On-line Dog License Application (with questionnaire)
Paul E. Schoen
using basic HTML, and also some JScript (as a learning exercise). You can
try it at:
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/DogLicenseJS.htm
You might need to enable the script if your settings block it. You can view
the code to see that there is nothing malicious. It's pretty simple, and
you can change some of the values if you think there is a more reasonable
method of determining fees.
There are possibly other factors that could be added, but this might be
enough. I left out any breed-specific qualifiers. I might also add an
adjustment for no incidents within a year, but that would be best for
renewals. This is meant to be an initial fee; renewals would be less.
I might show this to my friend at AC, but I don't think he has internet
access.
Thanks,
Paul, Muttley, and Lucky
diddy
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net:
I'm impressed. But how do you know I didn't lie about my dog?
It cost me $20 for Tuck,
pfoley
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
Why is there no place for the name, sex and age of the dog? I would think
you would have to put down the breed of the dog for a license.
Shouldn't there be a place for owner's name and address?
>
>
>
Paul E. Schoen
"pfoley" <pfo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13d9em5...@corp.supernews.com...
Of course, I will need to add all that, and figure out a way to save the
information from each applicant. This was mostly an exercise to see if it
could be a fair way to incorporate the size of the dog and behavioral
history to come up with a fee that represents the potential danger the dog
might pose for other people and dogs.
BTW, my fee for Lucky is $25, and for Muttley it is $77.50. Those would be
initial fees. Renewals would be about $10, unless there were further
incidents, or additional training.
Thanks for giving it a try.
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Paul E. Schoen
"diddy" <none> wrote in message
news:Xns999ACB0ADF9...@216.196.97.142...
You might be required to submit records from your vet, and any bite records
should be on file with AC. You could fudge it a bit, but a major lie would
probably be caught (and then could be prosecuted as fraud). The maximum fee
for a severely aggressive and untrained 200 lb Mastiff or Anatolian would
be $280.
Thanks for trying it. If it seems like a workable solution, I'll put some
more time into it and see if Animal Control might be interested.
Paul, Muttley, and Lucky
tiny dancer
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
I don't understand what this is for?
td
>
>
>
CanineDivine
Paul has become an instant expert now on dog licensing fees. He is
persisting with creating a tiered licensing fee even after being told
(by people who actually have the experience to know) that it will not
work, for a myriad of reasons.
Hope
Sandy in OK
> "pfoley" <pfol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Huh. I answered the questions for what I know of Muttley and came up
with close to $100. Surely you are too much of a cheapskate to pay
that. And Lucky's had no training.
Paul E. Schoen
"Sandy in OK" <celea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188367148.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Huh. I answered the questions for what I know of Muttley and came up
> with close to $100. Surely you are too much of a cheapskate to pay
> that. And Lucky's had no training.
>
I've revised the form a little, but not the basic fees. As I stated before,
Muttley's fee would be $77.50. He is 75 lb, neutered, bit one person one
time, not requiring medical treatment, and he bit the dog at Janet's
obedience class at least once, requiring medical treatment. Lucky's fee
would be $25 (some training) or $32.50 (no training).
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/DogLicenseJS.htm
I would not mind paying fees like that, especially as one-time charges as I
intended. Renewals are less, unless there are additonal incidents. I can
modify the form with a checkbox for renewals.
Thanks for giving it a try.
Paul, Muttley, and Lucky
Melinda Shore
Self-aggrandizement.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community
the.longest.use...@gmail.com
Yoda comes out as $46. 72 lbs, neutered, never bit a person, bit one
dog once - single bite requiring medical attention, and obedience
training is beyond basic, but no titles being that I do not trust him
in an obedience ring off leash around other dogs, but I put advanced
anyways.
I would not mind paying $46 to be allowed to keep Yoda, if the other
option was not keeping him. It still doesn't address the fact that
most people do not feel this way. An increase from my $7 fee to $46
for most people would mean they just would not license the dog.
Resulting in a decrease in compliance.
Inappropriate ownership techniques need to be discouraged through
enforcement as it is too easy for them to just not pay and do what
they want with their dog anyways.
Nick
Shelly
> Self-aggrandizement.
Pretty much. And an annoyingly constructed one, at that. Egads!
For a start, he might want to consider what "obedience training"
means. Or, at least, elaborate on how he defines it. It would also
help if he canned the horrid java pop-ups. But even then, the whole
thing is a waste of time and effort, because it tells you nothing
about a dog's potential to harm humans or other animals.
--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)
Melinda Shore
I've got pop-ups disabled in all my browser, plus there's
always Tools->Options->Content->Enable JavaScript->unclick
(in Firefox).
>But even then, the whole
>thing is a waste of time and effort, because it tells you nothing
>about a dog's potential to harm humans or other animals.
The whole thing is a waste of time and effort because it's
likely to reduce compliance rather than improve it.
Increasing licensing fees 400-700% in an effort to get dog
owners to be more responsible is an incredibly dumb idea.
In fact, the less responsible the owner the more the fees go
up, which means that the people who are going to be most
discouraged from compliance are the people who are least
likely to comply in the first place. Paul needs an
introductory economics course.
Shelly
> I've got pop-ups disabled in all my browser, plus there's
> always Tools->Options->Content->Enable JavaScript->unclick
> (in Firefox).
I have to keep Java turned on for some of the tools we use. Hrmf!
On my own machine, Java is disabled and pop-ups are blocked.
> The whole thing is a waste of time and effort because it's
> likely to reduce compliance rather than improve it.
That was pointed out many times to Mr. MeMeMe. I'm pretty
law-abiding, but I would not license my dog under his stupid scheme.
And that's not because it would cost more, either.
> Paul needs an introductory economics course.
Paul needs his logic circuits repaired, too.
Judy
news:46d48dbd$0$26705$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
>I have developed a draft version of an on-line Dog License Application,
> using basic HTML, and also some JScript (as a learning exercise). You can
> try it at:
>
> http://www.smart.net/~pstech/DogLicenseJS.htm
VERY annoying popups!!!!
My schnauzers come out with $10 each.
My brother's late golden came out at $25. The difference is apparently the
level of obedience training. My dogs have advanced titles. The golden had
one puppy class but most of what he knew - Sit, Go Away, Steady (with a
treat on his nose) - he learned over the years.
Considering that the golden never met a person or a dog that he didn't love
or that he was convinced loved him, charging them one penny more than the
schnauzers is a ridiculous idea.
Judy
Judy
news:5jm479...@mid.individual.net...
And is there any evidence to indicate that an unspayed female is any more
likely to be either human or dog aggressive?
I just can't see that neutering - while a valuable tool in controlling the
future pet population - has had any effect on either of my dogs.
Judy
Melinda Shore
Judy <dou...@cableracer.com> wrote:
>I just can't see that neutering - while a valuable tool in controlling the
>future pet population - has had any effect on either of my dogs.
Ditto here. For whatever anecdotal value it might have, the
only one of my dogs who was neutered as a puppy was Emmett.
The other five who are neutered were neutered as adults
(mature adults, at that), so I got to see what happened.
That would be "nothing." My only intact dog is a
hellaciously bossy bitch, but that's just the kind of dog
she is. I'm going to have her spayed in the spring but I
don't expect any behavioral differences (except when she's
in heat, dammit - I could happily live the rest of my life
without living with a Slutty McBimbo dog).
pfoley
My fee is $18.50 for Devon
>
>
Judy
news:fb4mc2$cb$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <5jm4cc...@mid.individual.net>,
> Judy <dou...@cableracer.com> wrote:
>>I just can't see that neutering - while a valuable tool in controlling the
>>future pet population - has had any effect on either of my dogs.
>
> Ditto here. For whatever anecdotal value it might have, the
> only one of my dogs who was neutered as a puppy was Emmett.
> The other five who are neutered were neutered as adults
> (mature adults, at that), so I got to see what happened.
> That would be "nothing."
Spenser was done at ten months. Sassy at two years.
Spenser *did* quit marking for a brief period but resumed after a couple of
months.
Sassy is, well, sassy. Could just as easily have named her Bossy or Bitchy.
Neutering certainly didn't change that. And she also marks.
Judy
Sue and Atty
with titles, etc" using the "etc" as my excuse for choosing that field -
she's CGC/TDIAOV - and been through lots of obedience, flyball, agility,
although never titled in them.....and "etc" leaves alot to my
interpretation. (60 lb female spayed lab with no issues)
Sue and Atty
Paul E. Schoen
>
> ==========
> My fee is $18.50 for Devon
>
I accept PayPal!
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
sighthounds & siberians
It's ludicrous. Tasha would have cost $65, because she was involved
in bitch squabbles with a dog living in the same household with her.
(Never, ever, did she so much as lift a lip at any other dog anywhere,
at any time.) Also, years ago we came home from grocery shopping and
I was trying to get myself into the kitchen and somehow closed her paw
in one of those walk-through baby gates. When I tried to free her,
she closed her jaw around my hand. Never, ever, did she put her teeth
on any other human body part anywhere, at any time. That bite, which
was a good one, would have cost us another $25. Even most ACs
distinguish between bites to resident dogs or humans vs. the public at
large. That dog was the best dog we've ever had or will ever have.
She was stable and predictable, loved every human she met (and it was
reciprocated), a perfect alpha, intuitive and predictable.
Then I started playing around to see what Music the greyhound would
cost me, then what Music would cost if he were 10 lb. lighter. Dog
licensing by the pound!
What a stupid idea.
Mustang Sally
Paul E. Schoen
Thanks for the comments. This is, after all, a "draft" document, and
changes are to be expected. I know the pop-ups are annoying, so the final
version will just have a pop-up alert if you have neglected to fill out
something when you finally submit the application. I built this web page
from some examples that used alerts. I will change the form so that the
information supplied in the pop-ups will just be displayed in a text memo
without requiring confirmation.
The idea of charging proportional to weight is based on the damage that a
heavier dog could do. There would also be increased risks to AC personnel
if they had to handle such a dog, and greater costs for food and storage
space if they had to board the dog. Of course, recovery fees could account
for that, but there would probably be some who would just let the dog stay,
possibly to be given to a shelter or PTS, and the costs would be there in
any case.
Also, I would consider this initial fee as a sort of "bond" that is on your
account. It can be thought of as a prepayment for expenses that might be
caused by your dog. If the dog dies, or you move elsewhere, at least some
of the additional fee could be reimbursed, or transferred to another dog.
The concept is to make dog owners responsible for their dogs, and
accountable for their dogs' behavior.
Try the application again later when I have had a chance to modify it. Or
if anyone has experience in HTML and JScript, feel free to make changes and
improvements, and email the revised file to me. It's only 6 kB, and pretty
simple. I still have more to learn about JScript, and its big brother Java.
I'll also need to look at CGI if the form will actually be able to be
submitted with the information supplied.
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Janet Boss
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>
> The concept is to make dog owners responsible for their dogs, and
> accountable for their dogs' behavior.
You don't understand human behavior any more than you understand dog
behavior.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Melinda Shore
Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the comments. This is, after all, a "draft" document, and
>changes are to be expected.
WTF? What's your definition of a draft document?
Oh, nevermind. Crikey.
Paul E. Schoen
"elegy" <el...@DOGPOOPshattering.org> wrote in message
news:e8sbd3dqng03mv852...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:58:25 -0400, "Paul E. Schoen"
> <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>
>>The idea of charging proportional to weight is based on the damage that a
>>heavier dog could do.
>
> less than a lab or a golden retriever.
>
Well, I could add a section for breed, and modify the fees appropriately. I
just don't know how much difference it should make, and whether it should
apply to the aggression history or weight. It would be good to have
accurate statistics, but that's probably an oxymoron.
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Melinda Shore
Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>It would be good to have
>accurate statistics, but that's probably an oxymoron.
Do you think that's something someone with an engineering
education would say? Something a professional engineer
would say?
CanineDivine
accountable for their dogs' behavior. >>
Paying higher fees for a bigger dog will make one more responsible
HOW? Ignorant dog owners assessing their own dog's aggression levels
makes them more responsible HOW? Do you have ANY idea how many people
turning their dogs into rescues/shelters or going to classes classify
bites as "nips"? Furthermore do you know how many of them excuse the
dog's behavior as provoked, when in reality it was not? Do you know
how many people say their dog was guarding, but when questioned
further it turns out the dog bit from behind, which is not aggression
or appropriate guarding, but fear based and in many ways more
dangerous? Do you know how many people say they took an obedience
class but only took one and barely attended it and rarely did the
homework, so the dog learned very little if at all? Do you know have
any knowledge of what is involved in titling and dog and what it means
in regards to the dog's temperament and real life obedience? Do you
understand Economics 101 and the reverse coorellation between cost and
compliance?
All serious questions, that I would love to hear an answer to, but
doubt I will.
Hope
sighthounds & siberians
>In article <46d62566$0$26697$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,
>Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>>It would be good to have
>>accurate statistics, but that's probably an oxymoron.
>
>Do you think that's something someone with an engineering
>education would say? Something a professional engineer
>would say?
Sheesh. For most people, it's possible to be adamantly opposed to BSL
and still recognize that some breeds are more likely to be
dog-aggressive than others. And my 82-pound greyhound is probably
less likely to bite a human than I am. Weight has FA to do with it.
Mustang Sally
Paul E. Schoen
"CanineDivine" <Canine...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188441808.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm an electronics engineer with
some programming abilities, and a reluctant owner of two large dogs with
limited knowledge and experience. But I am predisposed to making things
work, and I am also creative and open minded in how I approach solutions to
problems.
> Paying higher fees for a bigger dog will make one more responsible HOW?
Primarily, it may dissuade someone from getting a big dog in the first
place. The reductions in fees for training may encourage people to do so.
> Ignorant dog owners assessing their own dog's aggression levels makes
> them more responsible HOW?
At least it makes them think about their dog's behavior, and the extra fees
for aggression might make them take action to get training to reduce the
fees, or not keep the dog, either of which will reduce dangers to others.
> Do you have ANY idea how many people turning their dogs into
> rescues/shelters or going to classes classify bites as "nips"?
> Furthermore do you know how many of them excuse the dog's behavior as
> provoked, when in reality it was not? Do you know how many people say
> their dog was guarding, but when questioned further it turns out the dog
> bit from behind, which is not aggression or appropriate guarding, but
> fear based and in many ways more dangerous?
There does need to be a way to educate people on the severity of a dog's
aggressive behavior, or else have it evaluated by a professional. If a dog
has bitten severely enough to require medical treatment and reporting, it
will be a part of the dog's record already, and verifiable. There are grey
areas, of course, and the dog's demeanor may change for the better or worse
over time. As in Muttley's case, he bit my friend on the butt because he
was fearful after having been (unintentionally) provoked by his hammering.
I now recognize the signs of fear, and can exercise more caution. There
have been no similar incidents in over a year. Also, his ability to get
along with Lucky, and other dogs, shows that he is not terribly dog
aggressive. But the incidents happened and would affect my license fees, as
they should.
> Do you know how many people say they took an obedience class but only
> took one and barely attended it and rarely did the homework, so the dog
> learned very little if at all? Do you know have any knowledge of what is
> involved in titling and dog and what it means in regards to the dog's
> temperament and real life obedience?
I do not pretend to know these things, and I doubt that there are good
statistics on this. The fact someone at least tried an obedience class, or
did training in their own, indicates at least some commitment to
controlling the dog's behavior. I would think that successful, verifiable
completion would count for more of a discount as well as safer behavior,
and another degree of control and safety might be evidenced by titling and
advanced classes. I would defer to those with more specific knowledge and
experience to determine how much these would correlate to temperamant and
real life obedience and safe behavior.
> Do you understand Economics 101 and the reverse coorellation between cost
> and compliance?
I don't pretend to be an expert at economics, but generally in a free
market, the cost or price of an item will stabilize depending on supply and
demand. But that is for something that may be purchased or not, and for
which the consumer has a perceived or real need or desire to have it. This
may be applicable to the number of dogs purchased or owned, if the cost of
licensing is consistently included. But licensing is a way for the citizens
of a democratic society to control ownership of things that affect everyone
in some way. One may choose to own an automobile or truck for
transportation needs, and may be justifiably charged according to weight,
as that is a fair indicator of the cost such a vehicle might cause for
building and maintenence of highways, as well as damages from accidents. A
similar case may be made for dog ownership. But there are severe penalties
for non-compliance with vehicle registration, while not so much for dog
licensing. We control the fees for both when we participate in our
democratic processes. But people take vehicle ownership far more seriously
than dog ownership, although there are very real risks and public expenses
involved with having a dog. So, the reverse correlation you mention is only
because of the lack of effective penalties. But if the penalty is only not
being allowed to have the item requiring registration, it is a lot easier
for people to give up their dog than their car. If higher fees result in
less dogs, so be it. Those who will not pay a reasonable and effective fee
for having a dog are also likely those who would have dangerous animals.
The reason for all of this discussion is to attempt to find a solution to a
problem. I have made a proposal, and I think it is reasonable and fair. If
anyone has any changes they would like to see to the system, or alternate
plans, please present them.
Paul, Muttley, and Lucky
Melinda Shore
There is a big difference between "making things work" and
puttering about. You're doing the latter. "Making things
work" requires discipline and a systematic approach. You're
just whacking about randomly, executing on stuff you *think*
is a good idea without bothering to find out if it actually
is a good idea, doing any kind of analysis, or apparently
even bothering to think things through.
>Primarily, it may dissuade someone from getting a big dog in the first
>place. The reductions in fees for training may encourage people to do so.
Okay, so in nearly every animal shelter in the US the small
dogs are much more adoptable than the big dogs and the big
dogs are euthanized for lack of available homes in much
larger numbers. Exacerbating the situation is a good idea ...
why? Because of your dumbass biases?
Rocky
> Something a professional engineer
> would say?
I don't think that Paul has portrayed himself as a professional
engineer.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Shelly
> I just don't know how much difference it should make,
About as much difference as the rest of your questionnaire would make.
Sue and Atty
>
> "CanineDivine" <Canine...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1188441808.8...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Paying higher fees for a bigger dog will make one more responsible HOW?
>
> Primarily, it may dissuade someone from getting a big dog in the first
> place. The reductions in fees for training may encourage people to do so.
>
>
I doubt that some of these people will go to training classes in order to
reduce the fee. I doubt they will pay hundreds of dollars in training fees
(assuming they go to more than one set of classes) in order to save 20 bucks
or so on registration. Or perhaps they'll just join the many people who
don't bother getting a licence at all.
Sue and Atty
Mary Healey
@panix2.panix.com:
> In article <46d5ec24$0$26709$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,
> Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>>Thanks for the comments. This is, after all, a "draft" document, and
>>changes are to be expected.
>
> WTF? What's your definition of a draft document?
It pulls a wagon, of course.
the.longest.use...@gmail.com
> In article <46d62566$0$26697$ecde5...@news.coretel.net>,
Not in my mind.
Nick
Paul E. Schoen
<the.longest.use...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188505917.2...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking of a quote attributed to Mark Twain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
Perhaps, in your mind, an engineer must be only serious and methodical
about everything. I am a design engineer. I choose a more creative
approach, and I consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired
result. I am probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer,
although the fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than
perhaps a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer.
My Meyers-Briggs type is split between INTP, which is described as the
Architect, and INTJ, Mastermind. Some INTPs are Charles Darwin and Albert
Einstein, and INTJs include Isaac Newton and Dwight Eisenhower. But I am
close to being ENTP, which is Inventor, so I share some qualities with
Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison.
It is ENTJ that typifies structural and functional engineers. It is also
described as Field Marshal, which I do not consider myself. Examples of
this type are Napoleon Bonaparte and Bill Gates.
I wonder if dog trainers have a specific personality type. If not ENTJ, I
would guess ENFJ, or teacher, exemplified by Oprah Winfrey and Billy
Graham. What's *your* type?
An online test can be taken:
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Melinda Shore
Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>Perhaps, in your mind, an engineer must be only serious and methodical
>about everything.
About the problems he claims to be trying to solve, to be sure.
>I am a design engineer.
*I* am a big, blonde Valkyrie!
>I choose a more creative
>approach, and I consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired
>result. I am probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer,
>although the fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than
>perhaps a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer.
I just can't believe you're having problems finding a
woooooman.
Janet Boss
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
> I am a design engineer. I choose a more creative
> approach, and I consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired
> result. I am probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer,
> although the fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than
> perhaps a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer.>>
SO flexible when there's no degree involved!
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Melinda Shore
Janet Boss
sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
>
> Or actual jobs.
amazing isn't it? Hmmm..... what do I want to be this week? An
astronaut? a brain surgeon? perhaps a governor or such? Just say it's
so!
BTW - since I'm sure Paul will comment - there is not degree for dog
trainer. For good and for bad, that's the way it is. Success with
students is either there or not though.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
CanineDivine
consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired result. I am
probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer, although the
fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than perhaps
a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer. >>
I work with 70-100 software engineers. Not ONE of them would jump
into something they knew nothing about. They would research it first,
thoroughly, by consulting experts, not hitting wiki.
Hope
Paula
wrote:
>Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> Self-aggrandizement.
>
>Pretty much. And an annoyingly constructed one, at that. Egads!
>For a start, he might want to consider what "obedience training"
>means. Or, at least, elaborate on how he defines it. It would also
>help if he canned the horrid java pop-ups. But even then, the whole
>thing is a waste of time and effort, because it tells you nothing
>about a dog's potential to harm humans or other animals.
It is also completely wrong for a public entity to use for licensing
on a number of different levels, but that's not going to stop him. Why
let not knowing a damn thing about how things work or should work get
in the way?
--
Paula
"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy,
so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay
Paula
>Paul needs an
>introductory economics course.
Sign him up for an introductory life lessons course while you're at
it, please.
Paula
<pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>But I am predisposed to making things
>work
Okay, this whole thread was worthwhile just for the much needed laugh
this line gave me.
--
Paula
"If you want to invade large swathes of Europe and Asia with an army of
highly-mobile horse-archers, simply be Genghis Khan." John Salt
Many Dogs (flick)
news:janet-5E2AA6....@news.individual.net...
>
> SO flexible when there's no degree involved!
Some people are flexible. Some people are rigid and self-righteous.
Some people are snobs.
flick 100785
Many Dogs (flick)
news:1188424392....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Dog
> licensing by the pound!
>
> What a stupid idea.
Since we have big dogs, I'm not thrilled about that part, either.
However, if you think of licensing as a tax, it's as good a way as any to
generate different fees <shrug>. A little harder to lie about than a dog's
aggression history, that's for sure.
flick 100785
Janet Boss
"Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Some people are snobs.
No snobishness. Paul just toots a horn he doesn't have. I find that
bizarre.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Paul E. Schoen
> In article <lRZBi.4949$Y7....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Some people are snobs.
>
> No snobishness. Paul just toots a horn he doesn't have. I find that
> bizarre.
>
I have met some degreed "engineers" whose diploma meant about as much as a
soiled napkin. Judging from questions and comments posed on
sci.electronics.design by final year engineering students, and even some
who have been "out there" for a while, the level of education that allows
for the granting of a degree is frighteningly low.
You can look at my website www.pstech-inc.com to learn about some of my
accomplishments, which have been complete projects from concept to
production. I also have a patent
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4307345.html on a product that is still in
use today, and my non-patented accessory for this type of test set has been
an accepted industry standard since 1994. See:
http://www.megger.com/us/products/ProductDetails.php?ID=470
There are a lot of "Sales Engineers" and "Software Engineers" and others
that have the title only because it sounds more impressive than "Salesman"
or "Programmer". There are very few that could take a concept, do research,
specify parts, produce mechanical and electrical/electronic drawings,
layout PC boards, code software, write technical manuals, build prototypes,
and successfully market and manufacture their products.
These are all verifiable facts. I am justifiably proud of my past and
continuing achievements. Methinks Janet is jealous about my multiple
abilities, while she toots her own one-note horn as a dog trainer, who let
her own snootiness cause a dangerous situation in her class. I can think of
no other reason why she continues her childish attempts to belittle me.
Sometimes people think they can make themselves seem bigger by making
others seem smaller. But if Janet got much bigger, she would pop like the
engorged-tick dog!
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Melinda Shore
>soiled napkin.
Me too, and I've met some fabulous ones without much formal
education. However, on average the ones with an education
are able to do better jobs than the ones without.
But here's a clue, Paul: start by understanding what problem
you're trying to solve and understanding the requirements.
Figure out what your options are and where the tradeoffs
lie, and do not write a single line of code until you've got
that sorted through. You don't have to do anything formal
or fussy, you've just got to be able to understand the
question that your project is trying to answer and
understand the parameters and constraints. You haven't done
that, and I gather you never do that. You assume too much
before you start, and your assumptions tend to be incorrect.
In general, the answer you get depends on the question you
ask, and if you ask a crappy, incoherent, unfocused question
you get a crappy, incoherent, unfocused answer. What you're
doing isn't "engineering." It's just dorking around.
sighthounds & siberians
We'll have to disagree on this. My biggest dogs are greyhounds and
borzoi, and they're less likely to bite a human than most breeds.
Now, many greyhounds will injure small fluffy dogs, but I don't think
that's a reason for requiring a higher license fee, as most incidents
of which I'm aware involving high-prey greyhound vs. small fluffy dog
occurred as a result of the small fluffy dogs' clueless owners
allowing said small fluffy dogs to run loose (off the porch, across
the yard, and into the faces of leashed sighthounds walking on
sidewalks). I do not see any merit in any part of Paul's scheme, but
charging higher fees because heavier dogs can do more damage seems to
be to be particularly ignorant.
Mustang Sally
pfoley
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
news:46d87b1b$0$26704$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
That was very interesting.
Many Dogs (flick)
news:g1vgd3h3rq66b8blc...@4ax.com...
>
> We'll have to disagree on this. My biggest dogs are greyhounds and
> borzoi, and they're less likely to bite a human than most breeds.
> Now, many greyhounds will injure small fluffy dogs, but I don't think
> that's a reason for requiring a higher license fee, as most incidents
> of which I'm aware involving high-prey greyhound vs. small fluffy dog
> occurred as a result of the small fluffy dogs' clueless owners
> allowing said small fluffy dogs to run loose (off the porch, across
> the yard, and into the faces of leashed sighthounds walking on
> sidewalks). I do not see any merit in any part of Paul's scheme, but
> charging higher fees because heavier dogs can do more damage seems to
> be to be particularly ignorant.
I wasn't relating it like size = potential damage. Maybe size = general
impact as a basis for that type of fee? They emit more methane and cause
more global warming? lol.
I don't like it either. I'd prefer to see a dog "tax" and/or penalties
based more on penalizing people for improper care.
flick 100785
Janet Boss
"Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
> There are very few that could take a concept, do research,
> specify parts, produce mechanical and electrical/electronic drawings,
> layout PC boards, code software, write technical manuals, build prototypes,
> and successfully market and manufacture their products.
>
I've been married to a very talented actual engineer for 26 years. To
put yourself in the same category is a joke.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Judy
news:46d87b1b$0$26704$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
> I have met some degreed "engineers" whose diploma meant about as much as a
> soiled napkin. Judging from questions and comments posed on
> sci.electronics.design by final year engineering students, and even some
> who have been "out there" for a while, the level of education that allows
> for the granting of a degree is frighteningly low.
And yet, they have one.
Judy
Many Dogs (flick)
> In article <lRZBi.4949$Y7....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> "Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Some people are snobs.
>
> No snobishness. Paul just toots a horn he doesn't have. I find that
> bizarre.
I spent years living in the oil patch, where there are mud engineers and
drilling engineers, etc. Most of those people just have a high school
diploma, but they've got a whale of a lot of OTJ training and years of
experience. They don't put any initials after their name indicating they
graduated from college.
Let's not forget building engineers, who also often don't have four-year
engineering degrees but are nonetheless quite learned and capable in their
field.
Because of the above, I was unaware there was some law that a person can't
be an engineer without a four-year college degree.
My accusation of snobbishness stands.
flick 100785
Melinda Shore
I went ahead and took a look at Paul's source code
(control-U in Firefox) and it just reinforced why an
education is a good idea. It was nicely formatted, which is
worth a lot (it makes it readable), but it was obviously
written by someone who hasn't learned basic control flow
constructs, how to handle data structures like arrays well,
and how to write a procedure. I may joke about too many
parameters, but if you're not going to have any you better
not be dinking with global variables. Stuff like "if then if
then if then if then if then" (hint: "switch") and overall
klutziness in control flow lead me to think that if Paul has
had a programming course it was Fortran IV 35-40 years ago.
This kind of stuff would not fly in a modern shop.
And it's not that he's a hardware guy. I recruit for the
behemoth up at Cornell and I talk to EEs as well as computer
science students and information science students, and the
hardware guys know how to write code. They may not be as
nuanced as the computer scientists and they may not be as
strong on algorithms and analysis, but they're typically
quite good. (I think awful things about the students when I
see them around town [you know, driving the wrong way down
one-way streets and rolling backwards 35 feet at stop signs
at the tops of hills] but when I talk to them I find most of
them are extremely impressive).
Many Dogs (flick)
news:5jrj0pF...@mid.individual.net...
It appears that Schoen is one of those rare people who didn't need to get a
degree to become successful in what I'd call an engineering field. More
power to him, I say. Snarking about whether or not he has a degree is just
that - snarking. He never said he did.
I was unaware that people couldn't call themselves an engineer unless they
had a four-year engineering degree. That'd be news to all the mud
engineers, drilling engineers, and building engineers out there.
flick 100785
Janet Boss
"Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> It appears that Schoen is one of those rare people who didn't need to get a
> degree to become successful in what I'd call an engineering field.
He lives in a dump and works a few days a week if he's lucky. Keeps his
dog(s) in the cheapest way possible. Yeah - he's successful all right!
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Janet Boss
> In article <BV0Ci.76473$jH3....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> "Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > It appears that Schoen is one of those rare people who didn't need to get a
> > degree to become successful in what I'd call an engineering field.
Didja see the latest Die Hard movie? Paul must have auditioned!
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Many Dogs (flick)
>
> He lives in a dump and works a few days a week if he's lucky. Keeps his
> dog(s) in the cheapest way possible. Yeah - he's successful all right!
Back when I was a Democrat, we wouldn't dream of dissing somebody who made
less money. The Working Man was our hero. Woody Guthrie* songs were still
played at parties. Yeah, I'm that old. That was what Republicans did,
see - crapped on the poor. Or so we thought. I know better now.
The measure of Paul's success is up to Paul. If he says he's a success and
is proud of his accomplishments, who the f*ck are you to say otherwise?
You're some nationally-known arbiter, Janet the Success Maven? He lives in
a run-down house, that's some kind of a big deal to you?
Sheesh.
When I see what the DP has become, full of elitist snobs who mock working
people - the so-called "reality-based community" - I want to weep. I used
to be a Democrat. If you don't make enough money, don't have a degree,
don't work the type of job they "respect," this is the type of thing you
hear from them these days.
Oh, you Dems CLAIM you stand for the working man. But many of us know
better. I saw what happened after I detailed my experience of taxpayer-paid
charity care. Michael Moore lied in "Sicko," he's a big fat liar, and I am
proof of that.
In here, crickets chirping, because you "reality-based" sheeple don't know
what you're talking about, just spout the party line. You had NO FRICKIN'
IDEA there's anything like charity care in every single state in the US, or
how all-encompassing it is, or that the pharmcos give millions of dollars of
free drugs to poor people.
I guess getting a college degree means you're especially stupid, since
nobody in this here snotty "reality-based community" could be bothered to do
five minutes' worth of research on the web and discover the truth - that MM
is a big fat liar, or what kind of care poor people in the US really get.
Happier with your blinders on, eh? Too stupid to do research? The
dumbocrats say it is, so it must be so? This is what college does for
people? Then truly, a degree is no indication of smarts and nothing to be
proud of.
The party line these days apparently includes writing off anyone who doesn't
live in a "nice" house, who doesn't have a college degree, who doesn't make
X amount of money.
Blatant hypocrisy from a judgmental POS. You apparently are proud you
married an engineer so you don't have to "live in a dump." I remember what
those early feminists called women like you.
Stick to talking about dog behavior and training so you don't look like such
a <insert expletive here>.
flick 100785
* Yeah, I know he was a communist and a socialist and prolly a couple other
ists. But he cared about people, too, and he was a helluva talented man,
and a patriot.
diddy
wisdom in news:TF1Ci.76507$jH3....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
> and is proud of his accomplishments, who the f*ck are you to say
> otherwise? You're some nationally-known arbiter, Janet the Success
> Maven? He lives in a run-down house, that's some kind of a big deal to
> you?
>
> Sheesh.
I saw Janet in Maryland. Carrying a few extra pounds? yes, But Paul can't
talk. Unless he's looked at himself in the mirror recently.
For that matter, I can't either.
I also live in a circa 1800's farm house.
I don't care if Paul lives in a run down house. I don't care if Janet is
packing a few extra pounds, or a gun either.
I don't think Paul's online licensing is based on the right criteria, but
the dynamics of it is pretty neat. Very cool to be able to do that.
Sometimes people take themselves too seriously. Which i have done myself!
Janet Boss
"Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The measure of Paul's success is up to Paul.
<snip a bunch of crap>
There are some societal measures of success that exist. I have yet to
see that Paul meets any of them. A college degree or financial wealth
is not the issue - his whole persona, mostly in how he portrays himself
and how he "cares" for his dog(s) is.
He hasn't shown himself competent or skilled in any particular way.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
diddy
news:Xns99BBC970FC6...@216.196.97.142:
Oh, and Janet isn't nearly as heavy as Paul claims she is. Not even close.
Janet Boss
wrote:
>
> I think Janet is just firing back a volley after Paul called her fat.
Nah - if I start caring what someone like Paul thinks, I'm in trouble.
One of my main problems with Paul is his "new found expertise" about dog
behavior. Seeing as he's way off the mark there, it makes me skeptical
that his engineering skills are anything to write home about, given that
his title is self appointed.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
Many Dogs (flick)
news:Xns99BBC970FC6...@216.196.97.142...
> I think Janet is just firing back a volley after Paul called her fat.
> I saw Janet in Maryland. Carrying a few extra pounds? yes, But Paul can't
> talk. Unless he's looked at himself in the mirror recently.
> For that matter, I can't either.
Ah-ha. I had missed that. I would've laid into him, too.
> I also live in a circa 1800's farm house.
>
> I don't care if Paul lives in a run down house. I don't care if Janet is
> packing a few extra pounds, or a gun either.
>
> I don't think Paul's online licensing is based on the right criteria, but
> the dynamics of it is pretty neat. Very cool to be able to do that.
Unless I missed something at his site, he isn't calling himself an engineer
there. Certainly he isn't calling himself a Professional Engineer, which
only licensed people can, and which usually (but not always) requires a 4-yr
degree in engineering.
flick 100785
Janet Boss
wrote:
>
> Oh, and Janet isn't nearly as heavy as Paul claims she is. Not even close.
Why is it even a topic? I've found that the truly lame get desperate in
some threads, and start commenting on physical appearance. Hair (or
lack of), weight (a biggie), whatever. It always strikes me as an
incredibly juvenile move. Yep - sure is surprising that Paul lacks
female companionship with all of his amazing qualities and social skills!
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
diddy
in news:janet-4CFA6F....@news.individual.net:
Oh and by the way, I was very impressed with your appearance. You were
fresh, pleasantly attractive, neat, smiling and very personable. I have no
idea why Paul keeps harping on your appearance.
Melinda Shore
>people - the so-called "reality-based community" - I want to weep. I used
>to be a Democrat. If you don't make enough money, don't have a degree,
>don't work the type of job they "respect," this is the type of thing you
>hear from them these days.
Can't speak for the Democrats - I haven't been one for over
a decade and I haven't seen any reason to go back. But
still, I'm pretty alarmed by the anti-intellectualism of the
right. I think this denigration of education is hurting
individuals and is hurting the country as a whole.
Certainly, it's hard for me to see how thinking that anybody
who can do the work should have access to an education is
"elitist," or that constant smears against education and the
people who have one is populist. You've got that backwards.
In my family and thousands and thousands and thousands like
us, education was seen as a way up. The standard schtick
was that our greatgrandparents were tailors so their kids
could be store clerks so their kids could be accountants so
their kids could be doctors or academics or whatever they
wanted and were capable of, and that's what happened. I
look around here and see country kids living in poverty and
no real way out except for education, but they have to
listen to people like you saying that education is for snobs
and making it clear that they'll be ostracized if they get
one. So, one of the few mechanisms providing economic
mobility in the US is made to look extremely unattractive,
while jobs that require an education end up being filled by
immigrants because the US isn't produce enough people with
decent skills to do them, and economic mobility here falls
further and further and further behind other countries.
Take a look at Paul's code and keep claiming that an
education doesn't make a difference. It makes a big
difference. He doesn't understand control flow, he doesn't
understand data structures, he doesn't understand variable
scoping, and he doesn't understand program structure.
That's not snobbery, that's a fact.
Melinda Shore
>only licensed people can,
Uh, no. Maybe in some fields in engineering, but not in
hardware or software engineering (which still remain
unlicensed).
Melinda Shore
Janet Boss <ja...@bestfriendsdogobedience.com> wrote:
>There are some societal measures of success that exist.
I'm not that interested in those.
>He hasn't shown himself competent or skilled in any particular way.
That would be what I'm interested in.
Many Dogs (flick)
news:ST1Ci.76518$jH3....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> diddy: I don't think Paul's online licensing is based on the right
>> criteria, but
>> the dynamics of it is pretty neat. Very cool to be able to do that.
The dog licensing site, I don't think he's using the right criteria, either.
Responsible people can own "aggressive" dogs without incident, and I don't
think that people should be penalized for it in advance, necessarily. We
don't know how "aggressive" a dog is until there's an incident. Before
then, it's conjecture.
Wasn't it in here, in that gun thread, where we were discussing dogs and
burglars and the possible liability if one's dog bit a burglar? Some states
specifically exempt the owner from liability in that case.
I think more people are killed by large livestock every year than by dogs,
and we don't make farmers jump through these types of hoops, do we? Or do
we?
flick 100785
Janet Boss
wrote:
> I have no
> idea why Paul keeps harping on your appearance.
It's what happens with juvenile behavior. Instead of arguing
principles, methods, credentials, approaches. just pull out the "your
momma wears army boots" routine.
--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
diddy
in news:janet-782BB0....@news.individual.net:
It's an issue because he's always making it an issue. He made it an issue
before i went to Maryland. So when I met you, I expected someone obese as
per his descriptions. You aren't even close.
In fact, i was surprised that Paul would make such an issue of it, since
he seems to suffer the about the same amount of overweight that he finds
so objectionable about you.
Now I'd better just shut up. But since he's making this an issue, now this
is out about HIM, maybe this will just stop.
Judy
> "Judy" <dou...@cableracer.com> wrote in message
> news:5jrj0pF...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> wrote in message
>> news:46d87b1b$0$26704$ecde...@news.coretel.net...
>>> I have met some degreed "engineers" whose diploma meant about as much as
>>> a soiled napkin. Judging from questions and comments posed on
>>> sci.electronics.design by final year engineering students, and even some
>>> who have been "out there" for a while, the level of education that
>>> allows for the granting of a degree is frighteningly low.
>>
>> And yet, they have one.
>
> It appears that Schoen is one of those rare people who didn't need to get
> a degree to become successful in what I'd call an engineering field. More
> power to him, I say. Snarking about whether or not he has a degree is
> just that - snarking. He never said he did.
Paul was degrading the degrees that other people have earned.
And doing it based on questions from students on-line. NOT on real-life
experience with these degreed but considered by him as less-than capable
persons.
He didn't bother to get a degree but he is snarking about people who did
make the effort. He says that it takes a frighteningly low level of
education but it's a level that he didn't get for himself.
I agree there are degree-less people out there doing jobs BETTER than
degreed people in the same position. A degree doesn't always translate into
the training and education needed for a real-life job.
However, a degree does still mean something. And it's a real something. If
nothing else, it's proof that you are willing to put in the time and at
least a minimum of effort in a concentrated area of study. I think that has
value in itself.
Judy
sighthounds & siberians
<many...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"sighthounds & siberians" <x...@ncweb.com> wrote in message
>news:g1vgd3h3rq66b8blc...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> We'll have to disagree on this. My biggest dogs are greyhounds and
>> borzoi, and they're less likely to bite a human than most breeds.
>> Now, many greyhounds will injure small fluffy dogs, but I don't think
>> that's a reason for requiring a higher license fee, as most incidents
>> of which I'm aware involving high-prey greyhound vs. small fluffy dog
>> occurred as a result of the small fluffy dogs' clueless owners
>> allowing said small fluffy dogs to run loose (off the porch, across
>> the yard, and into the faces of leashed sighthounds walking on
>> sidewalks). I do not see any merit in any part of Paul's scheme, but
>> charging higher fees because heavier dogs can do more damage seems to
>> be to be particularly ignorant.
>
>I wasn't relating it like size = potential damage. Maybe size = general
>impact as a basis for that type of fee? They emit more methane and cause
>more global warming? lol.
No, Paul explained that the higher fee for higher weight was based on
potential damage. Size = general impact? What does that mean?
>I don't like it either. I'd prefer to see a dog "tax" and/or penalties
>based more on penalizing people for improper care.
I'd prefer to see license fees be the same regardless of what breed or
size the dog is. If you have more dogs, you pay more in fees.
Aggression and biting should be dealt with separately rather than tied
to licensing. You can't solve a problem that is caused by
irresponsibility by imposing more requirements that are likely to be
ignored because the people are irresponsible and not following the
basic requirements as it is... And you shouldn't penalize people who
are responsible in order to try and fix problems caused by people who
aren't.
Mustang Sally
FurPaw
> <the.longest.use...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1188505917.2...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 29, 10:09 pm, sh...@panix.com (Melinda Shore) wrote:
>>> In article <46d62566$0$26697$ecde5...@news.coretel.net>,
>>> Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be good to have
>>>> accurate statistics, but that's probably an oxymoron.
>>> Do you think that's something someone with an engineering
>>> education would say? Something a professional engineer
>>> would say?
>>> --
>>> Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
>>>
>>> Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community
>>
>
> I was thinking of a quote attributed to Mark Twain:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
>
> Perhaps, in your mind, an engineer must be only serious and methodical
> about everything. I am a design engineer. I choose a more creative
> approach, and I consider various alternative ways of achieving a desired
> result. I am probably more of an inventor than a traditional engineer,
> although the fields of software and electronics allow more creativity than
> perhaps a mechanical engineer, but certainly more than a civil engineer.
>
> My Meyers-Briggs type is split between INTP, which is described as the
> Architect, and INTJ, Mastermind. Some INTPs are Charles Darwin and Albert
> Einstein, and INTJs include Isaac Newton and Dwight Eisenhower. But I am
> close to being ENTP, which is Inventor, so I share some qualities with
> Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison.
>
> It is ENTJ that typifies structural and functional engineers. It is also
> described as Field Marshal, which I do not consider myself. Examples of
> this type are Napoleon Bonaparte and Bill Gates.
>
> I wonder if dog trainers have a specific personality type. If not ENTJ, I
> would guess ENFJ, or teacher, exemplified by Oprah Winfrey and Billy
> Graham. What's *your* type?
>
> An online test can be taken:
> http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm
One problem with personality tests like the MBTI is that when you
get your results, you tend to pay attention to those "traits" you
agree with, and ignore those that you disagree with, coming to
the erroneous conclusion that it really has you pegged.
It's bad enough when the test results are interpreted by a
professional with training in personality and its measurement,
but even worse when you take it on-line.
Unfortunately, there are many popularized versions on-line like
the one above (which, by the way, is NOT the MBTI; it's a
knock-off). They provide lists of famous people alleged to fall
into the same category as you - even though, by the way, they
never took the test, never could have taken the test because it
was developed after they died, so it's just someone's opinion
that they are an ENTJ or ISTP or WTF.
All this leading people like you down the garden path, thinking
you are well-characterized and in wonderful company.
Of course, a lot of people believe their horoscopes, too.
FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
To reply, unleash the dog.
Melinda Shore
Melinda Shore <sh...@panix.com> wrote:
>Stuff like "if then if
>then if then if then if then" (hint: "switch")
Screw the "switch" - the right thing is a for loop over the
array with an array of multipliers, if you *must* alert all
over the place (and you really mustn't) throw it in there,
too, although you're better off with an explanation at the
bottom of a results page.
in LOLCODE it would look like:
HOW DUZ I ComputeTotal
I HAS A TotalFee ITZ 0
[ snip ]
IM IN YR loop UPPIN YR i WILE (i < 5)
Form1.HumanBiteType[i].checked, O RLY?
YA RLY, VISIBLE "IM IN UR FORM, UPPIN UR FEES"
TotalFee R PRODUKT OF Form1.Weight.Value AN multiplier[i]
OIC
IM OUTTA YR loop
[ snip]
IF U SAY SO
You can learn basic programming stuff like this in an
introductory programming course pretty much anywhere.
Paul E. Schoen
"Melinda Shore" <sh...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fbaa10$fe3$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Take a look at Paul's code and keep claiming that an
> education doesn't make a difference. It makes a big
> difference. He doesn't understand control flow, he doesn't
> understand data structures, he doesn't understand variable
> scoping, and he doesn't understand program structure.
> That's not snobbery, that's a fact.
I have stated that this effort was a learning experience with a language
(JScript) that I am not much familiar with. Also, it was a hastily coded
example of a proposed licensing scheme, which was intended to work only
well enough to elicit comments and suggestions on the concept. Now that I
have a better handle on the language, and some textbooks and on-line
references, I could expand on it and clean it up. JScript is much like C,
which was my favorite language for a long time, but then I discovered
Borland Delphi, which I use for my Windows applications.
My computer programming experience goes back to the days of IBM punch cards
and a room-sized 7094 in the late 60s at Johns Hopkins University, where I
coded in Assembly, Fortran, and BASIC. I learned structured programming in
Pascal at Towson University in 1987, but then soon switched to Borland C
for PC based programs. Around the same time I learned assembly language for
the 8085 and Z80 microprocessors, and also relational database programming
using Clipper. When I wrote my first Windows applications I had my first
taste of OOP, tried C++, and then settled on Delphi, which is a form of
Object Pascal. Concurrently, I maintain some Z80 based embedded systems
which use a combination of C and Assembly, and I have been programming
Microchip PICs using their assembly code.
I could go on defending myself and countering attacks on my programming
skills, but I am quite comfortable with my level of expertise to be
adequate for my needs. And I can call on the richer technical experience of
professional programmers who can help me with more complex applications. I
certainly understand the concepts Melinda has enumerated above, and use
them as necessary, but I'm not going to bother with all of that just to
make a simple demo web page program. This on-line license scheme may not go
anywhere, so why bother perfecting it? I might make some changes as a
learning experience, but that's about all I'll do unless there is serious
interest and some agreement on how it should be done.
Frankly, I would be bored if my only job were to write software, especially
if it were with just one language, and in a narrow range of applications.
I'd much rather have enough knowledge to set up and code a basic outline of
a software application, including perhaps a few controls to illustrate what
is needed, and then write a software specification for lowly codebangers to
follow. My software is just a gateway to my overall system, which may
include electronic circuitry, mechanical parts, and high powered electrical
components.
There is nothing like the thrill of running 30,000 amperes through a
circuit breaker, hearing the hum of several hundred kVA of power, watching
huge cables jump like startled snakes, smelling the ozone from the arcs as
it trips, and then being able to analyze the waveform using software. And
having the satisfaction that I have engineered every component in the
system, from the 500 lb transformer and the sleek industrial enclosure, to
the sensitive electronic circuitry that controls the power and measures the
required data, and the software that allows the user to do this safely and
easily.
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
diddy
news:46d8d407$0$26703$ecde...@news.coretel.net:
>
>
> There is nothing like the thrill of running 30,000 amperes through a
> circuit breaker, hearing the hum of several hundred kVA of power,
> watching huge cables jump like startled snakes, smelling the ozone from
> the arcs as it trips, and then being able to analyze the waveform using
> software. And having the satisfaction that I have engineered every
> component in the system, from the 500 lb transformer and the sleek
> industrial enclosure, to the sensitive electronic circuitry that
> controls the power and measures the required data, and the software that
> allows the user to do this safely and easily.
>
>
Wow that made my hair stand on end thinking of it!
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
> I recruit for the
> behemoth up at Cornell and I talk to EEs as well as computer
> science students and information science students, and the
> hardware guys know how to write code. They may not be as
> nuanced as the computer scientists and they may not be as
> strong on algorithms and analysis, but they're typically
> quite good.
I'm a hardware guy, though my EE degree was in communications
theory (hey, I like math). In the ten years before my
retirement I wrote a ton'o'code for microcontoller-based
products. I was able to structure code, forgo most globals,
and still write stuff which was maintainable by others. All
with extremely limited resources (512 bytes RAM, some flash,
some ROM).
Sometimes one needed to use shortcuts (reused code!) but that
was not the norm except in the most cost-conscious products,
of which I have no experience - I simply migrated to the next
best controller. The stuff I designed sold for the price of a
Kia.
I've looked at Paul's code (my self-taught html ain't much
better), but structure is structure and he doesn't have it.
FWIW, I had assumed Paul was an engineer because that's what
he called himself. I'm really disappointed that, in addition
to everything else, he also lied about his livelihood. I'm
not sure what the law is in the States, but in Canada,
mislabelling himself as an egineer would get him into serious
doo doo.
--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.
Paul E. Schoen
"diddy" <none> wrote in message
At least it's not boring and tedious, like some other drifts of this
thread. I didn't know that my simple web page was going to be critically
analyzed like a homework assignment, by some apparently very anal techies.
Maybe that's why they "anal"yzed it?
High current at low voltage is fairly safe, although some effects can be
startling, like jumping wires, flying tools, and loud noises. High voltage
is what can make your hair literally stand on end. I have not done so much
with that.
Some good movies of electrical power system tests and failures with
impressive arcs can be found at:
http://electricsubstationsafety.com/photo5.html. I don't get involved with
that sort of equipment directly, but that is the industry that uses test
equipment I have designed and built. I have known people who were injured
(and even killed) doing electrical testing. It is not something to be
trifled with.
The breaker and recloser test sets operate on high power 480 VAC, and test
breakers rated at that voltage, so the movie test24.mpg of the 480 V arc
blast shows the amount of damage that can be caused at that level.
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Melinda Shore
Rocky <3d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote:
>I'm a hardware guy, though my EE degree was in communications
>theory (hey, I like math).
Well, that's awesome. You could be getting! rich!! quick!!!
making wireless products instead of following your heart and
being happy, you know.
I do have some concerns about hardware people doing
software, and things pop out from time to time. Last month
I stayed in a hotel in Chicago in which the elevator
scheduling was really maddening, and after watching it for
awhile I realized that they didn't use the elevator
algorithm that used to be used for disk scheduling. So,
you'd get an elevator that would pass twice going in the
same direction but wouldn't stop heading in the return
direction. Stuff like that is a clue that it was written by
hardware people. Or maybe it was coded up by some ex-
Microsoft Office developers (HA HA HA).
>I'm
>not sure what the law is in the States, but in Canada,
>mislabelling himself as an egineer would get him into serious
>doo doo.
Some subfields in engineering require licenses to practice
(for example, civil engineering) but hardware/software/
systems/etc. engineering do not. Other than licensing I
don't know how you'd sort it out. How do you distinguish
between a profoundly incompetent engineer and
not-an-engineer?
Melinda Shore
>(JScript) that I am not much familiar with.
The problems weren't language-related, except to the extent
that the structure resembled stuff written before there were
structured languages. "Everything is global" is a statement
about the world we live in and the changing economy, but if
somebody says it about your code you should probably think
about rewriting it.
>I could go on defending myself and countering attacks on my programming
>skills, but I am quite comfortable with my level of expertise to be
>adequate for my needs.
I have little doubt of that.
Shelly
@panix2.panix.com:
> You can learn basic programming stuff like this in an
> introductory programming course pretty much anywhere.
I just had a bizarre flashback to my sophomore year of high school.
Too bad we had A) an obnoxious perv teaching programming and B) no
lolcode. Um, thanks for the trip down memory lane?
--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)
Paul E. Schoen
> In article <46d8d407$0$26703$ecde...@news.coretel.net>,
> Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>>I have stated that this effort was a learning experience with a language
>>(JScript) that I am not much familiar with.
>
> The problems weren't language-related, except to the extent
> that the structure resembled stuff written before there were
> structured languages. "Everything is global" is a statement
> about the world we live in and the changing economy, but if
> somebody says it about your code you should probably think
> about rewriting it.
>
I don't know why you are so concerned about two global variables that were
intended to be referenced elsewhere. Perhaps professional programmers
justify their high fees and low productivity by anal-yzing and fussing
about inconsequential deviations from their own inflexible ideas about how
a program should be written. I have often been frustrated when other
programmers have taken a long time to come up with a klunky and awkward
implementation of a user interface, with serious bugs and flaws in
functionality, yet they have apparently spent hours on frivolous touches. I
do have my own quirks in the way I write code, some of which derives from
the structure of low level PIC code, in contrast to the conventions of OOP.
It's time for me to move on to more productive efforts. I have no time to
argue about silly details and tedious criticisms. If you want to rewrite
this application as you think it should be, I'd be happy to see just how
much of an improvement you might make. Otherwise, consider that I have
produced something that works, and can easily be improved and augmented to
achieve the end result of an on-line license method, while you have merely
picked at minor coding issues. I guess that's why architects and designers
hire minions to take care of small details.
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Melinda Shore
Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>I don't know why you are so concerned about two global variables that were
>intended to be referenced elsewhere. Perhaps professional programmers
>justify their high fees and low productivity by anal-yzing and fussing
>about inconsequential deviations from their own inflexible ideas about how
>a program should be written.
Perhaps professional programmers command high fees because
they know what they're doing and produce robust, secure,
maintainable code. In many cases they don't, actually, but
the crap they produce is still more correct than what you
did.
In your case it's not just the globals - the program
structure, the klutziness in handling simple data
structures, and so on betray someone who hasn't had an
introductory programming class. Really - nobody taught you
to loop through an array? Really?
As for "works," that mess is really not maintainable. It
would be bad enough to loop through the same array twice to
do something virtually identical each time, but to if then
if then if then if then your way through the same array
twice to do something virtually identical each time invites
maintenance problems (leaving aside efficiency questions).
Another thing - use a programming editor or an html editor.
It doesn't matter which one, but it will help reveal program
structure and deal with syntax errors. You shouldn't
usually need one for such a short program but the if then if
then if then if then stuff invites syntax booboos.
That you think that mess is somehow competent programming
is, I think, related to your certainty about your own
abilities elsewhere, like with dogs.
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
> I do have some concerns about hardware people doing
> software, and things pop out from time to time.
My software fell mostly in the firmware genre, a lot of
controller-specific assembly language. How are elevators
controlled? The stuff I did could be likened more to the code
in a microwave oven.
> Some subfields in engineering require licenses to practice
> (for example, civil engineering) but hardware/software/
> systems/etc. engineering do not. Other than licensing I
> don't know how you'd sort it out. How do you distinguish
> between a profoundly incompetent engineer and
> not-an-engineer?
You hire on a short contract and see how they pan out. IOW,
I've had no luck with that. Hiring people was not my favourite
job.
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
> High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
Backwards.
Judith Althouse
I wanted to share with you that I appreciate your effort to assemble
and On-Line Dog License Application.
I do not think it is appropriate for a variety of reasons. Per pound
is an issue with me, not so much because of the cost but because of the
reasoning. My sister used to have 3 Irish Wolfounds. They would not
bite a flea, yet she would be paying more than I would despite the fact
that I have a dog aggressive PBT mix that I would deny is dog
aggressive.
The bottom line is this. Despite all of the critiquing of your
attempt, NO one else has bothered to come up with something better or
for that matter something at all.
I think it is admirable that you made an effort. I know it took some
of your time to compose it and I appreciate that.
What is up with Lucky, is she still with you?
Be Free.....Judy
Paul E. Schoen
"Judith Althouse" <judyal...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12437-46D...@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net...
Lucky is still here with me, but probably not much longer. Sometimes I have
been able to leave them both out and about in the house with no issues, but
it is an uneasy truce. Today I let them play with each other for a while,
and I could tell they were not really trying to hurt each other, although
it appeared rough at times. But then when I tried to take a nap, they both
got on the bed, and that just didn't work. So I had to crate one of them.
The last couple nights I kept Muttley crated and had Lucky sleep with me,
but she is not as calm as he is, and she keeps rolling around, flailing her
paws, and sometimes mouths my hand. Also, she likes to roll up the sheets
and chew/suck on them, which is yucky. So now Sir Muttley is my bed
partner. There was an almost real fight when I went to put Lucky in her
crate, and Muttley saw a chewy in there that she had been working on. But
they've had their 1:30 AM walks, and should sleep and be quiet until about
noon tomorrow. Last night their last walk was about 9:30, and although I
needed a little more sleep, they both needed to go out again by about 9 AM.
I talked to Defenders of Animal Rights, and they said I should call Tuesday
to see if they have a run available after the weekend, when they might have
a few adoptions. I have allowed an extra week to see if any of the adoption
flyers or other inquiries might pan out, but no calls. I could try other
things, but DoAR probably can do a better job, and they *say* that they
will not euth a dog unless it has dangerous aggression toward other dogs or
staff. I am also willing to stop by once a week or so to visit her and take
her for a walk, and give additional donations, which might bolster her
chances of remaining there and hopefully be adopted eventually. But I'm not
sure how long I'll be able to continue my visits, or if anyone will want to
adopt a big goofy dog, and I don't know if they will keep her forever, or
even if it is in her best interests to be kept there indefinitely. She,
much more than Muttley, is a "people" dog, and I don't know if she'll get
the interaction she needs. So I am concerned about her eventual fate, and
it is causing considerable stress on me and Helene.
Thanks for the good words about my experimental license application. I
don't know what is a fair and effective way to address the problem. Maybe
there should be a surcharge for aggressive breeds, or at least a refundable
bond, and a system of assessing any aggression incidents or training over
the period of a yearly renewal, and add or subtract fees accordingly.
Certainly, the renewal for a large, gentle dog should be less than a
ferocious Yorkie. At least the framework for a system is in place, even
though the code may not meet Melinda's standards.
Paul, Muttley, and (for a few more days) Lucky
Paul E. Schoen
"Rocky" <3d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
news:Fri999ED03E5A8CEau...@rocky-dog.com...
> "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> said in
> rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
>
>> High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
>
> Backwards.
>
Certainly if the high current is going through your body, especially your
heart, it is not safe. Even 10 mA at 60 Hz into the heart can cause
fibrillation and death. But I'm talking about the current going through a
low impedance like a circuit breaker, which requires only about the same
voltage as a car battery. It takes a certain amount of voltage to deliver a
dangerous current into the body, and it varies greatly depending on skin
resistance and location of the electrodes. Body resistance is typically
about 10 kOhms from one hand to the other, so 120 VAC would produce 12 mA.
However, the resistance can drop due to sweating, and the current can
quickly reach dangerous levels of 20-50 mA.
Higher voltages cause proportionally more current, so they are more
dangerous (unless greatly limited in current). Above 5000 volts, which is
technically the lower threshold of "high voltage", there is the additional
danger that merely being close to the voltage source can cause it to arc
through the air, so you don't even need to touch it. Typical air breakdown
is about 10 kV per inch. You also have electrostatic fields, which are what
cause your hair to stand on end, and corona, which is a visible effect,
particularly on sharp pointed metallic objects. You can check the Wiki or
do more scholarly research to learn more. High voltage is not my area of
expertise. I know enough to stay the hell away from it. It is scary enough
working with 480 or 600 VAC, which is technically "low voltage", but
capable of immense damage as can be seen in the 480 VAC blast on
http://electricsubstationsafety.com/photo5.html.
The low voltage that I consider safe is up to about 24 VAC. Telephone
circuits operate on 48 VDC, which is also considered safe, but it can give
you a nasty shock. Being DC, and limited to about 20 mA, it is rarely
fatal, but the ring signal is about 100 VAC, which is enough to be
dangerous, although the 25 Hz is less likely than the "ideal" 50-60 Hz to
cause fibrillation.
Thus I refute your "backwards" comment. Make sure you know whereof you
speak. What you don't know *can* kill you!
Paul
Melinda Shore
Rocky <3d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote:
>My software fell mostly in the firmware genre, a lot of
>controller-specific assembly language. How are elevators
>controlled? The stuff I did could be likened more to the code
>in a microwave oven.
I don't think elevators are nearly that complex but they do
use microcontrollers these days. (The older ones have
little itty-bitty men in pillbox hats flipping levers
underneath the control panel).
Paul E. Schoen
> In article <Fri999ECE9442752au...@rocky-dog.com>,
> Rocky <3d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote:
>>My software fell mostly in the firmware genre, a lot of
>>controller-specific assembly language. How are elevators
>>controlled? The stuff I did could be likened more to the code
>>in a microwave oven.
>
> I don't think elevators are nearly that complex but they do
> use microcontrollers these days. (The older ones have
> little itty-bitty men in pillbox hats flipping levers
> underneath the control panel).
> --
Microcontrollers are in almost everything now. Probably even in the toilets
that flush automagically when you get up, but sometimes I think there is
somebody behind the wall peeking out through the red lens. Especially when
they flush before you get up.
Even the tiny ones that cost half a dollar can replace a lot of discrete
logic, and are much more flexible if a change in operation is needed. I
write exclusively in PIC assembly code, but I have a C compiler for the
Microchip 18F series. We are going to be converting a product, that now
uses a Z180 processor core, to a PIC based system. Much of the C code can
probably be reused, but the low level assembly stuff will need to be
redone. There are some things you just can't trust a compiler to do,
especially for real-time processing where efficiency and speed are vital.
And you can't fix bad, bloated coding by specifying ever faster processors
and gobs of memory, as seems to be the norm for Windows applications. I
think programmers use something like this to make older hardware obsolete:
// Global variables
double MakeProgLookReallyBig[BIGNUMBER][BIGGERUMBER];
long ThumbTwiddle = BIGNUMBER;
main() {
while (ThumbTwiddle) {
// Waste Time Long Enough To Be Annoying On Slow Machines
MakeProgLookReallyBig[ThumbTwiddle][ThumbTwiddle] = Rand();
ThumbTwiddle--; }
StartActualProgram();
}
Paul
diddy
> Microcontrollers are in almost everything now. Probably even in
the
> toilets that flush automagically when you get up, but sometimes
I think
> there is somebody behind the wall peeking out through the red
lens.
> Especially when they flush before you get up.
That's hilarious.. now I'm going to be paranoid.
I hope that job pays a lot,
Shelly
news:46dafbeb$0$24579$ecde...@news.coretel.net:
> sometimes I think there is
> somebody behind the wall peeking out through the red lens.
> Especially when they flush before you get up.
There really *is* a little man who follows you around, flushing the
toilet every time you use it. The Cabal sometimes slips him $5 to
flush while you're still sitting. Good times. Good, good times.
Rocky
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
> "Rocky" <3d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
> news:Fri999ED03E5A8CEau...@rocky-dog.com...
>> "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> said in
>> rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
>>
>>> High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
>>
>> Backwards.
> Certainly if the high current is going through your body,
> especially your heart, it is not safe. Even 10 mA at 60 Hz
> into the heart can cause fibrillation and death. But I'm
> talking about the current going through a low impedance
> like a circuit breaker, which requires only about the same
> voltage as a car battery.
You've gone all AC-DC. Do you know the difference?
> It takes a certain amount of
> voltage to deliver a dangerous current into the body,
How much? The correct answer is little to none. Norton
rules.
> and
> it varies greatly depending on skin resistance and location
> of the electrodes.
Natch.
Dele elementary non-whitespace circuit theory.
> Thus I refute your "backwards" comment. Make sure you know
> whereof you speak. What you don't know *can* kill you!
You're wrong. Deal with it.
Paul E. Schoen
> "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> said in
> rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
>
>> "Rocky" <3d...@rocky-dog.com> wrote in message
>> news:Fri999ED03E5A8CEau...@rocky-dog.com...
>>> "Paul E. Schoen" <pst...@smart.net> said in
>>> rec.pets.dogs.behavior:
>>>
>>>> High current at low voltage is fairly safe,
>>>
>>> Backwards.
>
>> Certainly if the high current is going through your body,
>> especially your heart, it is not safe. Even 10 mA at 60 Hz
>> into the heart can cause fibrillation and death. But I'm
>> talking about the current going through a low impedance
>> like a circuit breaker, which requires only about the same
>> voltage as a car battery.
>
> You've gone all AC-DC. Do you know the difference?
>
well try to explain this to Muttley.
>> It takes a certain amount of
>> voltage to deliver a dangerous current into the body,
>
> How much? The correct answer is little to none. Norton
> rules.
Who the hell is Norton and wtf does he have to do with this? Is he your
mighty master and you his brainless zombie?
>
>> and
>> it varies greatly depending on skin resistance and location
>> of the electrodes.
>
> Natch.
>
> Dele elementary non-whitespace circuit theory.
Too bad you are too stupid to understand even the simplest things, eh?
>
>> Thus I refute your "backwards" comment. Make sure you know
>> whereof you speak. What you don't know *can* kill you!
>
> You're wrong. Deal with it.
>
Matt, it's hardly the best, but this reference might at least be easy for
you to comprehend, if you can handle the truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock
It's amazing that someone like Matt, with obviously some intelligence about
dogs, would act so childishly when his erroneous quip is shown to be in
error. And in this case, he is "dead wrong", yet he clings to his error
like a bratty toddler to his mother when told he has misbehaved. This
argument was discussed at length recently in a thread on
sci.electronics.design, by people such as myself with actual knowledge on
the subject. I'll accept his criticism for my possibly erroneous comments
about dog behavior, but what he thinks he knows about electricity is simply
stupid and dangerous. Yet his ego is so fragile that he cannot bear to be
proven wrong.
Probably I should not have dignified his stupid comments with a reply, but
I am curious about what other nonsense he might spew forth. Any more
wisecracks, Matt?
Paul, Muttley and Lucky
Melinda Shore
Paul E. Schoen <pst...@smart.net> wrote:
>Who the hell is Norton and wtf does he have to do with
>this?
Woohoo! Education is for snobs!!