I have almost given up on lisp
gavino
Ron Garret
<870c1680-bd25-4781...@t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
gavino <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just don't kow if I can learn it.
Don't confuse being unable to learn Lisp with being unable to learn
Common Lisp, or being unable (or unwilling) to deal with the culture
that has grown up around Common Lisp. Lisp is the simplest programming
language there is. If you can't learn Lisp, you can't learn any
language. (Or, equivalently, if you can learn any language, you can
learn Lisp.)
rg
Kaz Kylheku
> In article
><870c1680-bd25-4781...@t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> gavino <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just don't kow if I can learn it.
>
> Don't confuse being unable to learn Lisp with being unable to learn
Full stop.
Francogrex
> I just don't kow if I can learn it.
Huh? Common Lisp (or any lisp for that matter) is one of the most
straightforward languages. You write almost as you would write in
plain English... Maybe you should go try to learn assembly, then
you'll realize how simple lisp is (by comparison).
Mike Burke
http://www.amazon.com/Little-LISPer-Third-Daniel-Friedman/dp/0023397632/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261610310&sr=1-1 .
In fact, buy the three-book package with the Scheme books. If you can't
program in LISP, your thinking about solving computer problems may need a
different mindset. The cool thing is, you can just read the books and
practice writing the programs (without compiling to see if it runs) and
learn an incredible amount of computer technology.
Check these out: for inspiration: http://www.secretgeek.net/lisp_truth.asp
Check out the Essay/talk by Graham on "Beating the Averages"
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Good luck.
"gavino" <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:870c1680-bd25-4781...@t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>I just don't kow if I can learn it.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Lars Rune Nøstdal
Try more beer/drugs. Soon you will be just as clever as your former
president!
Bigos
> I just don't kow if I can learn it.
Please don't despair. I think main problem with Lisp is changing the
way you think. When I started learning Lisp for the first time I have
felt like I am learning a different language. Other languages I have
learned so far seem to be so similar that learning another was not a
problem.
When you are learning Lisp you also have to learn quite lot of
advanced programming which might make things seem to be more
difficult.
I understand the way you feel. I have felt like this many times yet I
can't completely give up on Lisp. I saw some of it's power and I am
hooked now.
My advice is take some rest, let your unconscious mind work on it, and
after a while come back to Lisp, and you will notice that you will be
able to progress much further than before, and after several cycles of
giving up and returning to Lisp you will eventually become a proper
Lisper.
Good Luck
Jacek
Bigos
For people who think in assembler learning Lisp can be difficult. I
started with low level languages and maybe this is the reason why I
had problems with Lisp. Lisp's syntax is very easy but changing your
thinking habits can be difficult. There's a lot to unlearn.
Cecil Westerhof
> Please don't despair. I think main problem with Lisp is changing the
> way you think. When I started learning Lisp for the first time I have
> felt like I am learning a different language. Other languages I have
> learned so far seem to be so similar that learning another was not a
> problem.
The same here. I had no big problems with going from C to C++, bash,
java, perl, php, python, ... I just started with CL and find that the
effort I need to put in for the switch is much higher as with those
other languages.
--
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
Jaseem VV
Pascal J. Bourguignon
LOL Yeah right! Give gavino ten years of rest to let his unconscious
mind work on it!
> Good Luck
>
> Jacek
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In a World without Walls and Fences,
who needs Windows and Gates?
jos...@lisp.de
wrote:
> Bigos <ruby.obj...@googlemail.com> writes:
> > On Dec 23, 1:20 pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I just don't kow if I can learn it.
>
> > Please don't despair. I think main problem with Lisp is changing the
> > way you think. When I started learning Lisp for the first time I have
> > felt like I am learning a different language. Other languages I have
> > learned so far seem to be so similar that learning another was not a
> > problem.
>
> > When you are learning Lisp you also have to learn quite lot of
> > advanced programming which might make things seem to be more
> > difficult.
>
> > I understand the way you feel. I have felt like this many times yet I
> > can't completely give up on Lisp. I saw some of it's power and I am
> > hooked now.
>
> > My advice is take some rest, let your unconscious mind work on it, and
> > after a while come back to Lisp, and you will notice that you will be
> > able to progress much further than before, and after several cycles of
> > giving up and returning to Lisp you will eventually become a proper
> > Lisper.
>
> LOL Yeah right! Give gavino ten years of rest to let his unconscious
> mind work on it!
Norvig's 'Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years' ( http://norvig.com/21-days.html
) gets
a new meaning...
Bigos
wrote:
> On 24 Dez., 15:50, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bigos <ruby.obj...@googlemail.com> writes:
> > > On Dec 23, 1:20 pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I just don't kow if I can learn it.
>
> > > Please don't despair. I think main problem with Lisp is changing the
> > > way you think. When I started learning Lisp for the first time I have
> > > felt like I am learning a different language. Other languages I have
> > > learned so far seem to be so similar that learning another was not a
> > > problem.
>
> > > When you are learning Lisp you also have to learn quite lot of
> > > advanced programming which might make things seem to be more
> > > difficult.
>
> > > I understand the way you feel. I have felt like this many times yet I
> > > can't completely give up on Lisp. I saw some of it's power and I am
> > > hooked now.
>
> > > My advice is take some rest, let your unconscious mind work on it, and
> > > after a while come back to Lisp, and you will notice that you will be
> > > able to progress much further than before, and after several cycles of
> > > giving up and returning to Lisp you will eventually become a proper
> > > Lisper.
>
> > LOL Yeah right! Give gavino ten years of rest to let his unconscious
> > mind work on it!
>
> ) gets
> a new meaning...
lol, brilliant: 10/10
Rahul Jain
> I just don't kow if I can learn it.
I gave up on you a few years ago... Good to see you're finally coming around.
--
Rahul Jain
rj...@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Tim X
To an extent, I think this is fundamental to what makes people like or
dislike a language - its not about whether its too verbose or terse,
uses static typing or dynamic, is OO, functional, procedural, has too
many/too few built-ins, is too large/small etc. Rather it is the extent
to which it easily maps to how someone thinks and solves problems. If a
language has a close fit with how you think and you are able to express
both the problem and solution in that langauge without also requiring a
lot of translation between your mental model and the language model, you
are likely to find the programming easier. You are also likely to grasp
solutions written by others in that language more easily. On the other
hand, if the fit is poor and you constantly have to translate between
your mental model and its representation by the language, you will
likely find the language frustrating and difficult. Understanding
code written by others will also be difficult.
This leaves you with two choices. either you continue to only use
languages which fit with your way of thinking and solving problems or
you learn additional new ways to think about problems and derive
solutions. The first is easy, but doesn't expand your problem solving
techniques or skills. The second is much harder, but comes with mroe
rewards as you learn different ways of thinking about problems, their
representation and their solution.
I've found that with all the languages I've studied, there have only
been a few which have really been chalanging and have taken extra
effort. Without exception, all of them have affected how I think about a
problem and the solutions I come up with. The rest have merely been of
short-term interest. My first language was C and while I haven't used it
in any serious work for many years, it is still the language I have a
lot of fondness for. My second language was assembler and it was the
language that really clarified for me what was actually happening. It
helped me understand why some high level language constructs are slow,
resource hungry etc. My third language was smalltalk, which helped me
understand the benefits of modularity, encapsulation, ,
modeling/simulations etc. Next was prolog. This one took some time to
really understand and showed me a completely different way to think
about problems and solutions. This was the first language where I really
got one of those 'Ah!' moments. I can still clearly remember the day
when the penny dropped. Then came lisp. For me, this was/has been/is
possibly the most challenging language I've looked at. It was also the
first time I had a number of false starts. While I found the syntax easy
enough, much of the rest, particularly the application of the language,
has been quite a struggle. However, it has also been the language which
has held my interest for the longest. Unlike prolog, there hasn't been a
big Aha moment where it all fell into place. There have been lots of
smaller moments of insight. Likewise, there wasn't a point where
suddenly it all became a lot easier. One day, I jus noticed that I was
no longer thinking "how do I express this in a lispy way" - I realised I
was just thinking and coding. there was no real translation between how
I thought about the problem and how I expressed it. I would just sit
with the REPL open and start typing as I was thinking and suddenly,
there it was. It wasn't necessary pretty, efficient or elegant, but it
was there and able to be refined. I also found about this time that I
could just read code written by others. Despite this, I've still only
touched the tip of the iceburg - still a lot to learn and understand.
However, I now do feel taht I'm able to use the language to explore
problems and solutions. For me, this is quite different and refreshing
compared to how I had always approach a problem and its solution.
I'm not sure whether I've learnt to think in a way that suits lisp or
I've learnt enough of lisp for it to suit the way I think. What I do
know is that it has given me a feeling similar to the first time I ever
wrote a program. I've also found that when I run into something which
I'm having problems expressing/solving in lisp, it is almost always
because the crucial bit I need is a construct that either I've not
learnt to use or have forgotten. the solution is usually found by
looking at the hyperspec or studying code written by others.
There are not many things in life I'm absolutely certain about. However,
I am certain that all of these different languages have made me a better
programmer. concepts and techniques used in different languages or with
different paradigms have bled into each other. I have a wider range of
techniques and models to apply during problem solving. While I doubt
life will be long enough to allow me to become a true master of the art,
making the effort to try languages which are quite different has
certainly improved my skills. The last couple of years studying lisp has
also had the benefit of new inspiration and countered some of the
negative aspects of having worked as a programmer in corporate land for
the last 20+ years, which can leave you rather disillusioned.
My advice to anyone like Gavino, who is finding it too difficult is to
give up! If you really have the desire to learn lisp, you will come back
to it later. If you don't, then you probably never really had the drive
to do it. If you have the mindset of it being a difficult task that you
suspect you cannot achieve, you will almost certainly fail. If on the
other hand, you find it hard but rewarding or interesting or in some way
fulfilling, then keep at it. At some point, you will likely realise you
have arrived, but not quite know when.
It can sometimes help to examine your motivations for wanting to learn
lisp. I've known a few people who have attempted to learn it and failed
because their motivations were wrong. They wanted to learn it because
they thought it would make them appear to be more 'hardcore' or smarter
or more of a rebel or it wold make them stand out from all the java code
monkeys etc. Motives like these are largely misdirected and unlikely to
provide a level of sustainability that will get you there. Your motives
need to be oriented more towards a desire to udnerstand the language and
its paradigms, extending your approach to problems, how you think about
them and how you represent and solve them. There shold be motivation to
find new ways to do things or doing things that are new and could not be
done or easily done, with existing techniques/knowledge. for a
programmer, its another tool that will either allow you to do what you
do better or more efficiently or it will allow you to do new things that
were not practicle with your other tools.
For the OP, I don't think you have a true desire or the motivation to
put in an honest effort. I've seen many posts to this group from
you,nearly all of which consisted of vague wishy-washy questions like
"Why is lisp good" or something else that just smells of flamebait. I
don't recall seeing any questions with anything specific, such as
requests to explain a bit of lisp code or even requests for pointers on
which library to use or asking if some behavior was a bug etc. In short,
nothing of substance and no evidence of any effort to find answers other
than to fire off vague questions to this NG.
Tim
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| Francogrex <fra...@grex.org> wrote:
| > Huh? Common Lisp (or any lisp for that matter) is one of the most
| > straightforward languages. You write almost as you would write in
| > plain English... Maybe you should go try to learn assembly, then
| > you'll realize how simple lisp is (by comparison).
|
| For people who think in assembler learning Lisp can be difficult.
| I started with low level languages and maybe this is the reason
+---------------
Hah! I think it very much depends on *which* assembler(s) you learned
originally. My first machine was an LGP-30, where there was very little
difference between absolute machine language and assembler [the low 4 bits
of each instruction mnemonic character *were* the 4 bits of opcode!!],
my second was an IBM 1410 [but that's another story], but my *third* was
a DEC PDP-10 -- *the* ultimate assembler language for Lisp!! A CONS cell
was a single word; CAR & CDR were single machine instructions ["HLRZ" and
"HRRZ", respectively]!
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
| > LOL Yeah right! Give gavino ten years of rest to let
| > his unconscious mind work on it!
|
| Norvig's 'Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years' (
| http://norvig.com/21-days.html
| ) gets a new meaning...
Could be even more than ten years, depending on your chosen implementation:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme.html
Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days
Dorai Sitaram, 1998-2004
Tamas K Papp
> For the OP, I don't think you have a true desire or the motivation to
> put in an honest effort. I've seen many posts to this group from
> you,nearly all of which consisted of vague wishy-washy questions like
> "Why is lisp good" or something else that just smells of flamebait. I
> don't recall seeing any questions with anything specific, such as
> requests to explain a bit of lisp code or even requests for pointers on
> which library to use or asking if some behavior was a bug etc. In short,
> nothing of substance and no evidence of any effort to find answers other
> than to fire off vague questions to this NG.
Exactly. All Gavino does is post vague one-liners, presumably with
the intent of generating discussion, by why he does that is unclear.
Some people then try to read meaning into these and answer them.
He is like the ultimate doctor mode in Emacs: sometimes he gets 20+
posts with questions that are computer-related counterparts of "HOW IS
BABBY FORMEd?". A lot of people fell for this one too.
Tamas
jos...@lisp.de
> jos...@corporate-world.lisp.de <jos...@lisp.de> wrote:
>
> +---------------
> | p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote:
> | > LOL Yeah right! Give gavino ten years of rest to let
> | > his unconscious mind work on it!
> |
> | Norvig's 'Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years' (
> |http://norvig.com/21-days.html
> | ) gets a new meaning...
> +---------------
>
> Could be even more than ten years, depending on your chosen implementation:
>
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme.html
> Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days
> Dorai Sitaram, 1998-2004
Then I was clever without knowing. I saw the first Lisp code on an
Apple II.
>
> -Rob
>
> -----
> Rob Warnock <r...@rpw3.org>
gavino
jeesh I want bush back. we now have more war, deficit, and
unemployment, and fed which caused housing problem getting more power
whew!
Tim X
Exhibiting that shallow grasp of cause and effect, I now understand your
struggle in learning a programming language!
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Dr. Brian Leverich
gavino
wrote:
> On 2009-12-26, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Rune Nøstdal <larsnost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 23, 2:20 pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I just don't kow if I can learn it.
>
> >> Try more beer/drugs. Soon you will be just as clever as your former
> >> president!
>
> > jeesh I want bush back. we now have more war, deficit, and
> > unemployment, and fed which caused housing problem getting more power
> > whew!
>
> Idiot.
fuck you :)
gavino
deep understanding, unlike you I studied non keynesian economics
fed and frddy +fanny = counterfeit money
cause business cycle
yes fed in 1913 and great depression what 7 years after?
think about it
Dr. Brian Leverich
>> >> On Dec 23, 2:20�pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I just don't kow if I can learn it.
>>
>> >> Try more beer/drugs. Soon you will be just as clever as your former
>> >> president!
>>
>> > jeesh I want bush back. �we now have more war, deficit, and
>> > unemployment, and fed which caused housing problem getting more power
>> > whew!
>>
>> Exhibiting that shallow grasp of cause and effect, I now understand your
>> struggle in learning a programming language!
>>
>> --
>> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>
> deep understanding, unlike you I studied non keynesian economics
> fed and frddy +fanny = counterfeit money
> cause business cycle
> yes fed in 1913 and great depression what 7 years after?
> think about it
Idiot.
And yeah, I've studied every kind of economics that's been
contemplated since the start of written history. I'm an
applied mathematician, the doctorate is in Public Policy
Analysis, and the training is from Harvard, Stanford, the
RAND Graduate School, and Oxford.
You have no clue. Go post on RedState or some other place
where you can rub shoulders with your peers. You will find
it more satisfying than interacting with people who actually
do have clues.
Love, B.
gavino
you sound like a moron
jos...@lisp.de
Gavino, could you please give up on Lisp, now!?!
Tim X
and that leads you to want Bush back over Obama? Ignoring which
president actually sent troops into war and the impact that has had on
the deficit, it amazes me that anyone who claims to have studied
economics could place the current problems at the feet of a single
person, especially a president who has been in power for only a bit over
12 months! Unlike you, I won't make any unfounded assumptions about
what you have or have not studied, but I do think a pattern is beginning
to appear. Short term and shallow appear to be consistent themes in this
pattern.
jos...@lisp.de
Could you please discuss off-topic politics at some other place?
Thanks.
Tamas K Papp
He remains here because people reply to him. If they ignored him, he
would go away.
It is amazing that people who appear incomparably more intelligent
than Gavino cannot resist the lure of a troll and try to talk to him
as is he were an human being of at least average intelligence. He
does not even read what you write, it just prompts him to disgorge his
incoherent rants here because he thinks he is getting some attention.
He has learned that the word "lisp" triggers answers here, so he keeps
posting one-liners that incorporate it. Another sure-fire way to
elicit responses is politics or economics, so he throws in keywords
that people respond to.
You guys are keeping him alive. Good job.
Tamas
Tamas K Papp
> On 2009-12-26, gavino <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 11:08 pm, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>>> gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> > On Dec 23, 7:30 pm, Lars Rune Nøstdal <larsnost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Dec 23, 2:20 pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > I just don't kow if I can learn it.
>>>
>>> >> Try more beer/drugs. Soon you will be just as clever as your former
>>> >> president!
>>>
>>> > jeesh I want bush back. we now have more war, deficit, and
>>> > unemployment, and fed which caused housing problem getting more
>>> > power whew!
>>>
>>> Exhibiting that shallow grasp of cause and effect, I now understand
>>> your struggle in learning a programming language!
>>>
>>> --
>>> tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
>>
>> deep understanding, unlike you I studied non keynesian economics fed
>> and frddy +fanny = counterfeit money cause business cycle
>> yes fed in 1913 and great depression what 7 years after? think about it
>
>
> Idiot.
>
> And yeah, I've studied every kind of economics that's been contemplated
> since the start of written history. I'm an applied mathematician, the
> doctorate is in Public Policy Analysis, and the training is from
> Harvard, Stanford, the RAND Graduate School, and Oxford.
Gosh, you must be super-smart. An incoherent troll gives you an
idiotic, senseless rant---no, not even a rant, most sentences don't
have any meaning, they are just a random collection of trigger words---
and you respond by pulling out your degrees. Way to go.
Next time you are in a pub and a random drunk starts talking about the
price of beer, derive him a simple closed economy model w/ sticky
prices and inflation targeting (just 3-4 key equations). That will surely
convince him!
Cheers,
Tamas
Timofei Shatrov
confuse everyone with this message:
>I just don't kow if I can learn it.
You can't really. Go to some other newsgroup please.
--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
Dr. Brian Leverich
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:54:00 +0000, Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-26, gavino <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 25, 11:08�pm, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
>>>> gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> writes:
Hi Tamas!
You're prolly 98% right.
The other 2% is that we have a new and unique domestic political
problem in the USA that runs like this: one idiot says something
awesomely stupid. Everyone with a brain politely moves on, but
30 other idiots notice that what the first idiot said and this
reinforces their weird brand of lunacy.
The next day Faux News reports on it, and idiocy has been
confirmed as fact.
So we have big chunks of America who believe Obama is Kenyan,
Palin is competent to be a President, and death panels will be
hunting down and killing Gramma if healthcare reform passes.
For the brief period here until our subnorms return to watching
NASCAR and quietly burning crosses on the lawns of their
unfortunate Black neighbors, I think maybe Americans need to
take the idiots semi-seriously and bother to point out that they
are, in fact, drooling fools.
I'm hoping this will somewhat accelerate their return to NASCAR
and cross-burning.
Cheers, B.
Larry Coleman
wrote:
>
> And yeah, I've studied every kind of economics that's been
> contemplated since the start of written history. I'm an
> applied mathematician, the doctorate is in Public Policy
> Analysis, and the training is from Harvard, Stanford, the
> RAND Graduate School, and Oxford.
>
So you've also studied Austrian economics (specifically von Mises)?
Dr. Brian Leverich
Of course, you idiot. What part of "every kind" doesn't
parse for you?
Old Ludwig is an interesting guy. Poor bastard was both
Jewish and a Nazi sympathizer, though he had the presence
of mind to bail from Europe before he got what he prolly
personally deserved.
Being serious, the Austrian and Chicago schools have made
theoretical contributions but there are terrific flaws
from a practical perspective. Nobody in their right mind
would let any of these eggheads near a position of
responsibility in economic management.
The recent banking collapse is pretty much a predictable
outcome of what happens if you do ...
Love, B.
Larry Coleman
wrote:
I can parse sentences just fine, thank you, it's just that I don't
often see mainstream economists who admit to being familiar with the
Austrian school. Question withdrawn. You may now transfer your attacks
to a more suitable target.
Larry
Raffael Cavallaro
<leve...@linkpendium.com> said:
> You're prolly 98% right.
>
> The other 2% is that we have a new and unique domestic political
> problem in the USA that runs like this: one idiot says something
> awesomely stupid. Everyone with a brain politely moves on, but
> 30 other idiots notice that what the first idiot said and this
> reinforces their weird brand of lunacy.
>
> The next day Faux News reports on it, and idiocy has been
> confirmed as fact.
>
> So we have big chunks of America who believe Obama is Kenyan,
> Palin is competent to be a President, and death panels will be
> hunting down and killing Gramma if healthcare reform passes.
>
> For the brief period here until our subnorms return to watching
> NASCAR and quietly burning crosses on the lawns of their
> unfortunate Black neighbors, I think maybe Americans need to
> take the idiots semi-seriously and bother to point out that they
> are, in fact, drooling fools.
>
> I'm hoping this will somewhat accelerate their return to NASCAR
> and cross-burning.
mod parent +5 insightful
--
Raffael Cavallaro
gavino
wrote:
nope, and please show some programs you have written.
thx
gavino
but wait, I did study those things!
:)
also, the war was ~600B and obama and fed printed 3T in last 12
months....
hmmmm
where did the $ go?
fed seems unwilling to let elected officials such as ron paul see what
they are up to, yet they can print money?
hmmmm
gavino
but they aren't since I am quite intelligent...154 iq
gavino
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:54:00 +0000, Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
how would fed printing money fit into that?
and factoring interest on deficit which is simply a tax?
hmm?
and how factor that capital gains is paid on money you invested after
you have paind income medicare etc? to the tune of 40c on the $$, now
you are good boy and invest in usa, and if make anything pay anohter
35% whew!!
gavino
wrote:
> On 2009-12-27, Tamas K Papp <tkp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:54:00 +0000, Dr. Brian Leverich wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 25, 11:08 pm, Tim X <t...@nospam.dev.null> wrote:
> >>>> gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> writes:
yet o'reilly is #1 for 9 years....
lol
gavino
yes Read 3 mises books, 2 by hayek
any other authors you care to dicuss?
henry george perhaps?
gavino
nice schools?
are you indepenatly wealthy and simply program lisp for fun?
if so, good show, you are another of my idols
do you own any businesses?
gavino
wrote:
but under reagan many were and the reagan miracle resulted: 8 year
pace and bigggest economic real growth in 120 years...much more growth
than clinton, and after obama we wil need another reagan...bigtime
gavino
uh hello
jim rogers, ron paul, peter schiff all quote austrian school, and
almost all austrain schoolers accuratly predicted 2008 housign nuke
caued by fed and government printing funny money
see you tube for vids on all 3
peter schiff had bet with policy wonk art laffer and SCHOOLED him, and
schiff funds were in cash for the housing nuke
when government does produce, but scamms and simply invent money outa
air, inflation and deficits and ruin results, this is why obama has to
wake up
its as simple as if you local neighborhood tried it
thats why so many phd fail
where were all the harvard and princeton keynesian economists to stop
the housing nuke? no where!
gavino
<raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 22:40:46 -0500, "Dr. Brian Leverich"
its funny how people forget hitler was a democrat/national socialist,
and you lose the godwins law of this thread lol
in many ways obama is hitler
jos...@lisp.de
\|||/
(o o)
,~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~~~,
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| TROLL! |
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooO~~~'
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo
Frank Buss
> nope, and please show some programs you have written.
> thx
You can see some of his programs, papers and video presentations on his
homepage:
Now it's your turn.
--
Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.de
http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
Leandro Rios
And yet you weren't able to learn Lisp in... let's see... three or four years?
I learned Lisp in less than that time, so I must be over 154. Yay!
Leandro
Pillsy
[...]
> but they aren't since I am quite intelligent...154 iq
Hint: in Lisp, when you wish to write a number in octal, you do so by
prefixing it with the characters "#o".
Hope that helps,
Pillsy
Dr. Brian Leverich
> but under reagan many were and the reagan miracle resulted: 8 year
> pace and bigggest economic real growth in 120 years...much more growth
> than clinton, and after obama we wil need another reagan...bigtime
Idiot.
Sustained deficit spending will do that. Reagan had the
good fortune to bail before bad fiscal discipline caught
up with him, while GWB didn't.
Love, B.
Dr. Brian Leverich
> uh hello
> jim rogers, ron paul, peter schiff all quote austrian school, and
> almost all austrain schoolers accuratly predicted 2008 housign nuke
> caued by fed and government printing funny money
> see you tube for vids on all 3
> peter schiff had bet with policy wonk art laffer and SCHOOLED him, and
> schiff funds were in cash for the housing nuke
>
> when government does produce, but scamms and simply invent money outa
> air, inflation and deficits and ruin results, this is why obama has to
> wake up
>
> its as simple as if you local neighborhood tried it
>
> thats why so many phd fail
>
> where were all the harvard and princeton keynesian economists to stop
> the housing nuke? no where!
Um, this is too stupid for words.
Art Laffer was the theorist behind the "Reagan miracle",
which you just cited.
Schiff would have been appalled by Reagan's voodoo
economics.
You cannot possibly have a vague clue about economics
if you manage to approvingly cite both the Reagan miracle
and Peter Schiff back-to-back.
Love, B.
Dr. Brian Leverich
> its funny how people forget hitler was a democrat/national socialist,
> and you lose the godwins law of this thread lol
> in many ways obama is hitler
Right.
And that's why he got on so well with the communists, eh?
And of course that explains why the European aristocracy
and American industrialists loved fascism, and why second-
generation KKKers wave swastikas.
Idiot.
Love, B.
Raymond Wiker
If Gavino is 154, you're *at least* 308. On the other hand, if
your IQ is less than 150, then Gavino's is less than 75, which looks
like a much more likely proposition.
I think something like 1 in 50000 people have an IQ of 150 or
above; this includes some surprises[1] like Asia Carrera
and Jill St John, but in no possible way Gavino.
Footnotes:
[1] Surprised me, at least, though there is no real reason that I
should be surprised... those two, at least, have not been making fools
out of themselves on c.l.l.
Raymond Wiker
#o154 is 108 decimal, which is still too high... #6r154 is
decimal 70 - I wonder how Gavino ended up with an estimate of his IQ in
base 6?
gavino
nice stuff but I think I know why me and they guy are at odds: hes a
mac guy!
gavino
I suppose I could try harder. What apps did you do?
gavino
wow that was a nerdy but cool reply
bravo
gavino
wrote:
dem congress did deficit , dunce
by spending, get this, more than taxes taken in,
dunce
www.mises.org
read up
gavino
wrote:
Well you didn't watch the video did you?
Lafer after leaving Reagan became an apologist for government banking,
changing his tune as no doubt you are angery mr liberman did!
Dr. Brian Leverich
Idiot.
Bush does $2 trillion tax break for the rich, which still
hasn't sunsetted and is continuing to contribute to the
deficit.
Bush launches what will in the end cost us $3+ trillion in
pointless wars, costs which will be plaguing us for another
60 years or so (until the last of the veterans receiving
benefits die out.)
Bush does a half-trillion prescription drug benefit, which
is of marginal actual use to the elderly but is a tremendous
boon to pharmaceutical companies.
And there's actually a bunch of additional Bush costs which
show up indirectly in the budget associated with the banking
system bailout necessitated by Republicans' gross economic
mismanagement and mandated unemployment and other safet-net
benefits being paid because of Bush's economic collapse.
All this crap came down with a Republican presidency and a
solidly Republican congress. That's $5.5+ trillion in
deficit spending.
It is true that Obama and the Democratic congress have prolly
added another trillion through the stimulus package and other
accelerated spending. But deficits in the midst of a recession
are generally a good idea -- everyone but idiots are Keynesians
on that point -- and are distinctly different from the Republicans
who were cheerfully creating massive deficits while an obvious
asset bubble was occurring.
I AM FUCKING SICK OF LYING IDIOTS. It is time for you mentally
challenged fools to go away. You had your time during the Bush
administration, and you guys have again proved that applied
stupidity is not a successful approach to governance.
And do not say stupid things like "dem congress did deficit".
It is a lie.
Love, B.
Dr. Brian Leverich
> Well you didn't watch the video did you?
> Lafer after leaving Reagan became an apologist for government banking,
> changing his tune as no doubt you are angery mr liberman did!
"Laffer" "angry" "Lieberman"
Spelling really isn't that hard for most folks of normal
intelligence.
And your point is irrelevant and meaningless. It doesn't
matter if Arthur Laffer became a transsexual belly dancer
in Tristan da Cunha after the Reagan administration: it
still is moronic to both approvingly cite a stretch of
economic growth stimulated by massive deficits and a hard-
moneyish wacko in the same sentence.
It's just stupid.
Love, B.
Francogrex
> Exactly. All Gavino does is post vague one-liners, presumably with
> the intent of generating discussion, by why he does that is unclear.
> Some people then try to read meaning into these and answer them.
>
> He is like the ultimate doctor mode in Emacs: sometimes he gets 20+
> posts with questions that are computer-related counterparts of "HOW IS
> BABBY FORMEd?". A lot of people fell for this one too.
So that freak called gavino is a mentally retarded imbecile?
Leandro Rios
Oh, no, he says his IQ is 154. He must be an idiot savant, with an emphasis
in the "idiot" part, I presume.
Leandro
gavino
<lever...@linkpendium.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as a tax cut for the rich. Expiring a tax cut
[lol euphamism or rama] is yes raisin taxes.
Government limiting the mrakte, which maximizes supply of things and
commidfies them, is why drugs cost so much.
No there was not 5T deficit spending silly.
War is less that 700m sofar, and Obama and fed spent 3T in last 8
months alone without producing anything.
Fed is a tax, as is fannie and freddy.
They always fail, yet then people say "market" failed and we need mroe
government spending lol!
health care no different: best argument I heard is this from my pal
rik: what governmetn agency does a good job? right none! [look at any
of them] and we cant our hospitals to be an agency? YIKES!
gavino
<lever...@linkpendium.com> wrote:
the reagan miracle: cut taxes, and since this allows more producivity,
more tax income, and best real gorth of common man wages in 8 years of
peace in 120 years. Lets get obama out and elect a new reagan to copy
that success.
gavino
no I am smart and you are commies and retards! lol
gavino
Well USA does not want to copy the failure of europe and most other
states. Since we are most free because of capitalism and free
enterprise we are the most productive and wealthy and happy state. I
do not know why we want to copy those with less success.
Dr. Brian Leverich
Idiot.
Of course there are tax cuts for the rich. For example,
inheritance taxes only affect the wealthy -- the exclusion
is the first *million* in estate size after all deductions,
which means the poor and most of the middle class will never
pay an inheritance tax.
When you send the inheritance tax rate to zero, it is a tax
cut for the rich.
Similar remarks apply to capital gains cuts and pretty much
everything else that was in the Bush package.
> Government limiting the mrakte, which maximizes supply of things and
> commidfies them, is why drugs cost so much.
What is a "mrakte"?
Moreover, this is stupid. Explain why drug companies
charge a half or less everywhere besides the American
market.
> No there was not 5T deficit spending silly.
Of course there was, moron. The deficit went from
5,769.9 in 2001 (last of Clinton's budgets) to
12,867.5 (est.) (last of the Bush-era budgets).
Being fair, prolly close to a trillion of that 12.8T
is the result of the Obama stimulus and other
expenditures that might or might not be fairly
attributed to the new administration, but Bush ran up
at least 6T in new deficits any way you slice it.
> War is less that 700m sofar, and Obama and fed spent 3T in last 8
> months alone without producing anything.
Wars have long fiscal tails. First, they're still Bush's
wars and will be for another 3 or 4 years. Liberals' wet
dreams notwithstanding, you can't just pull out instantly.
Every kid that comes home with PTSD, let alone traumatic
brain injury, is gonna be a drain on the Treasury for
another 50+ years. Gear doesn't come home from theatre in
good shape; you leave a lot of it, and the rest requires
serious maintenance.
This whole turkey will wind up costing us about 3T, unless
we both gut the military and dump the vets out on the street.
I don't know where your 3T in 8 months came from, but note
that the only "discretionary" spending Obama has made so far
is the stimulus and a few other odds and ends. His first
budget started in October of this year. Everything else,
including idiocy like zeroing the inheritance tax, is courtesy
of George W. Bush.
> Fed is a tax, as is fannie and freddy.
Yes. And so ... ?
> They always fail, yet then people say "market" failed and we need mroe
> government spending lol!
Idiot.
They worked brilliantly from the 30s through the 90s. Then
Congressional deregulation and Greenspan's moronic hands-off
approach led to a couple of bubbles and an unusually nasty
recession.
> health care no different: best argument I heard is this from my pal
> rik: what governmetn agency does a good job? right none! [look at any
> of them] and we cant our hospitals to be an agency? YIKES!
Idiot.
Medicare overhead is about a quarter of private insurance overhead.
Usually the private sector is more cost-effective than government
when you have a competitive market at work, but as a practical
matter government usually outperforms private sector monopolies,
monopsonies, and other instances of market failure.
Since American healthcare is about non-functional as one can
imagine in terms of being a competitive marketplace, it's not
surprising that government outperforms private sector players.
Love, B.
Dr. Brian Leverich
No, the Reagan miracle was to run massive deficits and
then leave the party with Alzheimers before the check
arrived.
If he'd cut taxes AND cut the deficit and achieved growth,
then he would have done something interesting.
Love, B.
Dr. Brian Leverich
Note that China's current growth rate vastly exceeds
ours.
By your argument, that proves we should copy China and
immediately implement economic control by the Communist
Party.
Sheesh.
Love, B.