Newbie
ben
being new to this NG. Or not?...Well anyway, although this has probably been
discussed BILLIONS of times before, whether time travel is possible. I
believe it is not, due to the simple reason:
If it was, why haven't people come back from the future already? There must
be criminals or evil geniuses that hatch a plan to go back in time and
destroy the world/gain cash... Maybe they do come back, but we don't know?
Perhaps average people are in fact agents of the future or criminals fleeing
their time?? Think about it.
Ben
The Paranoid Tomato
CRxx
ben heeft geschreven in bericht <84e7kd$ff$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>Hi..I'm new to this NG...and am preparing to be roasted on the charge of
>being new to this NG. Or not?...Well anyway, although this has probably
been
>discussed BILLIONS of times before, whether time travel is possible. I
>believe it is not, due to the simple reason:
I travel constantly in varying speeds through time.
Christine!
PS only forward though.
Uncle Al
ben wrote:
>
> Hi..I'm new to this NG...and am preparing to be roasted on the charge of
> being new to this NG. Or not?...Well anyway, although this has probably been
> discussed BILLIONS of times before, whether time travel is possible. I
> believe it is not, due to the simple reason:
We only attack members of the flock showing bloodspots - the old, the
weak, the stupid, the non-selfconsistent, and folks who expect Elvis
to return on Saturday.
> If it was, why haven't people come back from the future already? There must
> be criminals or evil geniuses that hatch a plan to go back in time and
> destroy the world/gain cash... Maybe they do come back, but we don't know?
> Perhaps average people are in fact agents of the future or criminals fleeing
> their time?? Think about it.
Any future that allows the creation of a time machine and sends
travelers back will eventually change the past so that a time machine
cannot be invented. The problem then disappears into a closed loop.
Causality prevents macroscopic backward time travel. The universe
hates contradictions:
Professor: "Students, I have invented time travel! This little model
here is a working demonstration. I place a Malibu Barbie in my
invention and now send her five minutes into the future."
The lecture hall gasps as the doll disappears, and then reappears five
minutes later. There is a second gasp as the Professor, having
removed his Malibu Barbie, is treated to yet a second doll appearing
in his apparatus.
Professor: "Class, this is quite easily explainable. Five minutes
from now I will send my Malibu Barbie five minutes into the past, and
here she is!"
Student: "But Professor, with the doll already in hand, what happens
if you do NOT send it back into the past? Will the doll disappear?"
Professor: "This is an excellent question. Let us experiment."
So the five minute interval elapsed and the professor did NOT send his
Malibu Barbie five minutes into the past. It was silly to suppose
that matter would vanish into thin air! Except for the doll, the
entire universe disappeared instead.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Voodoo Daddy
You won't get flamed from me, since I am new to the group as well.
Your question is interesting, and my first impulse was to think, "perhaps no
time traveller has intruded on OUR time yet but possibly other times" which
worked until I thought about our consistent memory and agreement about the
fundamentals of history. Sure we argue about details and nuances, but the
facts are still there (The allieds won WW2, Armstrong walked on the moon in
July '69) and if there was significant change in history, wouldn't that
interrupt the collective conciousness somehow?
All this is moot if the "time travellers" have figured out a way to
manipulate our memories and/or experiences (ever seen 'The Matrix?')
I guess my gut feeling is that time travel IS possible, but somehow does not
affect this reality. Which means I subscribe to the "parallel universe"
theory, conceived by that guy who took all that acid.
Voodoo
ben <ben....@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:84e7kd$ff$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> Hi..I'm new to this NG...and am preparing to be roasted on the charge of
> being new to this NG. Or not?...Well anyway, although this has probably
been
> discussed BILLIONS of times before, whether time travel is possible. I
> believe it is not, due to the simple reason:
>
> If it was, why haven't people come back from the future already? There
must
> be criminals or evil geniuses that hatch a plan to go back in time and
> destroy the world/gain cash... Maybe they do come back, but we don't know?
> Perhaps average people are in fact agents of the future or criminals
fleeing
> their time?? Think about it.
>
> Ben
> The Paranoid Tomato
>
>
>
Wyde Wing
stock prices. Then he could go back to his start time and buy stock that will
go up.
Sammi
Wyde Wing <wyde...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991230164900...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
and it will go up because he bought it and he bought it because it went up
and it will...........
>
>
Uncle Al
Wyde Wing wrote:
>
> One thing a time traveller could do would be to go into the future and check
> stock prices. Then he could go back to his start time and buy stock that will
> go up.
Or go down. He couldn't return to where he started because it
wouldn't be there any more given his prior intervention.
Ken
writes:
>
>Hi..I'm new to this NG...and am preparing to be roasted on the charge of
>being new to this NG. Or not?...Well anyway, although this has probably been
>discussed BILLIONS of times before, whether time travel is possible. I
>believe it is not, due to the simple reason:
>
>If it was, why haven't people come back from the future already? There must
>be criminals or evil geniuses that hatch a plan to go back in time and
>destroy the world/gain cash... Maybe they do come back, but we don't know?
>Perhaps average people are in fact agents of the future or criminals fleeing
>their time?? Think about it.
>
>Ben
>The Paranoid Tomato
>
Ben,
Read Ezekiel in the old testament. Reads like a science fiction story of 22nd
century humans returning to ancient times.
Better yet read "The spaceships of Ezekiel" by an aerospace engineer who
analyzed the writings. His original intent was to dispute Erik von Danikan.
----------------------
Or, if time travel needs a terminal at each end you cant go back before the
first terminal is built.
----------------------
Why do you think Bill Gates said at an early age, "I am going to build the
operating system that the world will use."
Ken
Cybercut Precision Machining-
"Quality is created, not controlled."
Sean Hanson
> Why do you think Bill Gates said at an early age, "I am going to build the
> operating system that the world will use."
Hmmm. I dunno. Was it because he wanted to buy and steal other
people's software
and focus on marketing instead? I have yet to see him build the
operating
system that the world will use. Heck, I have yet to see *him* build
much of anything.
-- Sean...
SysAdmin, Programmer, Debunker of Myths =)
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
|Read Ezekiel in the old testament. Reads like a science fiction story
of 22nd
|century humans returning to ancient times.
|
|Better yet read "The spaceships of Ezekiel" by an aerospace engineer
who
|analyzed the writings. His original intent was to dispute Erik von
Danikan.
Actually, there is a meteorological phenomenon that can explain the
visions of Ezekiel. I forget the precise term (not my field), but the
Meteorology Department at UCLA had a window display about it some years
ago. Certain atmospheric conditions can diffract sunlight to produce a
display very much resembling a "wheel within a wheel," among other
things.
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CCP, CFI)
http://www.babcom.com/polymath/
http://www.babcom.com/gla-mensa/
Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
Catharine Honeyman
:His original intent was to dispute Erik von Danikan.
Boy, what a trip for me. I read "Chariots of the Gods?" on a long, boring
car trip when I was eight. It blew my tiny mind. Fortunately, I grew up
and developed some rudimentary critical thinking skills.
Aloha,
Catharine
Uncle Al
"The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)" wrote:
>
> Ken wrote in message <19991231135428...@nso-fm.aol.com>...
>
> |Read Ezekiel in the old testament. Reads like a science fiction story
> of 22nd
> |century humans returning to ancient times.
> |
> |Better yet read "The spaceships of Ezekiel" by an aerospace engineer
> who
> |analyzed the writings. His original intent was to dispute Erik von
> Danikan.
>
> Actually, there is a meteorological phenomenon that can explain the
> visions of Ezekiel. I forget the precise term (not my field), but the
> Meteorology Department at UCLA had a window display about it some years
> ago. Certain atmospheric conditions can diffract sunlight to produce a
> display very much resembling a "wheel within a wheel," among other
> things.
See: shadow, glory, and fogbow
K
visions of Ezekiel. >>
*Can*, yes. But whether it *does* or not... ;o)
Just playing devil's advocate.
K
Wyde Wing
I don't get that.
His purchase would make the stock go up. That would make it even higher when
he got to the time he travelled to.
Hmmmm.
TANSTAAFL
<cat...@aloha.net> wrote:
For which I, for one, am grateful.
dennis curtis
Got my ideas to jostle ya'll.
Best to youse--dennis
Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Wyde Wing wrote:
> >
> > One thing a time traveller could do would be to go into the future and check
> > stock prices. Then he could go back to his start time and buy stock that will
> > go up.
>
> wouldn't be there any more given his prior intervention.
>
Ken
<ara...@kenny.noc.aracnet.com> writes:
Maybe he actually said sell? He built the company that sells the operating
system that plauges(sp?) the world.
Jerome Schroeder
check
> stock prices. Then he could go back to his start time and buy stock that
will
> go up.
>
A. They are core companys upon which the economy depends. Eg. Intel for
microchips, Microsoft for software. Boeing for Aircraft. If a core company
is in trouble, everyone is in trouble.
B. They should not have serious competition, eg. Microsoft.
C. They should be be well run. Ie. relatively few MBAs and Wall Street hot
shots. (That lets out most new Internet firms.) If I can, I check the
educational background of the principals. If there are too many MBAs,
business school types, and "Golden Parachutists" who've been involved in
previous mergers, buyouts etc. I steer clear. The best run companies are
headed by folks who know and love the business they are in.
I once worked for a firm that made industrial fans. Dull, right? Well
you couldn't be more wrong. The owner was passionately interested in fans
and blowers and probably was one of the world's leading experts in the
field. He insisted on quality, and had an active research program. He
hired and promoted people who shared his interest.
With him at the helm, it was the most respected company in the field and
made consistent profits even in hard times. Even tho he was a nerd and a
geek, he could pass that enthusiasm on. When he died, his heirs turned
the firm over to the MBAs and they are now virtually out of business.
D. Ignore the "experts." Financial types who know what they are doing are
quietly investing on their own hook and won't waste time with the likes of
you and me. The incompetants are trying to sell you stocks and advice.
I occaisionally hang in my office a ten year old research report on
Microsoft from a major brokerage house. It cautiously suggests buying MSFT
and lists several reasons. None of which were correct or had any relivance
to the future of the company. My favorite was Microsoft's alliance with
IBM. I wonder what the same firm said when the divorce came along? The
point being is that the "experts" were clueless.
E. Hang in for the long haul. Day trading may be fun, but its a quick way
to loose baby's shoes.
There are many ways to make and lose money on the market. These are my
rules. So far they've paid off quite well.
Jerry
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
|C. They should be be well run. Ie. relatively few MBAs and Wall Street
hot
|shots. (That lets out most new Internet firms.) If I can, I check the
|educational background of the principals. If there are too many MBAs,
|business school types, and "Golden Parachutists" who've been involved
in
|previous mergers, buyouts etc. I steer clear. The best run
companies are
|headed by folks who know and love the business they are in.
Not necessarily. For example, I cite Citigroup (nee Citicorp). The
stock has split, on average, once a year for the past six years --
outperforming all my other investments combined or singly (including the
vaunted Berkshire-Hathaway, which has been performing poorly of late).
I expect it to split again this year, with a probable dividend increase
in the bargain.
I hear they have a few MBAs on staff, but I won't let it bother me. /-:
Wyde Wing
one of the world's leading experts in the field. He insisted on quality, and
had an active research program. He hired and promoted people who shared his
Maybe his firm produced the power-supply cooling fan in my PC. The fan is so
quiet I don't notice it. Every other computer I have used had irritating fan
noise. It was a relief to switch the PC off.
An exception was the early Mac SE's, which had no cooling fan at all. Trouble
was, they overheated. Later SE's had a fan that sounded like a coffee grinder.
The trouble with engineers, and programers too, is that they look inward at the
equipment or program instead of outward at the world outside. That's why there
is so much user-hostile equipment and programs.
Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts man to
make sure the stuff is user friendly. Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
Note that I said "good" liberal arts man. There are a lot of second raters who
float through college and get a liberal arts degree when their real major was
beer, girls, and partying.
Wyde Wing
one of the world's leading experts in the field. He insisted on quality, and
had an active research program. He hired and promoted people who shared his
and made consistent profits even in hard times. Even tho he was a nerd and a
geek, he could pass that enthusiasm on. When he died, his heirs turned the
That illustrates my view that there should be a very high inheritance tax. The
lazy inheritors of wealth eventually ruin an economy. That happens when there
are enough of them in charge of many companies. It is happening to the US.
The only dynamic industry we have left is high-tech electronics.
It is noteworthy that almost all successful high-tech firms are fairly recent
startups. The old-line electronics firms, GE, IBM, etc., are not innovators.
They may be profitable because of their dominant position in their industry,
but they contribution nothing new and will eventually go the way of the
dinosaur.
PSmith9626
Migraine does it fine.
best
penny
Oliver Sacks explained Ez. as a good description of a common migraine aura.
Catharine Honeyman
:That illustrates my view that there should be a very high inheritance tax.
Thank you, Wyde Wing. That illustrates my view that you don't always
understand what you espouse. The high inheritance tax in Hawaii is why we
had to sell my grandfather's house, which was my childhood home, the center
of our family, and an early Ossipoff, as well. It's not always the rich
bastards who get zonked by such things.
Aloha,
Catharine
Prigator
>Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts man to
>make sure the stuff is user friendly.
Look up "ergonomics." That is not one of the liberal arts. It a science which
of late has become a specialty under biomedical engineering.
>Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
>interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
Dealing with people is dealing with abstractions. Scientists can do that, too.
Doug Chandler
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
<20000101203147...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
My SO gets migraines and auras. As she describes them, they're nothing
like Ezikiel's vision.
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
<20000101224710...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
At my last job, they made the mistake of giving the product's exterior
design to an artist instead of an engineer or ergonomicist. The result
was a disaster from the customer interface stand point. I told them so,
the first time they showed me the prototype, but they didn't listen. I
still have one in my closet, but I've never actually used it. Too much
bother to set up and tear down because of that "artistic" design. (The
second generation model was much more practical and fit into standard
motor-vehicle accessory formats.)
Sammi
had this 'discussion' before (months ago)
same suggestion was made by yours truely
sammi
Prigator <prig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000101224710...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> Wydewing wings it:
>
> >Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts
man to
> >make sure the stuff is user friendly.
>
> Look up "ergonomics." That is not one of the liberal arts. It a science
which
> of late has become a specialty under biomedical engineering.
>
> >Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
> >interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
>
> Dealing with people is dealing with abstractions. Scientists can do that,
too.
>
> Doug Chandler
>
Sammi
> >> The owner was passionately interested in fans and blowers and probably
was
> one of the world's leading experts in the field. He insisted on quality,
and
> had an active research program. He hired and promoted people who shared
his
> interest. With him at the helm, it was the most respected company in the
field
> and made consistent profits even in hard times. Even tho he was a nerd
and a
> geek, he could pass that enthusiasm on. When he died, his heirs turned
the
> lazy inheritors of wealth eventually ruin an economy.
huh?
how does that follow ?
sammi
R. K. Henry
> >> The owner was passionately interested in fans and blowers and probably
was
> one of the world's leading experts in the field. He insisted on quality,
and
> had an active research program. He hired and promoted people who shared
his
> interest. With him at the helm, it was the most respected company in the
field
> and made consistent profits even in hard times. Even tho he was a nerd
and a
> geek, he could pass that enthusiasm on. When he died, his heirs turned
the
> firm over to the MBAs and they are now virtually out of business. JS <<
>
> That illustrates my view that there should be a very high inheritance tax.
The
> lazy inheritors of wealth eventually ruin an economy. That happens when
there
> are enough of them in charge of many companies. It is happening to the
US.
> The only dynamic industry we have left is high-tech electronics.
So how is a high inheritance tax going to save such a company?
1. You liquidate the company to pay the tax and the company is out of
business.
2. The goverment confiscates the business and turns it over to the MBAs to
run into the ground.
3. The heirs turn the business over to MBAs to run into the ground.
I don't see an inheritance tax helping the public interest in any case.
If the heirs had shown a talent and an interest in running the business the
high inheritance tax would force the company out of business anyway. That
has already happened to so many family businesses, particularly family
farms. By using the inheritance tax to force family farms out of business,
agribusiness interests can acquire the assets cheaply
High inheritance taxes allow corporations to expand at the expense of small
family businesses. Every asset forced to the auction block by the
inheritance tax would eventually end up on the balance sheets of giant
corporations. That's a great way to get rid of pesky small competitors.
Pretty soon we can have every business asset owned by multinational
corporations and can finally crush these small upstart firms once and for
all! Eliminate innovative small competitors and acquire assets for a song.
And a good move for politicians too. They can pretend to be screwing the
rich while the whole thing is actually just a strategy to help their
corporate campaign contributors. And the rich don't get hurt either because
they can hire teams of lawyers and accountants to help them dodge the tax so
the only people who really get hit by it are clueless "little people" whose
assets happen to have become worth something.
--
Bob
rian
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) heeft geschreven in bericht <84mnb0
>My SO gets migraines and auras. As she describes them, they're nothing
>like Ezikiel's vision.
>
before the headache sets in?
Rian
PSmith9626
There are many kinds of migraine auras. Glowing wheels etc., are a
common one.
The other stuff about four faces etc., was standard religous boiler plate
in the middle east at that time. Goes back before
jews. Today, one might say it looked like a
scene from a movie.
best
penny
>Message-id: <84mnb0$l...@chicago.us.mensa.org>
>
PSmith9626
That is one form. Me , I get a single point flash of light.
best
penny
Wyde Wing
<<
Quite right. Ergonomics is not one of the liberal arts, that's just the
problem. Here's a dictionary definition of ergonomics:
"The applied science of equipment design, as for the workplace, intended to
maximize productivity by reducing operator fatigue and discomfort. Also called
biotechnology, human engineering, human factors engineering."
Notice the mechanical aspect of the definition. Operator fatigue and
discomfort are physical things. But ergonomics, if used at all, only goes part
way. What is so often neglected is the mind of the user. Equipment or
software that is physically easy to use can still lead to fatigue and
discomfort if the mind of the user is ignored in the design. For instance,
there are the noisy power-supply fans in most PC's. That leads to fatigue. It
is a relief to switch the computer off.
Ergonomics, if used at all, is usually given short shrift. I've never heard of
a company that had a Department of Ergonomics. And even that is not enough.
Companies need to go beyond ergonomics.
In contrast, Steve Jobs picked up the pictorial O/S interface from Xerox Parc.
Xerox, run by engineers, thought it was unimportant. But Jobs picked up the
ball and ran with it. He is not an engineer - he had one year of college at
Reed College, which is an experimental college that does not give grades. He
had been a computer hardware hacker, but he did not have the mechanically
oriented viewpoint of an engineer. He was thinking about the people who would
be using the Apple computer. For one thing, in pictorial design he wanted
Apple programmers to show folders with a tab at the top. The programmers
grumbled about the extra work involved, but Jobs insisted. As a result,
nontechnical users could immediately see what it was, in contrast to the
mysterious "directories" of DOS.
By the way, I used to be a Mac user but I switched to a PC because I got a
funny look when I told people I was a Macintosh man.
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
<946805434.16999....@news.demon.nl>...
She describes a sparkling zig-zag pattern across her visual field. I've
had those a few times myself -- usually during periods of high mental
stress -- but no accompanying headaches. This is, supposedly, a
"classic" migraine aura.
Ken
<poly...@pacbell.net> writes:
>She describes a sparkling zig-zag pattern across her visual field. I've
>had those a few times myself -- usually during periods of high mental
>stress -- but no accompanying headaches. This is, supposedly, a
>"classic" migraine aura.
>
that discribes mine. Or spots of the pattern.
Once while driving down a freeway I noticed that the cars on the overpass I was
approaching seemed to be disappearing into thin air as they crossed into my
blind spot (which I hadn't noticed until then). Rather disconcerting, to say
the least.
Catharine Honeyman
:She describes a sparkling zig-zag pattern across her visual field.
I don't have migraines (thank heavens), but one of my best friends does, and
he gets what he calls color swarms as auras. He says they look like what
you see if you scrunch your eyes shut and rub them vigorously.
Aloha,
Catharine
Sean Hanson
> The trouble with engineers, and programers too, is that they look inward at the
> equipment or program instead of outward at the world outside. That's why there
> is so much user-hostile equipment and programs.
>
> Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts man to
> make sure the stuff is user friendly. Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
> interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
As a programmer and systems administrator, let me say this:
"Unix is user-friendly. It's just picky about who it makes friends
with."
I'm insulted by all the dolts who think they have the right to just go
out
and buy a computer and start using it. These aren't toys, people.
These are
high-tech complicated machines. But then, I tend to have a rather
elitist
attitude about the whole thing.
-- Sean...
Wyde Wing
Parc. Xerox, run by engineers, thought it was unimportant. But Jobs picked up
In the movie "Paper Chase" professor Kingsley, the classroom bully, says, "I
teach you to think like a lawyer". Similarly, engineers are taught to think
like engineers, with human factors being given short shrift.
One thing I must say about salesmen, even though they wear pointy-toed shoes
they are thinking hard about the customer, and sometimes they are able to
influence hardware design. That influence is not always benign from the
customer's standpoint, but on occasion they are able to bring about worthwhile
changes.
Uncle Al
Sean Hanson wrote:
>
> Wyde Wing wrote:
>
> > The trouble with engineers, and programers too, is that they look inward at the
> > equipment or program instead of outward at the world outside. That's why there
> > is so much user-hostile equipment and programs.
> >
> > Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts man to
> > make sure the stuff is user friendly. Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
> > interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
>
> As a programmer and systems administrator, let me say this:
>
> "Unix is user-friendly. It's just picky about who it makes friends
> with."
>
> I'm insulted by all the dolts who think they have the right to just go
> out
> and buy a computer and start using it. These aren't toys, people.
> These are
> high-tech complicated machines.
Every idiot has every right - even better and more rights! - to enjoy
everything purchased and employed by the intelligent and productive.
Every scumbag and minority child has a right to be connected to the
Internet at public expense, therein to be protected from it contents.
("IT'S NOT FAIR! Suppose ordinary businesses could operate sales
tax-free like e-businesses. They'd make a fortune!" Yes, your point
being? Almost anything government touches thereafter stinks. The
solution is not to address fine points of the stink or uniformly
spread it. The solution is to maximally contain government as
enumerated in the Constitution.)
Sean Hanson
>
> Sean Hanson wrote:
> >
> > Wyde Wing wrote:
> >
> > > The trouble with engineers, and programers too, is that they look inward at the
> > > equipment or program instead of outward at the world outside. That's why there
> > > is so much user-hostile equipment and programs.
> > >
> > > Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts man to
> > > make sure the stuff is user friendly. Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
> > > interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
> >
> > As a programmer and systems administrator, let me say this:
> >
> > "Unix is user-friendly. It's just picky about who it makes friends
> > with."
> >
> > I'm insulted by all the dolts who think they have the right to just go
> > out
> > and buy a computer and start using it. These aren't toys, people.
> > These are
> > high-tech complicated machines.
>
> Every idiot has every right - even better and more rights! - to enjoy
> everything purchased and employed by the intelligent and productive.
> Every scumbag and minority child has a right to be connected to the
> Internet at public expense, therein to be protected from it contents.
Well then, dammit, screw my driver's license! I have the right to
drive
my car even if I can't prove I know what I'm doing!
Woohoo!
-- Sean... =)
Wyde Wing
and buy a computer and start using it. These aren't toys, people. These are
A similar situation existed in the early days of the automobile. To start the
engine a driver first had to set the choke and ignition-advance levers on the
steering wheel. Then he went around to the front of the car and exerted muscle
power on the engine crank handle a few times. If he didn't do it right, the
engine could backfire and the crank handle would whip back and break his arm.
When the engine sputtered to life the driver had to run back to the side of the
car and re-adjust the choke and ignition-advance levers. If he didn't do it
quick enough the engine would die because the best positions of the levers for
starting the engine were not the best positions to keep the engine running.
As years went by, a starter motor was incorporated, an automatic choke was
provided, and automatic ignition-advance was incorporated. Other improvements
were later made.
Computers, too, are gradually being made more user friendly, and it is
happening faster than with automobiles.
Sean Hanson
Beautiful. You completely ignore the pertinent statement.
You can have your dumbed-down computer. Linux enjoys being friends
with me.
(p.s.--> if safety was an issue with cars, it should be remedied;
there are
no safety issues with computers of the same degree, which renders
your point
rather moot. Thanks)
-- Sean...
Gene Richardson
>
> Computers, too, are gradually being made more user friendly, and it is
> happening faster than with automobiles.
Appears that way to us as local observers but might in a hundred
years look like we were snails.
:o) gene
Gene Richardson
>
> > The trouble with engineers, and programers too, is that they look inward at the
> > equipment or program instead of outward at the world outside. That's why there
> > is so much user-hostile equipment and programs.
And why programs can be so solid logically yet
cause such a shockingly poor impression on the
endus..r.(the guy paying for it).
> > Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts man to
> > make sure the stuff is user friendly. Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
> > interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
>
And even they need beta testers,
(people who pretend they bought it),
to test them on.
Of course your right Wyde.
I like good examples of software that are concieved
and specifically vertically designed with the help of
the demanding user who knows what results he needs
and is willing to suffer the frowneyed stare of a
programmer who is able to get to that point without
them killing each other like I have this grammer :o)
gene
Gene Richardson
> Well then, dammit, screw my driver's license! I have the right to
> drive
> my car even if I can't prove I know what I'm doing!
>
> Woohoo!
>
> -- Sean... =)
Any you are right Sean;
In your back yard or in the garden.
:o) gene
Sean Hanson
Oh, sure, take away all my fun. =)
-- Sean...
Vroom! Vroom!
Sean Hanson
And you killed it so well. ;)
Unfortunately, there seem to be two vastly different camps. One camp
writes programs
to perform a function, and adhere strictly to "form ever follows
function". I write
a program to solve a problem, and that's that. If you want fluff, buy
M$. If you want
to get the job done right, learn to use the tools. The second camp
writes programs to make
them "easy" for end-users. And, subsequently, they lose functionality.
And oftentimes
their interface becomes too complicated anyway, because they're so
caught up in the
fluff.
It may not be the prettiest (IMO it is ;), but NeXTStep's interface is
still the most intuitive and
elegant around. Elegance is a concept lost on M$. =)
-- Sean...
K
>I'm insulted by all the dolts
What if they aren't dolts, just undereducated in computers (not everyone can
afford to go to all those classes)
who think they have the right to just go
>out
>and buy a computer and start using it.
What if it was a gift =) or borrowed, and in just picking it up and using it,
a fascination is born... if everyone had to wade thru classes first, or tons of
books, before trying something... u'd have a lot of emotionally paralyzed folk
afraid to try anything new. BTW this is most of the market isn't it... the
average home user ?
Or are you talking about something else ?
These aren't toys, people.
They can be...
>These are
>high-tech complicated machines.
Yes, with much potential.
But then, I tend to have a rather
>elitist
>attitude about the whole thing.
>
Why elitist.. that only means most people will not be allowed to use it. The
person not allowed might have been the one to consciously or by accident, touch
off some innovation or other. Isn't everything connected ? So why deny others
the same joy you find in these machines ? =)
K
Uncle Al
K wrote:
>
> Hi Sean;
>
> >I'm insulted by all the dolts
>
> What if they aren't dolts, just undereducated in computers (not everyone can
> afford to go to all those classes)
[snip]
If you cannot pass the tests, you don't get your driver's license.
Driving is a privilege not a right.
If you cannot type the computer won't be much of an aid. If you
cannot afford maybe $100 of books (Idiot's Guide to UNIX) how can you
afford a $1000 computer? If you are stupid, think of it (if you can)
as evolution in action.
Sean Hanson
>
> Hi Sean;
>
> >I'm insulted by all the dolts
>
> What if they aren't dolts, just undereducated in computers (not everyone can
> afford to go to all those classes)
The undereducated can remedy that undereducation. The dolts don't
bother trying.
Classes aren't required. A $50 book can give you a good running start,
assuming
you don't have the gift of hacking.
> What if it was a gift =) or borrowed, and in just picking it up and using it,
> a fascination is born... if everyone had to wade thru classes first, or tons of
> books, before trying something... u'd have a lot of emotionally paralyzed folk
> afraid to try anything new. BTW this is most of the market isn't it... the
> average home user ?
> Or are you talking about something else ?
One book is all you need to get A Clue(tm). It's not difficult, just
takes some
intelligence.
> >These are
> >high-tech complicated machines.
>
> Yes, with much potential.
Which can never be realised by a dolt. ;)
> Why elitist.. that only means most people will not be allowed to use it. The
> person not allowed might have been the one to consciously or by accident, touch
> off some innovation or other. Isn't everything connected ? So why deny others
> the same joy you find in these machines ? =)
Elitist because dumbing down computers isn't the way to help
innovation. =/ I don't
want to deny *people*. Just the stupid people. ;) And not directly,
mind you. They
can deny themselves. If they want to be allowed to use it, then all
they have to do
is learn to use it. If they can't even do that, they certainly won't
be making any
innovations.
-- Sean...
Alan White
Sean Hanson <ara...@kenny.noc.aracnet.com> wrote:
>
>Elitist because dumbing down computers isn't the way to help
>innovation. =/ I don't
>want to deny *people*. Just the stupid people. ;) And not directly,
>mind you. They
>can deny themselves. If they want to be allowed to use it, then all
>they have to do
>is learn to use it. If they can't even do that, they certainly won't
>be making any
>innovations.
>
How do you dumb down a computer? Make it simpler and easier? Why should they be so arcane that it
takes a lifetime to remember all the commands? I have a friend who spent 10 years working in DOS.
Of course he doesn't have anything pleasant to say about windows, but then again, he's never come
up with anything innovative-- he's spent all of his time learning DOS. Great mind, terrible loss.
Alan
club page:http://www.charweb.org/sports/windsurfer
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
|How do you dumb down a computer? Make it simpler and easier? ...
For a reductio ad absurdum response, see some of the toddler level toys
designed to introduce them to computers. They are certainly simple and
easy to use. They are not very useful in terms of performing real world
tasks.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler!" --
A. Einstein
|... Why should they be so arcane that it
|takes a lifetime to remember all the commands? ...
You don't need to remember all the commands. You do need to learn the
ones that make the machine do what you want it to do. Depending on what
the latter is, that could take anywhere from an hour to several years.
Sean Hanson
> How do you dumb down a computer?
By installing Windoze. ;)
> Make it simpler and easier? Why should they be so arcane that it
> takes a lifetime to remember all the commands? I have a friend who spent 10 years working in DOS.
> Of course he doesn't have anything pleasant to say about windows, but then again, he's never come
> up with anything innovative-- he's spent all of his time learning DOS. Great mind, terrible loss.
A lifetime to remember all the commands? Oh puhleez. I went from
no-DOS-experience to DOS-guru in
under a year. I've learned programming languages in a matter of
months. Unix had more to learn than DOS,
but with more rewards. Still not terribly time-consuming. How
difficult is it to remember commands like
cd, ls, rm, and cp (change directory, list, remove, copy...all quite
intuitive, thankyouverymuch)?
If he had a great mind, he either wouldn't have spent all his time
learning DOS, or he would've been
spending all his time hacking DOS. Or he would've given up and done
something more productive...
-- Sean...
perl -e 'print(join(" ",reverse(split("
",pack(H46,"4861636b657220444f5320416e6f74686572204a757374")))));'
(With Apologies to Randal Schwartz ;)
Alan White
"The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
see some of the toddler level toys
>designed to introduce them to computers. They are certainly simple and
>easy to use. They are not very useful in terms of performing real world
>tasks.
It is a real world function to teach toddlers to use computers. Whether play computers actually do
their intended function is another argument. ROTC kids practice with play rifles, is that not a
functional use of something dumbed down? I personally don't have a problem with letting my 5 year
nephew pound out emails on the keyboard, in fact, letting him work/play on play computers might do
some harm in the long run, just as 'baby talk' has been shown to be detrimental to infants
learning language.
We probably agree on simple vs. simpler. However, I see some prejudice towards changes in
operating systems from time to time among computer programers that seem unfounded. Our business
continues using rpg in an AS400e because our programer is so afraid of pc's that he doesn't even
own one.
Wyde Wing
drive my car even if I can't prove I know what I'm doing! Woohoo!
-- Sean... =) <<
It is not necessary to be a computer design engineer or programmer to use a
desktop computer if the equipment and software are user friendly. We are
moving in the right direction. For the general user, we are now beyond the
need for arcane DOS commands. Yahoo !!
Wyde Wing
"easy" for end-users. And, subsequently, they lose functionality. << Sean
If they lose functionality it is because an adequate programming job was not
done, or it is because some users do not require full functionality.
For instance, in Windows 95 and 98 the pictorial interface has much less
capability than DOS commands. But the general user does not require the DOS
commands.
As for "form follows function", for the general user function should include
ease of use.
Sean Hanson
>
> In article <84tkmv$s...@chicago.us.mensa.org>,
> "The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> see some of the toddler level toys
> >designed to introduce them to computers. They are certainly simple and
> >easy to use. They are not very useful in terms of performing real world
> >tasks.
>
> It is a real world function to teach toddlers to use computers. Whether play computers actually do
> their intended function is another argument. ROTC kids practice with play rifles, is that not a
> functional use of something dumbed down? I personally don't have a problem with letting my 5 year
> nephew pound out emails on the keyboard, in fact, letting him work/play on play computers might do
> some harm in the long run, just as 'baby talk' has been shown to be detrimental to infants
> learning language.
Except that whereas babies are eventually expected to learn language,
the computer illiterate are
not expected to learn computers, and thus programmers and the rest of
us are expected to bend to
their own inadequacies.
Just as baby talk may harm a child learning real language, I know
plenty of people who've started
on windoze and then had their learning curve stunted when they tried
learning more complicated
things. =(
> We probably agree on simple vs. simpler. However, I see some prejudice towards changes in
> operating systems from time to time among computer programers that seem unfounded. Our business
> continues using rpg in an AS400e because our programer is so afraid of pc's that he doesn't even
> own one.
RPG? Isn't that, like, dungeons and dragons and stuff? ;) Doh! I
didn't even know people still wrote
in RPG. *shudder*
-- Sean, who wishes he could've learned programming with punch cards
*grin*
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
|In article <84tkmv$s...@chicago.us.mensa.org>,
| "The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)" <poly...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| see some of the toddler level toys
|>designed to introduce them to computers. They are certainly simple
and
|>easy to use. They are not very useful in terms of performing real
world
|>tasks.
|
|
|It is a real world function to teach toddlers to use computers. Whether
play computers actually do
I hope you are being deliberately obtuse. The above is completely
orthogonal to my point. I think you know that.
|... ROTC kids practice with play rifles, is that not a
|functional use of something dumbed down? ...
No, it's practice with something cheaper than the real thing. You don't
want kids tossing and dropping $450 rifles when $25 wooden copies will
do. There are also legal points involved. Taking home a wooden copy of
a rifle to practice close order drill with is legal for anyone. Taking
home a real rifle is illegal for anyone under 18.
|... I personally don't have a problem with letting my 5 year
|nephew pound out emails on the keyboard, in fact, letting him work/play
on play computers might do
|some harm in the long run, just as 'baby talk' has been shown to be
detrimental to infants
|learning language.
What has all this got to do with dumbing down computers for adults?
|We probably agree on simple vs. simpler. However, I see some prejudice
towards changes in
|operating systems from time to time among computer programers that seem
unfounded. Our business
|continues using rpg in an AS400e because our programer is so afraid of
pc's that he doesn't even
|own one.
If PCs would do the job better, then he's wrong and you should replace
him. If not, what he owns or doesn't own is irrelevant. I didn't own a
PC the whole 12 years I worked for Citicorp as a software engineer. I
didn't need one because I had a better system on my desk, every working
day (SPARCstation running Solaris). When I left Citicorp, I bought my
home PC. If I had it to do over again, it would be running Linux or
Solaris, instead of WinXX, but they weren't so easily available at the
time.
K
Driving is a privilege not a right.>>
Dear Uncle Al;
But for home use, computers (most use them for office work or games) won't kill
someone; an unlicensed driver certainly might.
<<If you
cannot afford maybe $100 of books (Idiot's Guide to UNIX) how can you
afford a $1000 computer? >>
Borrowed or a gift, thought I mentioned that... although that wouldn't be every
case.
In best case scenario, of course person would want to learn computers backward
and forward, be able to build/repair their own, etc.
I am just positing that it shouldn't be required before they can even use
one... or own one... but that if they like to jump in feet first like me, it
might instead spark their interest to learn.
<<If you are stupid, think of it (if you can)
as evolution in action.>>
Or old and set in ways etc. Some older relatives shy away from microwaves and
even can openers *!* and boom boxes, the way their grandparents didn't like
telephones. And they're not stupid people.
(snip, out of order)
<< If you cannot type the computer won't be much of an aid.>>
Sorry, I went back and retrieved this one to reply to...
I always thought the future would be utilitarian. I wanted apprenticeships to
come back, I wanted to learn everything re: self sufficiency from soap making
on up. Now all those things are a type of fad, but who knows when they might
be useful for real. It sure couldn't have hurt. I could have used sewing
skills to become a designer (constantly designing things especially costumes,
homes, blabla), among any number of other things.
Children's ideas were laughed at in the home I grew up in, if they were
listened to at all. That's if they were in a good mood.
Anyway the class that has done me the most practical good, from high school, is
typing, taken because I had a lot of empty class slots to fill.
K
rian
Sean Hanson heeft geschreven in
>>RPG? Isn't that, like, dungeons and dragons and stuff? ;) Doh! I
>didn't even know people still wrote
>in RPG. *shudder*
I see lots of advertisments for RPG programmers here though. All banking is
done with AS 400
>
>
>-- Sean, who wishes he could've learned programming with punch cards
>*grin*
>
COBOL was intended for punchcards. Hence the 72? positions.
My first computing (ahum) experience was with a Frieden bookkeepingmachine
in 1964. It was easy: You typed out an article (candy) with the quantity and
price and let a puncard run alongside. Then you stuch the label you typed
out on the punchcard and the next time you wanted to make an order you
pulled the card through. Then you taped all the billing on a punchtape, and
bookkeeping ran that tape once a month. Pretty pink papertape with holes
that looked like braille. But you still had to use an addingmacjine to add
up the numbers.
Gene Richardson
>
> Sean Hanson heeft geschreven in
>
> >>RPG? Isn't that, like, dungeons and dragons and stuff? ;) Doh! I
> >didn't even know people still wrote
> >in RPG. *shudder*
>
> I see lots of advertisments for RPG programmers here though. All banking is
> done with AS 400
> >
> >
> >-- Sean, who wishes he could've learned programming with punch cards
> >*grin*
> >
> COBOL was intended for punchcards. Hence the 72? positions.
rian;
I was always told that the line was 72 available spaces because
because the printer was 80 chrs. but the rest were needed for
'line feed' and 'carriage feed' etc.
gene
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
Gene Richardson wrote in message <387409...@isoc.net>...
|rian wrote:
|>
|> Sean Hanson heeft geschreven in
|>
|> >>RPG? Isn't that, like, dungeons and dragons and stuff? ;) Doh! I
|> >didn't even know people still wrote
|> >in RPG. *shudder*
|>
|> I see lots of advertisments for RPG programmers here though. All
banking is
|> done with AS 400
|> >
|> >
|> >-- Sean, who wishes he could've learned programming with punch cards
|> >*grin*
|> >
|> COBOL was intended for punchcards. Hence the 72? positions.
|
|rian;
|
| I was always told that the line was 72 available spaces because
|because the printer was 80 chrs. but the rest were needed for
|'line feed' and 'carriage feed' etc.
Carriage return and line feed are single characters, requiring at most
only a single column each. The most verbose end of line protocol I've
ever seen was three characters (CR LF NULL).
Besides, 80 column punch cards were standardized before there were
computers. Hollerith made their dimensions identical to the dollar bill
of the period (last turn of the century) so they would fit in existing
racks. I don't know why he settled on 80 columns, but it surely had
nothing to do with carriage returns and line feeds.
Computer languages that ignore the last eight columns do so to allow for
numbering each card in sequence. Anyone who's ever dropped a box of
unnumbered cards can tell you how important that is. It's not a mistake
you make twice.
Ken
<poly...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>|... ROTC kids practice with play rifles, is that not a
>|functional use of something dumbed down? ...
>
>No, it's practice with something cheaper than the real thing. You don't
>want kids tossing and dropping $450 rifles when $25 wooden copies will
>do. There are also legal points involved. Taking home a wooden copy of
>a rifle to practice close order drill with is legal for anyone. Taking
>home a real rifle is illegal for anyone under 18.
>
Since this posted on another group the same day, and is remotely (very
remotely) related(might be more related to the thread on the will vs
neurochemicals):
--------------------------------------------------------
NG:
This is an exact recount of US National Public Radio (NPR) interview between
a female broadcaster and US Army General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a
Boy scout Troop visiting his military installation.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to
teach these young boys when they visit your base?"
GENERAL REINWALD: 'We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and
shooting."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the
rifle range."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
activity to be teaching children?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how, ....we will be teaching them proper
rifle range discipline before they even touch a firearm."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."
GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not
one. Are you?"
The radio went silent and the interview ended.
Bruce Closs
Closs CAD/CAM Systems
Ken
Cybercut Precision Machining-
"Quality is created, not controlled."
Sammi
;-)
sammi.
have ff it to a friend is that ok?
dennis curtis
Alan Cooper's, "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum." He calls for
Interface Designers and a programmed means to interface with actual
end users, rather than what programmers think users must learn or know
in order to use a computer. Gives convincing examples of what goes
wrong every time you cross a computer with a....aircraft carrier,
passenger airplane,camera,automobile,microwave, TV, phones and so on.
I'm a johnny come lately to these violent machines. The newer they
get, they more complicated they become. I only have a 6.5 GIG HD,but
I still dont know or have even seen all the stuff I have on it.
If computer makers really do want all the world to have one, they
have
to make it simpler and more fun to use. Rather have reliable, easy to
use software,even outdated, than having to DL patches and updates for
features i dont use anyway.
Sorry, I rant. I dont need to be an automotive engineer to drive a
car, I dont need to be a doctor to take aspirin, so why do I need
to be a computer scientist, programmer,to use a dumb-ass machine
that can only count to two??????! --Toujours en tete facilite
votre roulage.--dennis
Gene Richardson wrote:
>
> > Wyde Wing wrote:
> >
> > > The trouble with engineers, and programers too, is that they look inward at the
> > > equipment or program instead of outward at the world outside. That's why there
> > > is so much user-hostile equipment and programs.
>
> And why programs can be so solid logically yet
> cause such a shockingly poor impression on the
> endus..r.(the guy paying for it).
>
> > > Every PC manufacturer or software firm should have a good liberal arts man to
> > > make sure the stuff is user friendly. Liberal arts (humanities) grads are
> > > interested in people rather than things or abstractions.
> >
>
> And even they need beta testers,
> (people who pretend they bought it),
> to test them on.
>
> Of course your right Wyde.
>
> I like good examples of software that are concieved
> and specifically vertically designed with the help of
> the demanding user who knows what results he needs
> and is willing to suffer the frowneyed stare of a
> programmer who is able to get to that point without
> them killing each other like I have this grammer :o)
>
> gene
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
|... I dont need to be an automotive engineer to drive a
|car, I dont need to be a doctor to take aspirin, so why do I need
|to be a computer scientist, programmer,to use a dumb-ass machine
|that can only count to two??????! ...
A car does one thing and lots of people still can't cope with them.
Aspirin can damage or kill you if you take too much or have an ulcer, so
best consult your doctor about it from time to time.
Computers are extremely versatile and do lots of things. You have to
learn how to make them do what you want them to do. In effect, each
different application is a different tool. The wonder is there are so
many similarities.
When I started programming computers, I had to tell them what to do by
making rectangular holes in pieces of cardboard. If you think they're
difficult now, you really have no idea how far we've come.
Ken
<s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>nice one ken
>;-)
>sammi.
>have ff it to a friend is that ok?
>
>
>
yes indeed, with Bruce and I. I doubt the National public radio will know or
could do anything about it.
Sammi
Ken <cybe...@aol.com.spmthis> wrote in message
news:20000112200052...@nso-ca.aol.com...
> In article <85e6a9$dcj$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Sammi"
> <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> >nice one ken
> >;-)
> >sammi.
> >have ff it to a friend is that ok?
> >
> >
> >
>
> yes indeed, with Bruce and I. I doubt the National public radio will know
or
> could do anything about it.
>
thanks
:-)
sammi.
dennis curtis
come. The point stands. That was then this is now. They are still
harder to use and the progenitors tell us we have to know more,or
in other words keep up. Nonsense and balderdash. I think I am smart
enough to take only two aspirin. What panacea does one take for
random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
always do? Programming without including new users is losing the
game of marketing. Anyone can enjoy a movie. It should only be
a few steps more difficult to use a computer. --dc
David Penn
high school. It had been retired only 2-3 years prior. I can handle a
glitch here and there if it'll do all kinds of exciting things that I
haven't even dreamed about yet. And you're dead right about cars...I
live in a snowy state, and even a half-inch of the white stuff instantly
makes it apparent how little skill most people have at piloting a
car...and it's only in two dimensions! Why would we expect everyone to
master computers, which are much more complex?
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
| ... What panacea does one take for
|random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
|always do? ...
That's easy. Dump Microsoft and install Linux.
Wyde Wing
"GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not
one. Are you?" <<
But women aren't drafted and forced to become white slaves.
Sean Hanson
>
> I have read much of its history and I do know how far they have
Reading the history and experiencing it are very different things. As
a computer person, and a programmer, I wish I could've been born a
couple decades earlier just so I could've experienced the trauma of
dropping a card deck, and the minutia of programming in machine code.
Ok, fine, so I'm a masochist. ;)
> come. The point stands. That was then this is now. They are still
> harder to use and the progenitors tell us we have to know more,or
> in other words keep up. Nonsense and balderdash. I think I am smart
> enough to take only two aspirin. What panacea does one take for
Harder to use than _what_? Where is this comparative coming from? Is
there some "easier to use" computer floating around the void
somewhere?
> random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
> always do? Programming without including new users is losing the
> game of marketing. Anyone can enjoy a movie. It should only be
> a few steps more difficult to use a computer. --dc
First problem: to paraphrase Jerry, get a real operating system.
Second problem: mistaking programmers for sales drones. Programmers
write the software, the suits convince people to buy it. And when the
suits are more important than the programmers, you get the kind of
crap that M$ puts on the shelves.
So tell me, with all your vast computer experience, and your
comprehensive
knowledge of the history of computing, what sort of paradigm have you
come up with to make computers easier to use? It's all fine and dandy
to
say "they should be easier to use". It's another thing entirely to
actually
do so.
And on that note, what do you even want to do with computers? Or
rather, what
do you expect computers to do for you? The goals for a wirehead or
sysadmin
are much different than the goals for someone who just plays games.
What's easy
to _you_ is not necessarily my definition of easy. Easy for me is
something
that allows me to do whatever I want to do. But giving a luser the
ability to
rm -rf / his machine is not the brightest thing to do.
And if it sounds like I'm harsh on newbies, that's only partly
correct. Do
a web search for technical support humour. One such site I enjoy is:
http://www.technogirl.net, and click on "useless users". Then you can
see
just what kinds of dolts are out there. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
-- Sean
C/C++/Perl pgmer,bash scripter,unix administrator,tcp/ip
dude,speaks SMTP/POP3/IMAP/NNTP,
and all around general hacker
R. K. Henry
> I have read much of its history and I do know how far they have
> come. The point stands. That was then this is now. They are still
> harder to use and the progenitors tell us we have to know more,or
> in other words keep up. Nonsense and balderdash. I think I am smart
> enough to take only two aspirin. What panacea does one take for
> random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
> always do? Programming without including new users is losing the
> game of marketing. Anyone can enjoy a movie. It should only be
> a few steps more difficult to use a computer. --dc
The problem isn't in making computers easy to use. The problem is in making
computers do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to crash.
They're not supposed to lock up. That's not your fault. It's the fault of
someone who didn't do their job properly. The software should check that the
data you've typed in won't make something catastrophic happen rather than
sit back and watch the train wreck. The software should check to make sure
that it isn't about to do something stupid--a protection fault shouldn't be
the first indication you've done something unexpected. Typing a wrong
character shouldn't cause a disaster, it should instead present the user
with a meaningful error message that will tell him what he's done wrong so
he can fix it. Too much software is still presenting error messages
consisting of error codes--with no place to look up what the code means.
You're not stupid, you just don't have the needed information. I don't mind
too much a runtime error code if I have the compiler manual to look it up,
but a money-paying customer should expect more. Much software presents no
error messages at all except that an error has occurred. Your job is to
guess what the error might be. And much software simply crashes without
leaving any clues whatever--died without leaving a will. I not too long ago
ran across an interesting little application that if you typed a line the
full length of the input field provided it would simply crash, taking all
the previously entered data with it. Not a clue what was wrong except a
Windows GPF. It took some experimenting to figure out what the problem was:
software stupidity. Workaround: stop typing before you get to the last
character of the input field. (I think we can pretty well guess what someone
had forgotten to do. I can't believe they didn't catch it in testing. I
can't believe anyone would release such crap.)
Manuals should be written clearly and understandably. Hell, there ought to
BE a manual. So much software is provided with nothing more than what is
essentially a sales pamphlet masquerading as a manual. If you want more
detailed information you have to BUY it. And even then you won't be privy to
the inner workings of the software. The manufacturer won't tell you how to
make it do what you need. In order to do that you have to reverse-engineer
it, which of course you promised not to do in the license agreement.
Nevertheless I've spent time probing with a debugger and writing
disassemblers. You shouldn't have to sign a NDA in order to find out how to
make your new software purchase work. And often what manuals there are,
either paper or online, are simply WRONG. You have to experiment with it the
software see how it ACTUALLY works as opposed to what it says in the manual.
--
Bob
R. K. Henry
> I remember seeing a punch-card reader in the Math dept. storage room in
> high school. It had been retired only 2-3 years prior. I can handle a
> glitch here and there if it'll do all kinds of exciting things that I
> haven't even dreamed about yet.
"The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)" wrote:
> > When I started programming computers, I had to tell them what to do by
> > making rectangular holes in pieces of cardboard. If you think they're
> > difficult now, you really have no idea how far we've come.
The first computer I ever programmed (IBM 1130) was operated that way. You'd
submit your coding sheet and a day or two later get back a deck of cards
with a typo on almost every single card. Then you went to the keypunch
machine and virtually retyped every one of them. Fortunately the machine
could duplicate the original card up to the point of the error but it was
still a pain in the butt. It took less time to get the program to run than
it did to get the card errors sorted out. I could type better than that but
I was told that I ought to let the keypunch service do it.
I was told that the computer science department at the university was
unusual in that they allowed students to run programs themselves. It was
claimed that most CS departments didn't allow students to get their grimy
hands on the computers, you'd submit your coding sheet and get a printout a
few days later, never having actually seen the behemoth.
I wonder if IBM stuck with cards so long because of their connection with
cards via their founder, Hollerith.
--
Bob
rian
I think 65 because I learned it in 66. I never even saw the card, just the
code sheets.
And the time it took! You had to schedule processor-time and the cost were
staggering for your department, so tou got bawled out when you had to take
more runs because of the errors!
Rian
R. K. Henry heeft geschreven in bericht
<002c01bf5e0d$7476ed00$8d7860ce@rkhenry>...
Sammi
R. K. Henry <rkh...@preferred.com> wrote in message
news:002a01bf5e0d$725dd100$8d7860ce@rkhenry...
> Dennis,
>
> > I have read much of its history and I do know how far they have
> > come. The point stands. That was then this is now. They are still
> > harder to use and the progenitors tell us we have to know more,or
> > in other words keep up. Nonsense and balderdash. I think I am smart
> > enough to take only two aspirin. What panacea does one take for
> > random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
> > always do? Programming without including new users is losing the
> > game of marketing. Anyone can enjoy a movie. It should only be
> > a few steps more difficult to use a computer. --dc
>
> The problem isn't in making computers easy to use. The problem is in
making
> computers do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to crash.
> They're not supposed to lock up. That's not your fault. It's the fault of
> someone who didn't do their job properly. The software should check that
the
> data you've typed in won't make something catastrophic happen rather than
> sit back and watch the train wreck. The software should check to make sure
> that it isn't about to do something stupid--a protection fault shouldn't
be
> the first indication you've done something unexpected. Typing a wrong
> character shouldn't cause a disaster, it should instead present the user
> with a meaningful error message that will tell him what he's done wrong so
> he can fix it.
you've hit the nail on the head here - meaningful error message.
i'm very aware of my incompetnce in using this thing and when i do get error
messages- which i don't understand- i assume it's because i've done
something incredibly stupid again (like typing stmp and wondering why i
can't get mail and subsquently calling the helpline). i think at the time i
got the password/username error message- or was that when my isp was down ?
really can't remember, but one does get meaningless, even misleading error m
essages.
Too much software is still presenting error messages
> consisting of error codes--with no place to look up what the code means.
> You're not stupid, you just don't have the needed information. I don't
mind
> too much a runtime error code if I have the compiler manual to look it up,
> but a money-paying customer should expect more.
absolutely. i purchase a product- i expect it to work without my having
degree knowledge to operate it; i really shouldn't need a complex manual to
sort out the products idiosyncracies - but it'd be nice to have, just in
case.
Much software presents no
> error messages at all except that an error has occurred. Your job is to
> guess what the error might be.
back to the misleading error messages- i spent days, literally, running
through all my aka's and passwords trying to figure out what my mistake
was-- and it wasn't my fault at all (i'm pretty sure it was the isp being
down now) i got so faxed off with it all that i basically erased the whole
system and reloaded everything.
And much software simply crashes without
> leaving any clues whatever--died without leaving a will. I not too long
ago
> ran across an interesting little application that if you typed a line the
> full length of the input field provided it would simply crash, taking all
> the previously entered data with it. Not a clue what was wrong except a
> Windows GPF. It took some experimenting to figure out what the problem
was:
> software stupidity. Workaround: stop typing before you get to the last
> character of the input field. (I think we can pretty well guess what
someone
> had forgotten to do. I can't believe they didn't catch it in testing. I
> can't believe anyone would release such crap.)
>
the problem that real novices have is that they wouldn't even know if it
were software or their own stupidity at fault :-(
consider my reoccurring 'hiccup' problem. sometimes i post messages and
recieve an error message that the post couldn't be posted- the messages are
still in the outbox- but they do actually get posted. i know now that it's
usually an isp problem which i 'solve' by putting all the unsent/sent
messages in the drafts folder and waiting to see which posts stumpf
aknowledges. the posts without acknowledgment i can then resend- but
sometimes i'm not quick enough and inadvertedly multipost.
it's an annoying, sporadically reoccuring problem and i've no idea why it
happens.
> Manuals should be written clearly and understandably. Hell, there ought to
> BE a manual. So much software is provided with nothing more than what is
> essentially a sales pamphlet masquerading as a manual
true.
. If you want more
> detailed information you have to BUY it. And even then you won't be privy
to
> the inner workings of the software.
well, to be honest, i wouldn't be all that interested in programming depth-
i would be totally out of my depth. :-)
The manufacturer won't tell you how to
> make it do what you need. In order to do that you have to reverse-engineer
> it, which of course you promised not to do in the license agreement.
as i've said above- i really shouldn't need to do this- it should work
without problems.
i don't buy a car or a t.v. with the premise that i might need to be able to
fix it.
> Nevertheless I've spent time probing with a debugger and writing
> disassemblers. You shouldn't have to sign a NDA in order to find out how
to
> make your new software purchase work. And often what manuals there are,
> either paper or online, are simply WRONG. You have to experiment with it
the
> software see how it ACTUALLY works as opposed to what it says in the
manual.
>
and that, of course, is only possible if one has the necessary knowledge.
sammi.
> --
> Bob
>
Raymond Leistner
>
> |random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
>
> That's easy. Dump Microsoft and install Linux.
>
> The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CCP, CFI)
> http://www.babcom.com/polymath/
> http://www.babcom.com/gla-mensa/
> Query pgpkeys.mit.edu for PGP public key.
I did! Two hours later, Red Hat locked up, just like windoze.
I was fiddling under that Gnome gui, though.
--
email address is bugged for spam!
please de-bug to reply
PSmith9626
Most of the liberal arts types are just as dysfunctional with people as
engineers.
May I suggest someone in a field that is a liberal art yet considered a
science.
Thats right:
A mathematician
best
penny
And I am offended by your phrase "liberal arts MAN".
PSmith9626
I used an 1130 in high school.
It had a card reader and a keyboard.
Thanks for the memory.
best
penny
>The first computer I ever programmed (IBM 1130) was operated that way. You'd
>submit your coding sheet and a day or two later get back a deck of cards
>with a typo on almost every single
In college we had an IBM 360 that was done like that. Finally,I found the
secret terminal in the physics building.
best
penny
>I wonder if IBM stuck with cards so long because of their connection with
>cards via their founder, Hollerith.
>--
>Bob
I wonder as well. Good point.
PSmith9626
We in the USA don't have a draft.
best
penny
>Message-id: <20000113112330...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
I wonder if this general spoke before or after all the high school shootings?
R. K. Henry
> dear wyde,
> We in the USA don't have a draft.
> best
> penny
Not quite. The last time I checked (things do change) they were still
registering. While at present no one is being inducted, every male of the
specified age range is at risk that the government might suddenly decide
they need some warm bodies to sent to basic training. Considering how
concerned so many people on this newgroup are about their E-mail address
falling into the wrong hands, consider having your name on file at Selective
Service.
--
Bob
TANSTAAFL
That would be really awful. Oh, wait. They did have, they were drafting and
Vietnam was in full progress. And they got me and virtually all of my friends.
Yep, I really feel sorry for those poor 18 year old BOYS having to register at
the Post Office for a non-functioning Selective Service System. Breaks my
heart, it does.
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking,
the shaking becomes a warning,
it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
dennis curtis
too many homework projects! i DL'd an update for Ntescape and still
havent unzipped it yet. Ditto for 2nd edition. i like what I have
obtained so far for Red Hat, but i wanna know which is better, red hat
or Caldera. I'm getting very tired of the random crashes. --dennis
dennis curtis
fighting other's war's. Don't you find it rather conveinient that
Noriega was brought here as a prisoner just before we handed over
the canal? ---dennis
PSmith9626
Did you read the latest Harpers magazine article about George Bush?
George Bush jr., had obtained a hefty oil construction contract in the middle
east on which his company future was riding. When Kuwait was attacked the value
of his stock plunged. So George Bush Sr. started a war. The stock climbed back.
That is how we get in wars.
best
penny
We also paid a fortune to bail out bad investiments of texas banks including
the one owned by george Bush jr. But, that is another story.
>Don't you find it rather conveinient that
>Noriega was brought here as a prisoner just before we handed over
>the canal? ---dennis
The canal is obsolete in the days of supertankers etc.These tankers are too big
to get through it. It is of little strategic importance.
During the Reagan administration Noriega worked for our CIA. I saw a tv special
back then on how helpful he was to the USA.
( it all reminds me of george orwell )
"Our brave Eurasian allies,-----click---loathsome Eurasian enemies---" --- 1984
dennis curtis
Basic, and he is the one who maintains that the interface is basically
annoying and at worst maddening. Are you sure you want to delete this
file? Be very sure, cause millions are spent in case you are not so
sure. This is bellywash,cold broccoli and ridiculous.
In every program I've used, with the exception of AutoCad, i must
spend several minutes making "sure" i know what I'm doing. Most
unfriendly. All Mr. Cooper is saying is that a computer, with any
OS, should allow all users equal access and ease of use. Mr. Cooper
is an expert programmer, and he himself asserts that programmers are
part of the problem. They program for other programmers, much like
artists do their thing for other artists. that doesn't cut it.
Too often they, the programmers, use ready made code, rather than
make a serious effort for new code for the, as you put it, "lusers",
which is ignoring a wide base of potential interest.
i can use a computer alla way back to DOS 3.1., yet with having
Win '98, I cannot use DOS effectively at all. Now i know waht you are
going to say, that it is my fault I can't use DOS. My point is simply
this; I dont need to be a doctor to take aspirin, I dont need to be an
architect to live in a house, so why hte hell do I need to be a
programmer to use a computer? Come down from the Ivory tower. -dennis
Sean Hanson wrote:
>
> dennis curtis wrote:
> >
> > I have read much of its history and I do know how far they have
>
> Reading the history and experiencing it are very different things. As
> a computer person, and a programmer, I wish I could've been born a
> couple decades earlier just so I could've experienced the trauma of
> dropping a card deck, and the minutia of programming in machine code.
>
> Ok, fine, so I'm a masochist. ;)
>
> > come. The point stands. That was then this is now. They are still
> > harder to use and the progenitors tell us we have to know more,or
> > in other words keep up. Nonsense and balderdash. I think I am smart
> > enough to take only two aspirin. What panacea does one take for
>
> Harder to use than _what_? Where is this comparative coming from? Is
> there some "easier to use" computer floating around the void
> somewhere?
>
> > random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
> > always do? Programming without including new users is losing the
> > game of marketing. Anyone can enjoy a movie. It should only be
> > a few steps more difficult to use a computer. --dc
>
dennis curtis
especially the line about dying wihtout leaving a will. Very funny!
i'm on the side of those who would want to use a computer, yet
overhear stories about faulty software, poorly designed programs,
overlooked glitches requiring a patch or six, utilities that don't
utilise or fix or prevent, (I have the best, and they still don't
come across every time), ad nauseum. it seems even when one knows
about computers , they get more daunting. There is something seriously
wrong with programming when an ancient program runs flawlessly every
time, and Win '98 does not. i find no more excuse with this than
i do with pseudo-science or poorly crafted art.
Whether i'm stupid or not is beside teh point. The point is that
computer technology should not make me feel stupid. --dennis
"R. K. Henry" wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> > I have read much of its history and I do know how far they have
> > come. The point stands. That was then this is now. They are still
> > harder to use and the progenitors tell us we have to know more,or
> > in other words keep up. Nonsense and balderdash. I think I am smart
> > enough to take only two aspirin. What panacea does one take for
> > random crashes and lockups when you are using the machine as you
> > always do? Programming without including new users is losing the
> > game of marketing. Anyone can enjoy a movie. It should only be
> > a few steps more difficult to use a computer. --dc
>
> The problem isn't in making computers easy to use. The problem is in making
> computers do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to crash.
> They're not supposed to lock up. That's not your fault. It's the fault of
> someone who didn't do their job properly. The software should check that the
> data you've typed in won't make something catastrophic happen rather than
> sit back and watch the train wreck. The software should check to make sure
> that it isn't about to do something stupid--a protection fault shouldn't be
> the first indication you've done something unexpected. Typing a wrong
> character shouldn't cause a disaster, it should instead present the user
> with a meaningful error message that will tell him what he's done wrong so
> he can fix it. Too much software is still presenting error messages
> consisting of error codes--with no place to look up what the code means.
> You're not stupid, you just don't have the needed information. I don't mind
> too much a runtime error code if I have the compiler manual to look it up,
> but a money-paying customer should expect more. Much software presents no
> error messages at all except that an error has occurred. Your job is to
> guess what the error might be. And much software simply crashes without
> leaving any clues whatever--died without leaving a will. I not too long ago
> ran across an interesting little application that if you typed a line the
> full length of the input field provided it would simply crash, taking all
> the previously entered data with it. Not a clue what was wrong except a
> Windows GPF. It took some experimenting to figure out what the problem was:
> software stupidity. Workaround: stop typing before you get to the last
> character of the input field. (I think we can pretty well guess what someone
> had forgotten to do. I can't believe they didn't catch it in testing. I
> can't believe anyone would release such crap.)
>
> Manuals should be written clearly and understandably. Hell, there ought to
> BE a manual. So much software is provided with nothing more than what is
> essentially a sales pamphlet masquerading as a manual. If you want more
> detailed information you have to BUY it. And even then you won't be privy to
> the inner workings of the software. The manufacturer won't tell you how to
> make it do what you need. In order to do that you have to reverse-engineer
> it, which of course you promised not to do in the license agreement.
> Nevertheless I've spent time probing with a debugger and writing
> disassemblers. You shouldn't have to sign a NDA in order to find out how to
> make your new software purchase work. And often what manuals there are,
> either paper or online, are simply WRONG. You have to experiment with it the
> software see how it ACTUALLY works as opposed to what it says in the manual.
>
> --
> Bob
Ben Galehouse
"dennis curtis" <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:388FD9AF...@gte.net...
> Bob-- Very perspicacious, as i have come to expect from you,
> especially the line about dying wihtout leaving a will. Very funny!
> i'm on the side of those who would want to use a computer, yet
> overhear stories about faulty software, poorly designed programs,
> overlooked glitches requiring a patch or six, utilities that don't
> utilise or fix or prevent, (I have the best, and they still don't
> come across every time), ad nauseum. it seems even when one knows
> about computers , they get more daunting. There is something seriously
> wrong with programming when an ancient program runs flawlessly every
> time, and Win '98 does not. i find no more excuse with this than
To understand computer code development, one might compare it to legal code
development. As a programmer, I can say that computer's are the ultimate
'honest criminals'. They'll obey the letter of the law without any
reference to the spirit. When a loophole is found, a patch is applied, but
you can often tell (looking at the code, if not the interface) that
something was patched.
When multiple programmers write with slightly different views on how the
program works, things get very ugly and convoluted - just as squabbling
polticos seem to produce an even bigger tax code every year. Also, it is
unussual to patch a loophole in a way that shrinks the code.
Eventually, it becomes appropriate to scrap the system and start over, not
because any individual contributor was stupid, but because the pieces have
lost their organization. Eventually you support something like a flat tax,
not because the flat v. progressive argument interests you so very much, but
because such a big shift would force them to start over.
Sean Hanson
>
> Ridicule me all you wish. My source is the man who created Visual
> Basic, and he is the one who maintains that the interface is basically
> annoying and at worst maddening. Are you sure you want to delete this
Bwahahahahaha! Ok, sorry. Ahem.
If you want me to take you seriously, don't give references to M$ or
programmers of M$/Win software. Visual Basic? No comment.
What is this 'interface' you speak of? The Win3x interface? The Win9x
interface? The AmigaOS interface? The OS/2 2x interface? One of dozens
of XWin interfaces? MacOS? NeXT? BeOS?
There is no one 'interface'. If your problem is that you dislike your
current interface, the solution is get a new one. There are plenty
out there.
> file? Be very sure, cause millions are spent in case you are not so
> sure. This is bellywash,cold broccoli and ridiculous.
> In every program I've used, with the exception of AutoCad, i must
> spend several minutes making "sure" i know what I'm doing. Most
See above. If you don't like the interface, change it.
> unfriendly. All Mr. Cooper is saying is that a computer, with any
> OS, should allow all users equal access and ease of use. Mr. Cooper
Errr...this is a complicated subject. Say this again after making a
lot of stupid mistakes as root. Trust me, it's not fun.
> is an expert programmer, and he himself asserts that programmers are
> part of the problem. They program for other programmers, much like
> artists do their thing for other artists. that doesn't cut it.
Of course he's part of the problem. He is on the Dark Side of the force.
He needs to code for unices. =)
> Too often they, the programmers, use ready made code, rather than
> make a serious effort for new code for the, as you put it, "lusers",
> which is ignoring a wide base of potential interest.
Object orientation and reusable code is a Good Thing(tm). Don't knock
it unless you've tried it.
> i can use a computer alla way back to DOS 3.1., yet with having
> Win '98, I cannot use DOS effectively at all. Now i know waht you are
> going to say, that it is my fault I can't use DOS. My point is simply
> this; I dont need to be a doctor to take aspirin, I dont need to be an
> architect to live in a house, so why hte hell do I need to be a
> programmer to use a computer? Come down from the Ivory tower. -dennis
DOS3 kicks ass. =D Windoze, alas, does not. I see two problems.
1) You're making poor analogies. Aspirin is used one way: you swallow
a couple, and that's that. A house doesn't do *anything*. A computer
OTOH does a lot. Do you expect to fly an airplane without learning
about how to fly an airplane?
B) You're talking about Windoze. 'nuff said. Get a real OS. M$ sucks.
[insert shameless plug for linux here]
-- Sean...
#!/usr/bin/perl
$j=\$j;{$_=unpack(P25,pack(L,$j));/Just Another Perl Wannabe/?print:$j++&&redo}
Sean Hanson
>
> Bob-- Very perspicacious, as i have come to expect from you,
> especially the line about dying wihtout leaving a will. Very funny!
> i'm on the side of those who would want to use a computer, yet
> overhear stories about faulty software, poorly designed programs,
> overlooked glitches requiring a patch or six, utilities that don't
> utilise or fix or prevent, (I have the best, and they still don't
> come across every time), ad nauseum. it seems even when one knows
> about computers , they get more daunting. There is something seriously
> wrong with programming when an ancient program runs flawlessly every
> time, and Win '98 does not. i find no more excuse with this than
> Whether i'm stupid or not is beside teh point. The point is that
> computer technology should not make me feel stupid. --dennis
There's nothing seriously wrong with programming. There's something
seriously wrong with Windoze and M$. Don't blame programmers. Blame
the Windoze programmers, and all the people who code for Windoze.
Get linux. Unlike Windoze, it was designed for intelligent people to
use. =)
Julian and/or Emilie
easier to use:
HCI, or Human-Computer Interaction. The people who tell the programmers
what to do are programmers cum philosophers cum engineers cum sociologists
cum project managers, and it is their task to design the system so that
anyone can use it. Standardization (menus, drop-down boxes etc), and all of
those other lovely Ten Heuristics (commandments?) are intended to make the
learning curve on acquiring a new program (be it a browser, or an OS) more
logarithmic. The expert programs (eg., Unix) have an exponential learning
curve (it is a matter of some debate whether the curve has a veritcal
asymptote or not!). Choose what you want.
A hacker is a charlatan who uses tricks to make themselves look smart, and
if they were an engineer, they would design this _really_neat_ bridge that
has these special rails that you can hook your car onto and drive across
underneath. When asked why, they say "no one else has thought of it!".
Never mind that probably hundreds of people thought of it and discarded it
as unnecessarily obfuscated.
A programmer is a person who writes clear code (with comments!) and makes
their source as easy to read and as modular as possible (each object then
becomes a brick for to build the metaphorical bridge).
An analyst is a pioneer who is trying to use this new thing called Software
Engineering to build reliable, easy to use, pretty, smart and useful
programs.
Before you complain _too_ loudly about the clunky programs we are forced to
use, consider this: people have been building bridges for a couple thousand
years. People have been coding for about fifty-five. Any time a mechanical
or civil engineer wants to check on the progress of the project he is
overseeing, he wanders down to the construction yard and has a look at the
thing ("Oi! That ten foot wide concrete block is a foundation, not a wall!
You're fired!"). When an IT project manager wishes to check up on the
progress of the server he has under development, she needs to get someone
to get someone else to fill out a report PRONTO, and then she needs to read
the report and figure out "what the hell is that bloody hacker we called in
as an understudy trying to do - rewrite quicksort from scratch?"
Julian
dennis curtis wrote:
> Ridicule me all you wish. My source is the man who created Visual
> Basic, and he is the one who maintains that the interface is basically
> annoying and at worst maddening. Are you sure you want to delete this
> file? Be very sure, cause millions are spent in case you are not so
> sure. This is bellywash,cold broccoli and ridiculous.
> In every program I've used, with the exception of AutoCad, i must
> spend several minutes making "sure" i know what I'm doing. Most
> unfriendly. All Mr. Cooper is saying is that a computer, with any
> OS, should allow all users equal access and ease of use. Mr. Cooper
> is an expert programmer, and he himself asserts that programmers are
> part of the problem. They program for other programmers, much like
> artists do their thing for other artists. that doesn't cut it.
> Too often they, the programmers, use ready made code, rather than
> make a serious effort for new code for the, as you put it, "lusers",
> which is ignoring a wide base of potential interest.
> i can use a computer alla way back to DOS 3.1., yet with having
> Win '98, I cannot use DOS effectively at all. Now i know waht you are
> going to say, that it is my fault I can't use DOS. My point is simply
> this; I dont need to be a doctor to take aspirin, I dont need to be an
> architect to live in a house, so why hte hell do I need to be a
> programmer to use a computer? Come down from the Ivory tower. -dennis
>
>
> > And on that note, what do you even want to do with computers? Or
> > rather, what
> > do you expect computers to do for you? The goals for a wirehead or
> > sysadmin
> > are much different than the goals for someone who just plays games.
> > What's easy
> > to _you_ is not necessarily my definition of easy. Easy for me is
> > something
> > that allows me to do whatever I want to do. But giving a luser the
> > ability to
> > rm -rf / his machine is not the brightest thing to do.
> >
> > And if it sounds like I'm harsh on newbies, that's only partly
> > correct. Do
> > a web search for technical support humour. One such site I enjoy is:
> > http://www.technogirl.net, and click on "useless users". Then you can
> > see
> > just what kinds of dolts are out there. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
> >
> > -- Sean
> > C/C++/Perl pgmer,bash scripter,unix administrator,tcp/ip
> > dude,speaks SMTP/POP3/IMAP/NNTP,
> > and all around general hacker
--
Julian Suggate or Emilie Dobinson
ema...@ihug.co.nz
Sean Hanson
>
> There is a whole computer science branch dedicated to making computers
> easier to use:
> HCI, or Human-Computer Interaction. The people who tell the programmers
> what to do are programmers cum philosophers cum engineers cum sociologists
> cum project managers, and it is their task to design the system so that
> anyone can use it. Standardization (menus, drop-down boxes etc), and all of
> those other lovely Ten Heuristics (commandments?) are intended to make the
> learning curve on acquiring a new program (be it a browser, or an OS) more
> logarithmic. The expert programs (eg., Unix) have an exponential learning
> curve (it is a matter of some debate whether the curve has a veritcal
> asymptote or not!). Choose what you want.
You sound like a suit. =)
> A hacker is a charlatan who uses tricks to make themselves look smart, and
> if they were an engineer, they would design this _really_neat_ bridge that
> has these special rails that you can hook your car onto and drive across
> underneath. When asked why, they say "no one else has thought of it!".
> Never mind that probably hundreds of people thought of it and discarded it
> as unnecessarily obfuscated.
Now you *really* sound like a suit! And someone who hasn't a clue about
what a hacker is. I'll refrain from educating you.
> A programmer is a person who writes clear code (with comments!) and makes
> their source as easy to read and as modular as possible (each object then
> becomes a brick for to build the metaphorical bridge).
Were you weaned on smalltalk or something? Give me a break.
> An analyst is a pioneer who is trying to use this new thing called Software
> Engineering to build reliable, easy to use, pretty, smart and useful
> programs.
Hehehehehehe.
> Before you complain _too_ loudly about the clunky programs we are forced to
> use, consider this: people have been building bridges for a couple thousand
> years. People have been coding for about fifty-five. Any time a mechanical
> or civil engineer wants to check on the progress of the project he is
> overseeing, he wanders down to the construction yard and has a look at the
> thing ("Oi! That ten foot wide concrete block is a foundation, not a wall!
> You're fired!"). When an IT project manager wishes to check up on the
> progress of the server he has under development, she needs to get someone
> to get someone else to fill out a report PRONTO, and then she needs to read
> the report and figure out "what the hell is that bloody hacker we called in
> as an understudy trying to do - rewrite quicksort from scratch?"
You're obviously not a hacker, so I don't even know why you're telling
people what they are. Are you even a programmer?
You sound like a damn suit. =P
-- Sean...
Hacker and proud of it, so shove that up your bit bucket.
Ben Galehouse
"Sean Hanson" <ara...@kenny.noc.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:3890D5FC...@kenny.noc.aracnet.com...
> Julian and/or Emilie wrote:
> >
> > There is a whole computer science branch dedicated to making computers
> > easier to use:
> > HCI, or Human-Computer Interaction. The people who tell the programmers
> > what to do are programmers cum philosophers cum engineers cum
sociologists
> > cum project managers, and it is their task to design the system so that
> > anyone can use it. Standardization (menus, drop-down boxes etc), and all
of
> > those other lovely Ten Heuristics (commandments?) are intended to make
the
> > learning curve on acquiring a new program (be it a browser, or an OS)
more
> > logarithmic. The expert programs (eg., Unix) have an exponential
learning
> > curve (it is a matter of some debate whether the curve has a veritcal
> > asymptote or not!). Choose what you want.
>
> You sound like a suit. =)
Designing applications that 'even a grandmother could use' is a challenging
problem. However, those who realy like to make code work do often think in
terms of making it work from them. Intuitive and consistant are hard to put
together if you have to be gentle in reshaping expectations. The hacker
might find the higher learning curve more fun, but all roads lead to Rome.
> > A hacker is a charlatan who uses tricks to make themselves look smart,
and
> > if they were an engineer, they would design this _really_neat_ bridge
that
> > has these special rails that you can hook your car onto and drive across
> > underneath. When asked why, they say "no one else has thought of it!".
> > Never mind that probably hundreds of people thought of it and discarded
it
> > as unnecessarily obfuscated.
No. Not in the most traditional sense. A true hacker will redefine the
idea of a bridge without hesitation, but only because it actually solves an
otherwise difficult problem.
> > A programmer is a person who writes clear code (with comments!) and
makes
> > their source as easy to read and as modular as possible (each object
then
> > becomes a brick for to build the metaphorical bridge).
>
> Were you weaned on smalltalk or something? Give me a break.
There's allways an immediate trade off between making code work today, for
some specific purpose, and structuring it according to some perfect global
pattern. I tend to think too much, and code too little on my personal
projects. Left to my own devices, I tend to fall off the overdesign edge,
and never write anything. But when at work, I'm given a well bounded
problem and a well bounded time frame, and can plan and manage and get the
code together.
Make the code, not the comments, easy to read. If you think that all code
needs comments, you've seen too much 'hacked' code. An occasional comment
about the general overview is great, and in OO a paragraph in the init
method on the objects role and uses is wonderful. But too many comments
just get in the way of the code.
> > An analyst is a pioneer who is trying to use this new thing called
Software
> > Engineering to build reliable, easy to use, pretty, smart and useful
> > programs.
>
> Hehehehehehe.
Software engineers tend to wander about chanting the mantra 'good
methodology makes good product' waving a magic wand trying to make
everything alright. A software is controlled when one person exists who can
read any line in the system and know what's up. (It's better long term if
more than one such person exists). If you don't have that, it will fall
apart. It's just a matter of man months untill management starts to notice.
Either there is one or more guys on top of each component (component being a
reusable block with a very well defined interface), or there isn't. All the
rest of software engineering is just paperwork and make believe.
BTW does anybody here have an opinion on the eXtreme programming movement?
Stick
Extremely well put.
It seems to me Sean, your propositions and premises sound a lot like
throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You have, of course, very real
issues with a particular development and operating environment but is also
entirely possible you are trying to "make things work wrong" instead of
"making things work right."
The greatest single cause of software instability is the configuration of
the Platform itself, be that Hardware, OS, Apps, CASE tools, IDE's or
whatever. Note well in that human ignorance (not Deus ex Machina) is
inevitably to blame for a "bogus" installation of any kind.
--
Kind regards,
Stick
Father, Business & Systems Analyst and Engineer. IT Project
Manager/Architect, Programmer (in VC++,VB/VBA, V Interdev, V FoxPro, SQL,
Lingo JAVA, VBScript and even HyperCard), RDBMS Designer, Proponent of
FORML, HCI Specialist, Tier Three Hardware & Software Support Specialist,
Multimedia Architect, Low Voltage Remote Control Systems Engineer and
"Certifiable" Network Engineer. (Typing this on a solid as a rock PIII 450
with 256 MB of ECC RAM) ;-)
And remember this above all else-
"Everything works if you let it"
J.W.Redfish - Roadie
P.S. (Definition)
Contract Unix programmer - Somebody whose only answer is NO
Julian and/or Emilie <ema...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:389023B1...@ihug.co.nz...
> There is a whole computer science branch dedicated to making computers
> easier to use:
> HCI, or Human-Computer Interaction. The people who tell the programmers
> what to do are programmers cum philosophers cum engineers cum sociologists
> cum project managers, and it is their task to design the system so that
> anyone can use it. Standardization (menus, drop-down boxes etc), and all
of
> those other lovely Ten Heuristics (commandments?) are intended to make the
> learning curve on acquiring a new program (be it a browser, or an OS) more
> logarithmic. The expert programs (eg., Unix) have an exponential learning
> curve (it is a matter of some debate whether the curve has a veritcal
> asymptote or not!). Choose what you want.
> A hacker is a charlatan who uses tricks to make themselves look smart, and
> if they were an engineer, they would design this _really_neat_ bridge that
> has these special rails that you can hook your car onto and drive across
> underneath. When asked why, they say "no one else has thought of it!".
> Never mind that probably hundreds of people thought of it and discarded it
> as unnecessarily obfuscated.
> A programmer is a person who writes clear code (with comments!) and makes
> their source as easy to read and as modular as possible (each object then
> becomes a brick for to build the metaphorical bridge).
> An analyst is a pioneer who is trying to use this new thing called
Software
> Engineering to build reliable, easy to use, pretty, smart and useful
> programs.
> Before you complain _too_ loudly about the clunky programs we are forced
to
> use, consider this: people have been building bridges for a couple
thousand
> years. People have been coding for about fifty-five. Any time a mechanical
> or civil engineer wants to check on the progress of the project he is
> overseeing, he wanders down to the construction yard and has a look at the
> thing ("Oi! That ten foot wide concrete block is a foundation, not a wall!
> You're fired!"). When an IT project manager wishes to check up on the
> progress of the server he has under development, she needs to get someone
> to get someone else to fill out a report PRONTO, and then she needs to
read
> the report and figure out "what the hell is that bloody hacker we called
in
> as an understudy trying to do - rewrite quicksort from scratch?"
>
Stick
None at all!
Roy Batty, eat your heart out.
--
Kind regards,
Stick
"Everything works if you let it"
J.W.Redfish - Roadie
Sean Hanson <ara...@kenny.noc.aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:3890D5FC...@kenny.noc.aracnet.com...
> Julian and/or Emilie wrote:
> >
> > There is a whole computer science branch dedicated to making computers
> > easier to use:
> > HCI, or Human-Computer Interaction. The people who tell the programmers
> > what to do are programmers cum philosophers cum engineers cum
sociologists
> > cum project managers, and it is their task to design the system so that
> > anyone can use it. Standardization (menus, drop-down boxes etc), and all
of
> > those other lovely Ten Heuristics (commandments?) are intended to make
the
> > learning curve on acquiring a new program (be it a browser, or an OS)
more
> > logarithmic. The expert programs (eg., Unix) have an exponential
learning
> > curve (it is a matter of some debate whether the curve has a veritcal
> > asymptote or not!). Choose what you want.
>
> You sound like a suit. =)
>
> > A hacker is a charlatan who uses tricks to make themselves look smart,
and
> > if they were an engineer, they would design this _really_neat_ bridge
that
> > has these special rails that you can hook your car onto and drive across
> > underneath. When asked why, they say "no one else has thought of it!".
> > Never mind that probably hundreds of people thought of it and discarded
it
> > as unnecessarily obfuscated.
>
> Now you *really* sound like a suit! And someone who hasn't a clue about
> what a hacker is. I'll refrain from educating you.
>
> > A programmer is a person who writes clear code (with comments!) and
makes
> > their source as easy to read and as modular as possible (each object
then
> > becomes a brick for to build the metaphorical bridge).
>
> Were you weaned on smalltalk or something? Give me a break.
>
> > An analyst is a pioneer who is trying to use this new thing called
Software
> > Engineering to build reliable, easy to use, pretty, smart and useful
> > programs.
>
> Hehehehehehe.
>
> > Before you complain _too_ loudly about the clunky programs we are forced
to
> > use, consider this: people have been building bridges for a couple
thousand
> > years. People have been coding for about fifty-five. Any time a
mechanical
> > or civil engineer wants to check on the progress of the project he is
> > overseeing, he wanders down to the construction yard and has a look at
the
> > thing ("Oi! That ten foot wide concrete block is a foundation, not a
wall!
> > You're fired!"). When an IT project manager wishes to check up on the
> > progress of the server he has under development, she needs to get
someone
> > to get someone else to fill out a report PRONTO, and then she needs to
read
> > the report and figure out "what the hell is that bloody hacker we called
in
> > as an understudy trying to do - rewrite quicksort from scratch?"
>
PSmith9626
Let me add my two cents.
In math we take the apparently complex and make it simple. In programming the
opposite is done. Programming is no great
intellectual challenge. One does about twenty standard things to about ten
standard kinds of data. It is not exactly nuclear physics.
best
penny
I have done a lot of programming. Programmers seem to get off on complexity and
detail the way weight lifters get off on strength. Of course , this gives job
security as well as pleasure.Since a programmer usually does nothing else than
computers they assume that anyone who won't bother to learn all the detail is
an
"intellectual lightweight i.e. scum". But , the user might be a busy Steve
Hawking or
Brain researcher who doesn't want to waste research time on learning a bunch of
over -arcane rules to do trivial things.
Suits on the other hand , want simple modular code so they can reduce everyone
to a cog in the assembly line, dehumanise and degrade talent, and fire you at a
moments notice without consequence.
The idea of someone who can't do something supervising someone who can and is
who their intellectual superior is almost beyond belief. It's right out of the
twilight zone.
best
penny
In math , I try to keep the detail, and notation down. Often , this is
impossible because it is inherently complicated. However, I know that the
longer, and more complex the paper the less it gets read or used. My bosses of
course want more and longer papers. " What-- you devoted a year to shortening a
paper?" " Are you mad ?"
I will also point out that many programmers
are not comfortable with the english language but have a great capacity for
recall of neologisms. They are very concerned about saving typing time and
making entry quick by producing lots of little arcane neologic commands.
The price is a 200 page manual.
Well, there are people who are perfectly happy to type longer , but more
logical commands. These people get very frustrated with the products of
programming culture. I have a physics friend in his sixties who tore his hair
out trying to learn Maple. It was very syntax and rule specific. He would say "
I spent all morning trying to tell the program to iterate this simple
integration procedure". "But, the program kept turning the variables into text
and I couldn't get the semicolons or the symbols to work". " I couldn't figure
out how to input a table of values etc."
" WHY CAN"T I JUST WRITE MY FORMULAE IN THE STANDARD MATH WAY AND JUST SAY " DO
THIS FIFTY TIMES WITH THIS DATA".
My friend above invented squeezed light ( the basic tech for femtosecond
optical coding) and is a Fellow of the Optical Society. He is no fool.
I have my own pet peeves. One is when a computer language reinvents a new
convention for a standard math one. One example: arrays in C++ start from zero.
There are dozens of these examples. The usual C++ text is about 800 pages. Not
bad for a language with about four ideas in it.
>Message-id: <86qvmf$c...@chicago.us.mensa.org>
I also love when programmers ,ignorant of english words, reinvent their own.
Example: Interdigitate instead of collate.
Or when engineers pepper a conversation with idiot acronyms.
" We dha 'ed the NVT and then used the CBC to get ISO 9000".
When I consult I drive them nuts by refusing to use any acronyms.The military
types get really upset. I also refer to things by the simplest english word---
"You mean " the radio"?
But, when things start to make sense, they calm down and call me a miracle
worker.
Ben Galehouse
"PSmith9626" <psmit...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000128082104...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> dear stick,
> Let me add my two cents.
> In math we take the apparently complex and make it simple. In programming
the
> opposite is done. Programming is no great
> intellectual challenge. One does about twenty standard things to about ten
> standard kinds of data. It is not exactly nuclear physics.
Programming can be a question of making thing's simple. - 'What's the
simplist most effecient way to solve _this_ problem'. It depends on the
programmer's style and sense of quality.
> I have done a lot of programming. Programmers seem to get off on
complexity and
> detail the way weight lifters get off on strength. Of course , this gives
job
> security as well as pleasure.Since a programmer usually does nothing else
than
> computers they assume that anyone who won't bother to learn all the detail
is
> an
> "intellectual lightweight i.e. scum". But , the user might be a busy Steve
> Hawking or
> Brain researcher who doesn't want to waste research time on learning a
bunch of
> over -arcane rules to do trivial things.
I'll agree on the complexity and detail part. It appeals to certain types
of programmers in the same way that the complexity of math appeals to
certain types of people :-). The problem is when extra complexity is added
just to make it cooler, and while it sounds like you are are not one of
these, I'd be surprised if no mathematician fell into the same trap. It
isn't a concious decision though; all roads are paved with good intentions.
> The idea of someone who can't do something supervising someone who can and
is
> who their intellectual superior is almost beyond belief. It's right out of
the
> twilight zone.
Spoken like a true academic! I have heard it said that the right management
structure for programmers is old school, tried and true method of one master
with a bunch of apprentises. In other words, getting it right is so much a
question of style that you almost have to manage them like artists.
In any case, executives hire people to do what they themselves can't.
Outside of academia the intellectual superiority attitude doesn't go very
far (for better or worse, I don't know). The programmers who realy want to
avoid becoming management tend to become independent consultants. (My
current career plan is to spend a few more years as a normal employee and
then go consultant, but maybe only work 1/2 time. Give me the other half to
study and figure whatever I feel like.)
> I have my own pet peeves. One is when a computer language reinvents a new
> convention for a standard math one. One example: arrays in C++ start from
zero.
> There are dozens of these examples. The usual C++ text is about 800 pages.
Not
> bad for a language with about four ideas in it.
Say what you will about C, it is better than assembly. There was a proper
debate about the first array index. That said, I tend to think fortran for
numerics and ML for hard algorithmics. The definitive C is K&R, which is
rather thin. The one true C++ is Stroustrup, which is 900 pages, but covers
the stuff that the compiler authors tend to miss. I agree that most C++
texts are 700 pages of fill and 100 pages of good stuff.
> I also love when programmers ,ignorant of english words, reinvent their
own.
> Example: Interdigitate instead of collate.
> Or when engineers pepper a conversation with idiot acronyms.
Finding the right word for the concept is another simplification problem.
Sometimes it is done right, but sometimes the complexity addicts win.
rian
Ben Galehouse heeft geschreven in bericht <3891b...@news3.prserv.net>...
>>One example: arrays in C++ start from
>zero.
>> There are dozens of these examples. The usual C++ text is about 800
pages.
>Not
>> bad for a language with about four ideas in it.
>
>Say what you will about C, it is better than assembly. There was a proper
>debate about the first array index. That said, I tend to think fortran for
>numerics and ML for hard algorithmics. The definitive C is K&R, which is
>rather thin. The one true C++ is Stroustrup, which is 900 pages, but
covers
>the stuff that the compiler authors tend to miss. I agree that most C++
>texts are 700 pages of fill and 100 pages of good stuff.
But Visual C or Basic or ....
I get crazy typing all teh time: thisform.listbox37.text = "Hello"or:
Me!.column15.color=42119978
I want avriables like: x and s like in the good old days, when you declared
them with a comment what they were. Now you have to type 10 times as much!
Rian, lazy
Sean Hanson
>
> dear stick,
> Let me add my two cents.
> In math we take the apparently complex and make it simple. In programming the
> opposite is done. Programming is no great
> intellectual challenge. One does about twenty standard things to about ten
> standard kinds of data. It is not exactly nuclear physics.
In programming we take the apparently simple and make it _work_. It's not
always a simple task to come up with a problem and make a computer solve
it. And part of it, of course, depends upon the language used. Compare to
extremes, for example. Writing in asm or, if you're really masochistic, in
raw machine code. Or Perl, which "makes simple things simple, and difficult
things possible".
If you don't think programming is an intellectual challenge, I don't think
you ever hung out with the right programmers. =)
> I have done a lot of programming. Programmers seem to get off on complexity
> and detail the way weight lifters get off on strength. Of course , this gives
> job security as well as pleasure.Since a programmer usually does nothing
> else than computers they assume that anyone who won't bother to learn all the
> detail is an "intellectual lightweight i.e. scum". But , the user might be a
> busy Steve Hawking or Brain researcher who doesn't want to waste research
> time on learning a bunch of over -arcane rules to do trivial things.
Some programmers get off on complexity. The ones who are really into
programming, at least. Programming is an artistic endeavour, so we enjoy
the art in obfuscation and complexity, or making something do neat things.
That's the whole point in easter eggs, playing golf, and obfuscated
programming contests. It takes creativity to figure out how to do it, and
intellect to make it work.
> Suits on the other hand , want simple modular code so they can reduce
> everyone to a cog in the assembly line, dehumanise and degrade talent, and
> fire you at a moments notice without consequence.
>
> The idea of someone who can't do something supervising someone who can and is
> who their intellectual superior is almost beyond belief. It's right out of
> the twilight zone.
No arguments here. =)
> In math , I try to keep the detail, and notation down. Often , this is
> impossible because it is inherently complicated. However, I know that the
> longer, and more complex the paper the less it gets read or used. My bosses
> of course want more and longer papers. " What-- you devoted a year to
> shortening a paper?" " Are you mad ?"
Same here. We like to keep things simple (keep it simple, stupid ;). But
just because something looks complicated doesn't mean that 1) it can be
made easier, or B) that it really is complicated. Sometimes the most
complicated things are simplicity in disguise. Playing golf goes well
here, in a weird sorta way.
> I will also point out that many programmers
> are not comfortable with the english language but have a great capacity for
> recall of neologisms. They are very concerned about saving typing time and
> making entry quick by producing lots of little arcane neologic commands.
> The price is a 200 page manual.
Hackers aren't comfortable with the inability of the english language to
convey very subtle shades of meaning, which is why, of course, we have
the jargon file. And, of course, hakspek came about back when you wanted
to save time over slow telecommunications lines.
> Well, there are people who are perfectly happy to type longer , but more
> logical commands. These people get very frustrated with the products of
> programming culture. I have a physics friend in his sixties who tore his hair
> out trying to learn Maple. It was very syntax and rule specific. He would say
> "I spent all morning trying to tell the program to iterate this simple
> integration procedure". "But, the program kept turning the variables into
> text and I couldn't get the semicolons or the symbols to work". " I couldn't
> figure out how to input a table of values etc."
> " WHY CAN"T I JUST WRITE MY FORMULAE IN THE STANDARD MATH WAY AND JUST SAY "
> DO THIS FIFTY TIMES WITH THIS DATA".
Because it's a computer, not a human brain. 'nuff said. =)
But we've come a long way.
for (1..50) { doMyComputation($data); }
> My friend above invented squeezed light ( the basic tech for femtosecond
> optical coding) and is a Fellow of the Optical Society. He is no fool.
That's like saying a neurosurgeon is a fool because he's not a rocket
scientist. Some people excel in math. Some excel in programming. Some
excel in juggling.
> I have my own pet peeves. One is when a computer language reinvents a new
> convention for a standard math one. One example: arrays in C++ start from
> zero. There are dozens of these examples. The usual C++ text is about 800
> pages. Not bad for a language with about four ideas in it.
My pet peeve is that C doesn't have builtin hashes.
Perl is spoiling me.
> I also love when programmers ,ignorant of english words, reinvent their own.
> Example: Interdigitate instead of collate.
> Or when engineers pepper a conversation with idiot acronyms.
>
> " We dha 'ed the NVT and then used the CBC to get ISO 9000".
>
> When I consult I drive them nuts by refusing to use any acronyms.The military
> types get really upset. I also refer to things by the simplest english
> word--- "You mean " the radio"? But, when things start to make sense, they
> calm down and call me a miracle worker.
Going overboard can be annoying, but there are uses for things. Hacker
subculture, at the very least, is rather colourful. We tend to frown
on people who can't accurately convey meaning. Ah well.
-- Sean...