockroaches, cows, and > > sheep learn from their mistakes,
> er......I don't know about cockroaches and cows, but sheep are very very > dumb.
I guess you'd know.
> > and therefore, we being the most > > superior species on the planet purely because of our intellectual > > capacity (there is some evidence to the contrary on this thread > > though) should learn from our mistakes.
> I believe though you should *allow* people to learn from their mistakes, > you don't force them too. > However, I'm still at my wit's end of these *mistakes* I'm supposed to > have made.
I suppose all you can do at this point is to throw your hands up in the air and shout "But I just don't get it!" Don't bother taking the time to try and understand what has happened here. It's likely too in-depth and over your head... and it wouldn't be a "yes" or "no" answer.
> I never realised that an absence of *snobbishness* isn't tolerated in > this group.
So you'd prefer a tolerance of snobbishness?
> I'm sorry I ever came here, it is obvious that people here have their > heads stuck so far up their arses that they can't help a normal human > being.
> > > > I have only learnt object oriented > > > > before, so I don't understand how a procedural language works.
> > > Odd statement, alas.
> > > Regards > > > Henrik
> > Sorry, it might be odd, but it's true. I've only been taught object > > oriented, so I seriously don't know what a procedural language looks > > like, or how it works.
> Like, well... Java.
> The reason your statement is odd is that Java is very clearly a > procedural language which happens to have some OO features, in roughly > the same category as C++ or Objective-C. If you want an "OO language", > where objects are truly a defining core paradigm, look at Smalltalk. Or > even... wait for it... Common Lisp.
I would like to argue against this, but I can't cuz I really don't know anything about procedural. In university, everything has been OO, and I believe we were taught Java because of that reason.
Now, I could well be wrong, and I most probably am, but I believed Java to be more OO almost any other language. I believed C++ to be "a procedural language which happens to have some OO features," but I never thought that Java was.
hmmmmm
-- Mel
Please post reply to newsgroup. Reply address isn't valid.
