The Is Only One Rational Way (was Re: A Modest Proposal)

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <ylfkwr4r...@dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Well, he's rationally chosen what level to operate at, and clearly
>rational beings will reach the same conclusion from the same data.

I'm going to rec.arts.sf.written,
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
because it might provoke an interesting discussion that's not for
RASFF. What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings
will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?

The one that comes to mind are Larry Niven's Pak. "There is little of
choice in the Pak", or something like that. A datum is revealed, and
they all react knowing what they should do and what others are going
to do based on it.

But I've got a nagging feeling that there are lots more that are just
not coming to mind. I don't remember enough of _Skylark of Space_,
luckily, to know whether that was a theme, or perhaps in the Lensmen
series.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Bill Snyder]

Oh, yes, definitely in the Lensmen series. Every Arisian has a
Visualization of the Cosmic All; and I think we're even told
explicitly that a sufficiently powerful intelligence can deduce
the entire Universe from any single datum.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-05-04 12:28:23 -0400, Tim McDaniel said:

> In article <ylfkwr4r...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Well, he's rationally chosen what level to operate at, and clearly
>> rational beings will reach the same conclusion from the same data.
>
> I'm going to rec.arts.sf.written,
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written
> Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
> because it might provoke an interesting discussion that's not for
> RASFF. What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings
> will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?
>

> But I've got a nagging feeling that there are lots more that are just
> not coming to mind. I don't remember enough of _Skylark of Space_,
> luckily, to know whether that was a theme, or perhaps in the Lensmen
> series.

Oh, it's definitely true in the Lensman universe -- one's visualization
of the Cosmic All will vary from another's only based on available
information.


--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <jo1037$psd$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ylfkwr4r...@dd-b.net>,
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>Well, he's rationally chosen what level to operate at, and clearly
>>rational beings will reach the same conclusion from the same data.
>
>I'm going to rec.arts.sf.written,
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written
> Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
>because it might provoke an interesting discussion that's not for
>RASFF. What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings
>will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?

I dunno, but my husband has operated on that principle his whole
life. He thinks "I am a rational man. My wife is a rational
woman. Therefore, when I choose to do a thing that is according
to reason, I don't have to TELL her; she will KNOW what I have
done because that's the rational thing to do." Only either I'm
not rational by his definition (and he would argue vehemently
against that idea), or we are both rational and yet we come to
different conclusions. The commonest example is when we're out
somewhere together (shopping, e.g.) and he decides he's done and
goes out to the car without telling me, because of course I will
KNOW that's where he went because that was the rational and
logical place for him to go. He still does it; I've adapted to
the point where, after searching around for him for maybe five
minutes (longer, if it's somewhere huge like Home Depot) I will
go out to the car, and if he's not in it, go and search some
more. Because he might easily have decided that the rational
thing to do was to go drool over drill bits or something.

And yet we are still happily married after forty-one years.
>
But I can't think of any stfnal contexts, unless you count that
he was a whole lot like Mr. Spock when I met him. He has since
loosened up some.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Hmmm; Seaton and Crane argue a lot, it's how they get work done. But
they do always come to a conclusion they both support. That's related
to the "logic from the same premises leads to the same results" meme, at
least. But really, those books seem to be about cooperation among those
seeking *truth* and competition among those seeking *power* (plus
conflict between power seekers and truth seekers). The Fenachrone want
to rule the universe, and are wiped out. The Chlorans are a threat to
humanity, and are wiped out. But the Llurdi, or however they're
spelled, actually come to an accommodation with the Jelmi (and this is
specifically attributed to the Llurdi being insanely logical). Duquesne
is left alive at the end, going off to found an empire based essentially
on meritocracy, which is a "more highly evolved" (in Skylark terms)
position than the pure personal quest for power he was on when we first
met him.

Lensman universe: there's debate among the Arisians on how things are to
be handled. And they put a fusion of the four moulders in charge of
contacts with penultimates in the breeding programs, which seems to
suggest that they think different individuals will notice different
things, and four brains on the topic will work better than one. I guess
that's about information rather than logic; but, also, for all their
powers of mind, Smith never does actually say the Arisians work by
*logic*.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

But, each having *their own* visualization strongly suggests they're not
the same. And they have the same information, don't they? They share
information a lot.

And it's obvious (to me :-) ) that you can in fact have identical
pebbles in two rather different universes. A pebble reflects only
fairly local conditions.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 4, 12:28 pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <ylfkwr4rly3q....@dd-b.net>,

I'm trying to recall the author of a story I read in Analog back in
the early-mid 70s, titled "Zero Sum". It featured an interstellar war
between humans and another species, without communication. The war
dragged on for far longer than the humans expected; they seemed to be
winning conclusively, but the other side didn't seem to be getting the
message.

Eventually it turned out that the two sides had very different notions
of 'victory' and 'defeat', and by each sides standards, that side was
winning.

pt

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yeah, that's the kind of insane rationality that is, in fact, all too
common around fandom. (Apologies to Hal!)

> And yet we are still happily married after forty-one years.

Sometimes the world is strange and inexplicable. At least, those times
are sometimes pleasant, they're not *all* bad.

[David Johnston]

But that doesn't establish that any sufficiently powerful intelligence
will have the same values as any other sufficient powerful intelligence.

[Wayne Throop]

: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: Oh, yes, definitely in the Lensmen series. Every Arisian has a

: Visualization of the Cosmic All; and I think we're even told
: explicitly that a sufficiently powerful intelligence can deduce the
: entire Universe from any single datum.

I thought it was three. Is my memory faulty, or is it that the
Arisians can do it with three, but somebody more powerfull might with one?

[Michael Stemper]

In article <f28c5569-cd0e-48a8...@o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> writes:

>On May 4, 12:28=A0pm, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:

>> But I've got a nagging feeling that there are lots more that are just

>> not coming to mind. =A0I don't remember enough of _Skylark of Space_,

>> luckily, to know whether that was a theme, or perhaps in the Lensmen
>> series.
>
>I'm trying to recall the author of a story I read in Analog back in
>the early-mid 70s, titled "Zero Sum". It featured an interstellar war
>between humans and another species, without communication. The war
>dragged on for far longer than the humans expected; they seemed to be
>winning conclusively, but the other side didn't seem to be getting the
>message.
>
>Eventually it turned out that the two sides had very different notions
>of 'victory' and 'defeat', and by each sides standards, that side was
>winning.

Not at all what you're thinking of, but the description reminds me of
Delany's _The Fall of the Towers_. In this, beings from all over our
universe are fighting (in their own idioms) The Lord of the Flames.

In the end, it turns out that its strategies were absolutely backwards.
It pushed people (and others) together in an attempt to weaken them,
because that's how it worked in its universe. In reality, it should
have been trying to split us apart.

The book/triliogy is really quite good, despite the weakness of my
description.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"You are trapped in that bright moment when you learned your doom."

[Bill Snyder]

But an incorrect (or more likely just insufficiently detailed)
Visualization is viewed by them as defective. When I get home
I'll try to dig up the quote from the young Arisian who is
surprised to see a couple of the Eich turn up -- he definitely
sees his failure to foresee that as an objective defect in his
Visualization.

>And it's obvious (to me :-) ) that you can in fact have identical
>pebbles in two rather different universes. A pebble reflects only
>fairly local conditions.

Sure. This doesn't appear to be the case in the Lensmen-verse,
however.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:03:29 -0500, Bill Snyder
<bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:


>>But, each having *their own* visualization strongly suggests they're not
>>the same. And they have the same information, don't they? They share
>>information a lot.
>
>But an incorrect (or more likely just insufficiently detailed)
>Visualization is viewed by them as defective. When I get home
>I'll try to dig up the quote from the young Arisian who is
>surprised to see a couple of the Eich turn up -- he definitely
>sees his failure to foresee that as an objective defect in his
>Visualization.

Ah, found a pirated copy of _Gray Lensman_ on-line. I don't feel
too guilty about mining it for a single quote:

"Ah, 'tis Lan and Amp of the Eich," the thought resounded within
the minds of the helpless twain. "Truly, the Elders are correct.
My mind is not yet competent, for, although I have had many facts
instead of but a single one upon which to cogitate, and no dearth
of time in which to do so, I now perceive that I have erred
grievously in my visualization of the Cosmic All. You do, however,
fit nicely into the now enlarged Scheme, and I am really grateful
to you for furnishing new material with which, for many cycles of
time to come, I shall continue to build."

[Michael Stemper]

An Arisian stated it as a philosophical truth, kind of a Platonic ideal.
However, no Ariisian would ever claim to be fully competent. Awareness
of their limitations was part of what led to development of the Successors,
but I doubt that any of them would claim to be fully competent, either.

The concpet of doing it with three was never mentioned.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be.

[William December Starr]

In article <f28c5569-cd0e-48a8...@o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> said:

> I'm trying to recall the author of a story I read in Analog back
> in the early-mid 70s, titled "Zero Sum". It featured an
> interstellar war between humans and another species, without
> communication. The war dragged on for far longer than the humans
> expected; they seemed to be winning conclusively, but the other
> side didn't seem to be getting the message.
>
> Eventually it turned out that the two sides had very different
> notions of 'victory' and 'defeat', and by each sides standards,
> that side was winning.

The ISFDB is useful.

Linkname: Bibliography: Zero Sum
URL: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51423

Title: Zero Sum
Author: Joseph P. Martino
Year: 1971
Type: SHORTFICTION
Storylen: novella
User Rating: This title has fewer than 5 votes. VOTE
Current Tags: None Add Tags

Publications:
* Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, July 1971, (Jul 1971, ed. John
W. Campbell, publ. Condé Nast Publications, Inc., $0.60, 180pp,
Digest, magazine) Cover: Kelly Freas - [VERIFIED]

-- wds

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I vote for your memory. I don't remember "three" anywhere connected to
that concept.

[Wayne Throop]

: tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
: What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings will reach

: the same conclusion from the same data"?

Hm. Let me add a non-fiction xref. One of Hofstadter's
Metamagical Themas deals with just that issue. I'm not sure
I buy into it, either as a plausible fictional premise, nor
for the games theoretical model Hofstadter arrives at. But
it's of some relevance imo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality

The idea of superrationality is that two logical thinkers analyzing
the same problem will think of the same correct answer. For example,
if two persons are both good at arithmetic, and both have been given
the same complicated sum to do, it can be predicted that both will
get the same answer before the sum is known. In arithmetic, knowing
that the two answers are going to be the same doesn't change the
value of the sum, but in game theory, knowing that the answer will
be the same might change the answer itself.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> writes:

> On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:03:29 -0500, Bill Snyder
> <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>But, each having *their own* visualization strongly suggests they're not
>>>the same. And they have the same information, don't they? They share
>>>information a lot.
>>
>>But an incorrect (or more likely just insufficiently detailed)
>>Visualization is viewed by them as defective. When I get home
>>I'll try to dig up the quote from the young Arisian who is
>>surprised to see a couple of the Eich turn up -- he definitely
>>sees his failure to foresee that as an objective defect in his
>>Visualization.
>
> Ah, found a pirated copy of _Gray Lensman_ on-line. I don't feel
> too guilty about mining it for a single quote:

Yeah, I've got, hmmm, currently four editions in paper. One of them is
the first-edition hardbacks, which of course I bought used, but I've
paid the copyright holder three other times :-). So I have no qualms at
all about using e-versions regardless of provenance; however, I object
to *giving money* to people for pirated copies.

> "Ah, 'tis Lan and Amp of the Eich," the thought resounded within
> the minds of the helpless twain. "Truly, the Elders are correct.
> My mind is not yet competent, for, although I have had many facts
> instead of but a single one upon which to cogitate, and no dearth
> of time in which to do so, I now perceive that I have erred
> grievously in my visualization of the Cosmic All. You do, however,
> fit nicely into the now enlarged Scheme, and I am really grateful
> to you for furnishing new material with which, for many cycles of
> time to come, I shall continue to build."

Yes, they got surprises. The young ones especially.

[Wayne Throop]

:: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
:: I dunno, but my husband has operated on that principle his whole

:: life. He thinks "I am a rational man. My wife is a rational woman.
:: Therefore, when I choose to do a thing that is according to reason, I
:: don't have to TELL her; she will KNOW what I have done because that's

:: the rational thing to do." [...]
:: The commonest example is when we're out somewhere together (shopping,

:: e.g.) and he decides he's done and goes out to the car without

:: telling me [...]
:: I've adapted to the point where, after searching around for him for

:: maybe five minutes (longer, if it's somewhere huge like Home Depot) I
:: will go out to the car, and if he's not in it, go and search some
:: more. Because he might easily have decided that the rational thing
:: to do was to go drool over drill bits or something.

Aye, there's the rub. You two aren't privy to all the same information.
You don't know what will-o-the-wisp has drifted across his peripheral
vision to distract him, or just how boring the secton of store he's
standing in is, etc, etc.

This is where technology comes to the rescue. Cellphones. That way,
you could either share the extra information, or sync up after the fact,
without actually plodding all over the store. I've actually done that;
phoned my wife while we are in walking distance (but not sight) of each
other. In fact, it's a common thing at airports and such. You don't
have to wonder where the rational place to wait du-jour may be.
You just call and sync up.

If a cell phone is too intrusive, you could just tag him with a GPS locator.
I hear folks in wildlife management have practically painless versions now.
(Actually, one of the easiest ways to accomplish it would be to plant a
cell phone with a GPS locator on him... maybe disguise it as a wristwatch,
if he uses one of those.)

Eventually, you just place a blogcam (or whatever first-person streaming
web POV equipment is called these days) in his glasses. You know, when
it gets inexpensive and user friendly enough.

[Wayne Throop]

: mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
: An Arisian stated it as a philosophical truth, kind of a Platonic

: ideal. However, no Ariisian would ever claim to be fully competent.
: Awareness of their limitations was part of what led to development of
: the Successors, but I doubt that any of them would claim to be fully
: competent, either.
:
: The concpet of doing it with three was never mentioned.

Huh. The "from three facts I can deduce the universe" seems
very much like a smithism to me. I'm pretty sure I read it
in some work of fiction; I'm certain it didn't occur to me
on my own. Can anybody think of somewhere else Smith might
have inserted the meme? Skylark? Subspace Explorers? Beuler?

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 4, 2:35 pm, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <f28c5569-cd0e-48a8-a151-cfd867545...@o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > I'm trying to recall the author of a story I read in Analog back
> > in the early-mid 70s, titled "Zero Sum". It featured an
> > interstellar war between humans and another species, without
> > communication. The war dragged on for far longer than the humans
> > expected; they seemed to be winning conclusively, but the other
> > side didn't seem to be getting the message.
>
> > Eventually it turned out that the two sides had very different
> > notions of 'victory' and 'defeat', and by each sides standards,
> > that side was winning.
>
> The ISFDB is useful.

I know. At the time I was posting, the site was not responding.

pt

[Scott Lurndal]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>> : Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>> : Oh, yes, definitely in the Lensmen series. Every Arisian has a
>> : Visualization of the Cosmic All; and I think we're even told
>> : explicitly that a sufficiently powerful intelligence can deduce the
>> : entire Universe from any single datum.
>>
>> I thought it was three. Is my memory faulty, or is it that the
>> Arisians can do it with three, but somebody more powerfull might with one?
>
>I vote for your memory. I don't remember "three" anywhere connected to
>that concept.

Mentor was a fusion of three arisians.

scott

[William December Starr]

In article <a478cb10-0d63-4663...@z14g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> said:

> ...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> The ISFDB is useful.
>
> I know. At the time I was posting, the site was not responding.

Ah. Isn't it awful to suddenly be thrown about twenty years
backwards in time, intelligence-enhancement-wise?

-- wds

[Michael Stemper]

Who were named Brolenteen, Drounli, Kriedigan, and Nedanillor. There
were three, because there was one for each race of candidates for the
next stage: Human, Valentian, Rigellian, and Palanian.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

This sentence no verb.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm trying to recall the author of a story I read in Analog back in
>the early-mid 70s, titled "Zero Sum". It featured an interstellar war
>between humans and another species, without communication. The war
>dragged on for far longer than the humans expected; they seemed to be
>winning conclusively, but the other side didn't seem to be getting the
>message.
>
>Eventually it turned out that the two sides had very different notions
>of 'victory' and 'defeat', and by each sides standards, that side was
>winning.

Is that the one where the aliens had a hive mind, and weren't
measuring victory in lives?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Bill Snyder]

I must be seriously unclear on the concept of "three."

[Butch Malahide]

On May 4, 2:19 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer
>

> <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm trying to recall the author of a story I read in Analog back in
> >the early-mid 70s, titled "Zero Sum". It featured an interstellar war
> >between humans and another species, without communication. The war
> >dragged on for far longer than the humans expected; they seemed to be
> >winning conclusively, but the other side didn't seem to be getting the
> >message.
>
> >Eventually it turned out that the two sides had very different notions
> >of 'victory' and 'defeat', and by each sides standards, that side was
> >winning.
>
> Is that the one where the aliens had a hive mind, and weren't
> measuring victory in lives?

Who measures victory in lives? Did the South win the Civil War?

[Butch Malahide]

On May 4, 11:28 am, t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <ylfkwr4rly3q....@dd-b.net>,

> David Dyer-Bennet  <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, he's rationally chosen what level to operate at, and clearly
> >rational beings will reach the same conclusion from the same data.
>
> I'm going to rec.arts.sf.written,
>     Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written
>     Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
> because it might provoke an interesting discussion that's not for

> RASFF.  What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings

> will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?

This may be a stretch, but I seem to recall that some such notion was
hinted at in Boucher's "The Quest for Saint Aquin".

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 5:38:14 PM UTC+1, Bill Snyder wrote:

> On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:28:23 +0000 (UTC), tm...@panix.com (Tim
> McDaniel) wrote:
>
> >In article <ylfkwr4r...@dd-b.net>,

> >David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >>Well, he's rationally chosen what level to operate at, and clearly
> >>rational beings will reach the same conclusion from the same data.
> >
> >I'm going to rec.arts.sf.written,
> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written
> > Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
> >because it might provoke an interesting discussion that's not for
> >RASFF. What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings
> >will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?
> >

> >The one that comes to mind are Larry Niven's Pak. "There is little of
> >choice in the Pak", or something like that. A datum is revealed, and
> >they all react knowing what they should do and what others are going
> >to do based on it.
> >
> >But I've got a nagging feeling that there are lots more that are just
> >not coming to mind. I don't remember enough of _Skylark of Space_,
> >luckily, to know whether that was a theme, or perhaps in the Lensmen
> >series.
>

> Oh, yes, definitely in the Lensmen series. Every Arisian has a
> Visualization of the Cosmic All; and I think we're even told
> explicitly that a sufficiently powerful intelligence can deduce
> the entire Universe from any single datum.

Try none, if you don't count yourself as a fact? Have
you heard of a "stupendous super computer which was so
amazingly intelligent that even before the data banks
had been connected up it had started from 'I think
therefore I am' and got as far as the existence of
rice pudding and income tax before anyone managed to
turn it off"? ;-)

As far as I remember, Descartes' actual argument from
"cogito ergo sum" is implausibly sprightly.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Nope, four; one for each finalist race in the breeding project.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Well, it *is* the magic number. And, for large values of three, you are
correct.

[Robert Carnegie]

...oh, and:

"Since every piece of matter in the Universe is in
some way affected by every other piece of matter in
the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate
the whole of creation - every sun, every planet,
their orbits, their composition and their economic
and social history from, say, one small piece of
fairy cake. The man who invented the Total Perspective
Vortex did so basically in order to annoy his wife." ...

[Cryptoengineer]

Yes.

> Who measures victory in lives? Did the South win the Civil War?

Don't poke at it too hard. In the story, the humans were losing more
materiel but far fewer people, and thought the loss of life was
seriously impacting the other side. The opponent thought the opposite;
it was losing easily re-bred fractions of itself, while inflicting
expensive, hard-to-replace loss of ships, etc.

Each expected the other to give up, since they were clearly losing.

I was 13 at the time, and this was my first exposure to the notion of
'zero-sum'.

pt

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <SUVor.36846$qT5....@news.usenetserver.com>,

Four, surely?

/checks Ellik and Evans, _The Universes of E. E. Smith_ (page
128)

Four. Nedanillor, Kriedigan, Drounli, and Brolenteen.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <jo1aet$mh7$1...@dont-email.me>,

Riiiiight. If your tongue were any further into your cheek, it
would be wriggling out your ear.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <13361...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>:: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>:: I dunno, but my husband has operated on that principle his whole
>:: life. He thinks "I am a rational man. My wife is a rational woman.
>:: Therefore, when I choose to do a thing that is according to reason, I
>:: don't have to TELL her; she will KNOW what I have done because that's
>:: the rational thing to do." [...]
>:: The commonest example is when we're out somewhere together (shopping,
>:: e.g.) and he decides he's done and goes out to the car without
>:: telling me [...]
>:: I've adapted to the point where, after searching around for him for
>:: maybe five minutes (longer, if it's somewhere huge like Home Depot) I
>:: will go out to the car, and if he's not in it, go and search some
>:: more. Because he might easily have decided that the rational thing
>:: to do was to go drool over drill bits or something.
>
>Aye, there's the rub. You two aren't privy to all the same information.
>You don't know what will-o-the-wisp has drifted across his peripheral
>vision to distract him, or just how boring the secton of store he's
>standing in is, etc, etc.
>
>This is where technology comes to the rescue. Cellphones.

He has a cellphone. He doesn't always carry it; when he does, he
frequently has it turned off (not vibrate, OFF, to save the
battery). This drives our daughter up the wall, because her
generations assumes that EVERYbody has a cellphone and is ALWAYS
available to chat.

I don't have a cellphone, and when occasionally called on to use
on, I can't figure it out. There was one memorable hour a couple
months ago: we were driving to some playground or other for
grandson's fourth birthday. Hal THOUGHT he knew where it was.
He didn't, and being a man, he drove for miles and miles out into
the boondocks and past several city-limits signs before
acknowledging that maybe he didn't know where the place was after
all. Meanwhile, I had been saying at intervals, "Why don't you
pull over someplace and call Meg and find out where it IS?" He
finally pulled out his cellphone and threw it into my lap and
said "YOU call her!" and kept on driving far far away. And I
couldn't figure out how it worked. There was more back-and-forthing
that I won't relate, and finally he turned around, drove more
miles back, found a parking lot, and called her.

I've sometimes thought it might help on occasion if I had a "granny
phone" that did NOTHING but telephone and had really simple-to-
understand-by-the-older-generation instructions. But I have yet
to find one simple enough.

That way,
>you could either share the extra information, or sync up after the fact,
>without actually plodding all over the store. I've actually done that;
>phoned my wife while we are in walking distance (but not sight) of each
>other. In fact, it's a common thing at airports and such. You don't
>have to wonder where the rational place to wait du-jour may be.
>You just call and sync up.

See above.

>
>If a cell phone is too intrusive, you could just tag him with a GPS locator.
>I hear folks in wildlife management have practically painless versions now.
>(Actually, one of the easiest ways to accomplish it would be to plant a
>cell phone with a GPS locator on him... maybe disguise it as a wristwatch,
>if he uses one of those.)

He has a GPS locator slung to his belt. He was using it recently
when we were driving around Alameda (which is an island, one to a
few feet above sea level) trying to find out just what the
altitude of a particular location was. This, it turned out, depended
on which satellite it was talking to and where said satellite was
in its orbit. Depending, we got figures everywhere from 40 to
-40 feet.

This being the case, I feel no particular optimism that it would
serve for locating him in the bowels of Home Depot.

>
>Eventually, you just place a blogcam (or whatever first-person streaming
>web POV equipment is called these days) in his glasses. You know, when
>it gets inexpensive and user friendly enough.

I anticipate being dead by then.

(Actually, when I contemplate the fact that if I were dead I
would NEVER HAVE TO BABYSIT A FOUR YEAR OLD AGAIN, it doesn't
sound half bad.)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <lta8q7pib5qr81rqr...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:50:14 -0700 (PDT), Cryptoengineer
><pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to recall the author of a story I read in Analog back in
>>the early-mid 70s, titled "Zero Sum". It featured an interstellar war
>>between humans and another species, without communication. The war
>>dragged on for far longer than the humans expected; they seemed to be
>>winning conclusively, but the other side didn't seem to be getting the
>>message.
>>
>>Eventually it turned out that the two sides had very different notions
>>of 'victory' and 'defeat', and by each sides standards, that side was
>>winning.
>
>
>Is that the one where the aliens had a hive mind, and weren't
>measuring victory in lives?

With the minimal mind I've got, I can still see two cultures in
the same species measuring victory in terms of "we got more of
their territory than they did of ours" or "we killed more of
their guys than they did of ours". Not that that would get
either side very far.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <ylfkobq3...@dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>Lensman universe: there's debate among the Arisians on how things are to
>be handled. And they put a fusion of the four moulders in charge of
>contacts with penultimates in the breeding programs, which seems to
>suggest that they think different individuals will notice different
>things, and four brains on the topic will work better than one. I guess
>that's about information rather than logic; but, also, for all their
>powers of mind, Smith never does actually say the Arisians work by
>*logic*.

Hal's favorite Lensman remark: "The Lensmen were bred for *power
of mind.* Not for intelligence."

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:04:40 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:25:18 +0000 (UTC),
>> mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <SUVor.36846$qT5....@news.usenetserver.com>, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>>>>>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>>>>> : Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>>>
>>>>>> : Oh, yes, definitely in the Lensmen series. Every Arisian has a
>>>>>> : Visualization of the Cosmic All; and I think we're even told
>>>>>> : explicitly that a sufficiently powerful intelligence can deduce the
>>>>>> : entire Universe from any single datum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it was three. Is my memory faulty, or is it that the
>>>>>> Arisians can do it with three, but somebody more powerfull might with one?
>>>>>
>>>>>I vote for your memory. I don't remember "three" anywhere connected to
>>>>>that concept.
>>>>
>>>>Mentor was a fusion of three arisians.
>>>
>>>Who were named Brolenteen, Drounli, Kriedigan, and Nedanillor. There
>>>were three, because there was one for each race of candidates for the
>>>next stage: Human, Valentian, Rigellian, and Palanian.
>>
>> I must be seriously unclear on the concept of "three."
>
>Well, it *is* the magic number. And, for large values of three, you are
>correct.

It probably means the Arisians have moved beyond our primitive
Earth arithmetic.

[Kip Williams]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> I've sometimes thought it might help on occasion if I had a "granny
> phone" that did NOTHING but telephone and had really simple-to-
> understand-by-the-older-generation instructions. But I have yet
> to find one simple enough.

I've heard of one called The Jitterbug that's supposed to be fairly
considerate in that regard.


Kip W
rasfw

[Wayne Throop]

: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: He has a GPS locator slung to his belt.

Clearly, it needs to be remotely accessable/trackable.

: He was using it recently when we were driving around Alameda (which is

: an island, one to a few feet above sea level) trying to find out just
: what the altitude of a particular location was. This, it turned out,
: depended on which satellite it was talking to and where said satellite
: was in its orbit. Depending, we got figures everywhere from 40 to -40
: feet.

Well yeah, but it should still suffice for the question of "has he
bugged out to the car yet", since most stars/malls/whatnot are large
enough that the car is a considerable distance away, so that gps
can resolve it.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 4, 2:53 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

> If a cell phone is too intrusive, you could just tag him with a GPS locator.
> I hear folks in wildlife management have practically painless versions now.
> (Actually, one of the easiest ways to accomplish it would be to plant a
> cell phone with a GPS locator on him... maybe disguise it as a wristwatch,
> if he uses one of those.)

I actually do this. My wife and I both carry Android phones, and have
installed the 'Latitude' application:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Latitude

This lets us see each others location. It's still a work in progress,
however. The update rate is pretty low. I most often use it to see
when my wife leaves work, so I know when I should have dinner ready.
There used to be a 'real time' update mode, where it updated every few
seconds for a few minutes, but that got pulled for various reasons
(battery life not the least of them).

Yes, there are privacy concerns. But the phone company already gets my
location, and Google claims only to keep the most recent fix.

pt

[David Goldfarb]

In article <jo15kf$l83$1...@dont-email.me>,
Michael Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Not at all what you're thinking of, but the description reminds me of
>Delany's _The Fall of the Towers_. In this, beings from all over our
>universe are fighting (in their own idioms) The Lord of the Flames.
>
>In the end, it turns out that its strategies were absolutely backwards.
>It pushed people (and others) together in an attempt to weaken them,
>because that's how it worked in its universe. In reality, it should
>have been trying to split us apart.
>
>The book/triliogy is really quite good, despite the weakness of my
>description.

The main thing I remember from that trilogy is the idea that you
can take a person's index of refraction, and lower it, thus causing
them to become invisible when they enter shadows. I mean, that's
not even close enough to correct to be called "wrong".

Oh yeah: and that each of the three books in the trilogy has
a recurring catchphrase of sorts. The one in the second book
is "We have an enemy beyond the barrier" -- and EVERY TIME someone
said that, my mind would continue "...E-I-E-I-O!".

(I would *not* describe it as "quite good", or even "good", really.)

--
David Goldfarb | "We need you to distract them."
goldf...@gmail.com |"Right."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "What are you going to do?"
|"I'm going to kill them all. That ought to
|distract them." -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer

[Robert Bannister]

On 5/05/12 12:49 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<jo1037$psd$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Tim McDaniel<tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article<ylfkwr4r...@dd-b.net>,

>> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Well, he's rationally chosen what level to operate at, and clearly
>>> rational beings will reach the same conclusion from the same data.
>>
>> I'm going to rec.arts.sf.written,
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written
>> Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
>> because it might provoke an interesting discussion that's not for
>> RASFF. What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings
>> will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?
>

> I dunno, but my husband has operated on that principle his whole
> life. He thinks "I am a rational man. My wife is a rational
> woman. Therefore, when I choose to do a thing that is according
> to reason, I don't have to TELL her; she will KNOW what I have

> done because that's the rational thing to do." Only either I'm
> not rational by his definition (and he would argue vehemently
> against that idea), or we are both rational and yet we come to
> different conclusions. The commonest example is when we're out

> somewhere together (shopping, e.g.) and he decides he's done and

> goes out to the car without telling me, because of course I will
> KNOW that's where he went because that was the rational and
> logical place for him to go. He still does it; I've adapted to

> the point where, after searching around for him for maybe five
> minutes (longer, if it's somewhere huge like Home Depot) I will
> go out to the car, and if he's not in it, go and search some
> more. Because he might easily have decided that the rational
> thing to do was to go drool over drill bits or something.
>

> And yet we are still happily married after forty-one years.
>>
> But I can't think of any stfnal contexts, unless you count that
> he was a whole lot like Mr. Spock when I met him. He has since
> loosened up some.
>

From observation, the above problem appears to be a major use for
mobile phones amongst adults who seem to wander around shopping centres
mumbling "I'm in front of Target. Where are you?".

--
Robert Bannister

[David DeLaney]

My thought exactly - http://www.greatcall.com/jitterbug/ is where to look.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 18:45:24 GMT, Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>Hm. Let me add a non-fiction xref. One of Hofstadter's
>Metamagical Themas deals with just that issue. I'm not sure
>I buy into it, either as a plausible fictional premise, nor
>for the games theoretical model Hofstadter arrives at. But
>it's of some relevance imo.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
>
> The idea of superrationality is that two logical thinkers analyzing
> the same problem will think of the same correct answer. For example,
> if two persons are both good at arithmetic, and both have been given
> the same complicated sum to do, it can be predicted that both will
> get the same answer before the sum is known. In arithmetic, knowing
> that the two answers are going to be the same doesn't change the
> value of the sum, but in game theory, knowing that the answer will
> be the same might change the answer itself.

And he goes on, here or somewhere else, to build this into how to tell if
an answer or strategy is "good" or "optimal" or whatever; if the answer or
strategy you have would be used by EVERYONE, what would the results look like?
Compare that to your desired results...

Dave "this directly opposes the 'rules don't apply to me, just to the little
people' mentality" DeLaney

[Greg Goss]

thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

> get the same answer before the sum is known. In arithmetic, knowing
> that the two answers are going to be the same doesn't change the
> value of the sum, but in game theory, knowing that the answer will
> be the same might change the answer itself.

Niven's Brennan was always playing with dice while plotting tactics.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[JRStern]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 16:28:23 +0000 (UTC), tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
wrote:

>What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings
>will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?
>

>The one that comes to mind are Larry Niven's Pak. "There is little of
>choice in the Pak", or something like that. A datum is revealed, and
>they all react knowing what they should do and what others are going
>to do based on it.

Niven's moties, too, especially the engineers, were supposed to work
out optimal orbits to meet, without discussion.

And the motie mediators could guess what their human (or motie)
fyunch(clicks) were likely to think.

J.

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>I don't have a cellphone, and when occasionally called on to use
>on, I can't figure it out.

...

>I've sometimes thought it might help on occasion if I had a "granny
>phone" that did NOTHING but telephone and had really simple-to-
>understand-by-the-older-generation instructions. But I have yet
>to find one simple enough.

I've seen "granny phones" advertised back in the days before the rise
of texting. They're probably still out there.

The two features that befuddled my elderly mother when I let her use
my phone in 97 or so were:
- Dial first, THEN press green. (rather than get a dial tone first).
- The mic doesn't have to be anywhere near your mouth -- just worry
about the ear part.
- Press red to hang up.
(Perhaps I should come in again ...)

Flip phones are a bit more fragile, but don't require unlocking. In
my case, I unlocked my one-piece phone before handing it to her.
Nokia phones usually unlock with menu-key (usually center of a cursor
cluster) then star.

[Greg Goss]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>He has a GPS locator slung to his belt. He was using it recently
>when we were driving around Alameda (which is an island, one to a
>few feet above sea level) trying to find out just what the
>altitude of a particular location was. This, it turned out, depended
>on which satellite it was talking to and where said satellite was
>in its orbit. Depending, we got figures everywhere from 40 to
>-40 feet.
>
>This being the case, I feel no particular optimism that it would
>serve for locating him in the bowels of Home Depot.

GPS is a LOT better horizontally than vertically. Horizontally, I
think it's within six feet or so.

My first GPS could find satellites within 20 seconds or so if it had
been used recently or about a minute "cold" (it predicted where to
find satellites it had been talking to recently, or some such.) My
(and my wife's) last few have taken five minutes or more to figure out
where they are. Often I want the GPS to help me get out of a
complicated neighborhood and I'm already on the artery where I know
how to get home before the GPS can figure out where it is.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <slrnjq8q4...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> I've sometimes thought it might help on occasion if I had a "granny
>>> phone" that did NOTHING but telephone and had really simple-to-
>>> understand-by-the-older-generation instructions. But I have yet
>>> to find one simple enough.
>>
>>I've heard of one called The Jitterbug that's supposed to be fairly
>>considerate in that regard.
>
>My thought exactly - http://www.greatcall.com/jitterbug/ is where to look.

Okay, thanks, I have bookmarked it and will think about it. It
STILL seems to have more bells and whistles than I want, but ...

[Wayne Throop]

: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: Okay, thanks, I have bookmarked it and will think about it. It STILL

: seems to have more bells and whistles than I want, but ...

Yes, I recall even fewer B&W when I was considering one as a gift.
But naict, you *can* use it very nearly as if it were a land line,
and anything other than that can be ignored. It's much how my wife
uses her phone; she doesn't use the contacts, voicemail, texting...
well, she uses the camera, but then gets help to download the pictures.
IIRC, the jitterbug doesn't have a camera, so that wouldn't even be a
temptation. Basically, it's not that she couldn't do all those things,
but it's not worth the effort, for her.

Most phones have lots of excess buttons: left menu, right menu,
navigate, select, end, clear, and send are the usual. But the jitterbug
(iirc, a bit harder to find the info on their website than it was...)
has offhook, onhook, yes, no, (so it can prompt you to help you do
unfamiliar things) and the numbers, and pretty much nothing else.
Very simple.

[Cryptoengineer]

On May 4, 7:52 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> >He has a GPS locator slung to his belt.  He was using it recently
> >when we were driving around Alameda (which is an island, one to a
> >few feet above sea level) trying to find out just what the
> >altitude of a particular location was.  This, it turned out, depended
> >on which satellite it was talking to and where said satellite was
> >in its orbit.  Depending, we got figures everywhere from 40 to
> >-40 feet.
>
> >This being the case, I feel no particular optimism that it would
> >serve for locating him in the bowels of Home Depot.
>
> GPS is a LOT better horizontally than vertically.  Horizontally, I
> think it's within six feet or so.

OTOH, Home Depots are usually large metal buildings, without windows.
I know from experience that the voice signal is often poor to non-
existent inside. I've never tried GPS, but I'd be quite surprised if
it worked.

pt

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>As far as I remember, Descartes' actual argument from
>"cogito ergo sum" is implausibly sprightly.

I think not.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/4/2012 12:35 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 19:25:18 +0000 (UTC),
> mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
>> In article<SUVor.36846$qT5....@news.usenetserver.com>, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> David Dyer-Bennet<dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>>>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>>>> : Bill Snyder<bsn...@airmail.net>
>>
>>>>> : Oh, yes, definitely in the Lensmen series. Every Arisian has a
>>>>> : Visualization of the Cosmic All; and I think we're even told
>>>>> : explicitly that a sufficiently powerful intelligence can deduce the
>>>>> : entire Universe from any single datum.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was three. Is my memory faulty, or is it that the
>>>>> Arisians can do it with three, but somebody more powerfull might with one?
>>>>
>>>> I vote for your memory. I don't remember "three" anywhere connected to
>>>> that concept.
>>>
>>> Mentor was a fusion of three arisians.
>>
>> Who were named Brolenteen, Drounli, Kriedigan, and Nedanillor. There
>> were three, because there was one for each race of candidates for the
>> next stage: Human, Valentian, Rigellian, and Palanian.
>
> I must be seriously unclear on the concept of "three."
>

Perhaps its just that the Arisians have a superior, clearer
understanding of the Cosmic All concept of "three" than you do. :P

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 19:04:30 -0600, Howard Brazee
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 4 May 2012 12:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>As far as I remember, Descartes' actual argument from
>>"cogito ergo sum" is implausibly sprightly.
>
>I think not.

You do know you're supposed to wink out of existence after saying
that, right?

[Kip Williams]

Robert Bannister wrote:

> From observation, the above problem appears to be a major use for
> mobile phones amongst adults who seem to wander around shopping centres
> mumbling "I'm in front of Target. Where are you?".

Only an idiot stands in front of the target when calling in a strike.


Kip W
rasfw

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mB1pr.790$Xv3...@newsfe18.iad>,

As Willie (or maybe it was Joe) said from underneath the German
tank: "Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got you a target, but you
gotta be patient."

[Kip Williams]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<mB1pr.790$Xv3...@newsfe18.iad>,
> Kip Williams<mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> From observation, the above problem appears to be a major use for
>>> mobile phones amongst adults who seem to wander around shopping centres
>>> mumbling "I'm in front of Target. Where are you?".
>>
>> Only an idiot stands in front of the target when calling in a strike.
>>
> As Willie (or maybe it was Joe) said from underneath the German
> tank: "Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got you a target, but you
> gotta be patient."

The Army Transportation Museum at Fort Eustis (VA) had a nice book of
Mauldin cartoons in the gift shop, _Bill Mauldin's Army_, I think. I
would not, of course, release my grip on _Up Front_ or _Back Home_ or
any other collection of his work, but this one has a lot of cartoons
that aren't in either, and they're printed at a good size. I was
surprised at how much some of his early, much neater, work looked like
Robert Lawson's.

Like Gus Arriola's "Gordo," I like both his styles; his early,
illustratorial style (choke on it, spellcheck!), and the looser style.
In the case of Arriola, I've only seen a couple of examples, but they
looked great.


Kip W
rasfw

[David DeLaney]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>The two features that befuddled my elderly mother when I let her use
>my phone in 97 or so were:
>- Dial first, THEN press green. (rather than get a dial tone first).

As I don't have a cellphone and have never yet had one (I know, I know,
300k people in Knoxville and I'm the exception), this has befuddled me
within the last year as well, on a borrowed cellphone. Pushing "call" or
"phone" first got me the last-called number being dialed, unexpectedly.

>- The mic doesn't have to be anywhere near your mouth -- just worry
>about the ear part.

This hasn't seemed to be a problem for me, but does explain something I've
been wondering about with those clip-onto-the-ear Bluetooth wedge-shaped
gizmos. (The other thing is HOW DO THEY DIAL THAT it's smaller than any of
their FINGERS?).

>Flip phones are a bit more fragile, but don't require unlocking. In
>my case, I unlocked my one-piece phone before handing it to her.
>Nokia phones usually unlock with menu-key (usually center of a cursor
>cluster) then star.

And 25 years ago nobody would have known what you meant by "unlocking a
phone", and would have envisioned a chain around one of those squat handset
deals, perhaps to deal with an obstreporous teenager who lived in the house?...

Dave

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <M3Inz...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...

>
> In article <ylfkobq3...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >Lensman universe: there's debate among the Arisians on how things are to
> >be handled. And they put a fusion of the four moulders in charge of
> >contacts with penultimates in the breeding programs, which seems to
> >suggest that they think different individuals will notice different
> >things, and four brains on the topic will work better than one. I guess
> >that's about information rather than logic; but, also, for all their
> >powers of mind, Smith never does actually say the Arisians work by
> >*logic*.
>
> Hal's favorite Lensman remark: "The Lensmen were bred for *power
> of mind.* Not for intelligence."

Lensmen can really THINK.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Wayne Throop]

: Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com>
: Lensmen can really THINK.

The sum of the square roots of an isosceles triangle is
equal to the square root of the remaining side.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

ISTR a real-life instance (later used in fiction) of a non-idiot doing
that, basically surrounded by the enemy with no way out, calling "All
fire on my location, repeat, everything you got, drop it on my
location!" or something to that effect.

Got a medal for that, I would presume posthumously.

>
>
> Kip W
> rasfw


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <Dj3pr.8593$SP3....@newsfe08.iad>,

Well, there exists _Gordo: Accidental Ambassador,_ a big fat book
full of strips early and late, and reminiscences. I recommend
it.

[Kip Williams]

David DeLaney wrote:

> And 25 years ago nobody would have known what you meant by "unlocking a
> phone", and would have envisioned a chain around one of those squat handset
> deals, perhaps to deal with an obstreporous teenager who lived in the house?...

There was a locked rotary phone at a school building where we rehearsed
"Ten Little Indians." I used to call the Time of Day on it manually by
clicking on the cradle switch.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/5/12 12:00 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> From observation, the above problem appears to be a major use for
>>> mobile phones amongst adults who seem to wander around shopping centres
>>> mumbling "I'm in front of Target. Where are you?".
>>
>> Only an idiot stands in front of the target when calling in a strike.
>
> ISTR a real-life instance (later used in fiction) of a non-idiot doing
> that, basically surrounded by the enemy with no way out, calling "All
> fire on my location, repeat, everything you got, drop it on my
> location!" or something to that effect.
>
> Got a medal for that, I would presume posthumously.

Do pardon me for ignoring that example when writing that line.


Kip W
rasfw

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:46:28 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>

wrote:

>>>As far as I remember, Descartes' actual argument from
>>>"cogito ergo sum" is implausibly sprightly.
>>
>>I think not.
>
>You do know you're supposed to wink out of existence after saying
>that, right?

--

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 04:32:30 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>As Willie (or maybe it was Joe) said from underneath the German
>tank: "Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got you a target, but you
>gotta be patient."

Fire at Willie.

[Kip Williams]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> Well, there exists _Gordo: Accidental Ambassador,_ a big fat book
> full of strips early and late, and reminiscences. I recommend
> it.

Thanks, I'll look for it. I have _Gordo's Cat_, which is all in the
later style.

A friend of mine has the original art for one of his Sunday pages, and
he stands ready to trade it for my original art for a 1943 Nancy page,
but I can't let go of it.

(Nancy is still a popular comic strip in the USA.)


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Kip Williams wrote:

> (Nancy is still a popular comic strip in the USA.)

I may be overstating it. It's currently a zombie strip, written and
drawn by a couple of brothers who are clearly big fans of Ernie
Bushmiller. Their version is probably an improvement over some other
ghosts, like Jerry Scott, but not in the same league with the original
or with Al Plastino's anonymously ghosted version.

It spends about 40% of its time trying to be like Bushmiller, and
divides the rest between mawkish grabs at homely sentiment and endless
call-outs to performers (usually of 60s/70s pop music) who may or may
not have just died. Fritzi Ritz is drawn with heavy brows and a
heart-shaped head with a dangling lock of black hair between them that
looks like a spike trying to split her head apart. Most days, I wish it was.


Kip W
rasfw

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, May 5, 2012 7:48:38 AM UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> >The two features that befuddled my elderly mother when I let her use
> >my phone in 97 or so were:
> >- Dial first, THEN press green. (rather than get a dial tone first).
>
> As I don't have a cellphone and have never yet had one (I know, I know,
> 300k people in Knoxville and I'm the exception), this has befuddled me
> within the last year as well, on a borrowed cellphone. Pushing "call" or
> "phone" first got me the last-called number being dialed, unexpectedly.
>
> >- The mic doesn't have to be anywhere near your mouth -- just worry
> >about the ear part.
>
> This hasn't seemed to be a problem for me, but does explain something I've
> been wondering about with those clip-onto-the-ear Bluetooth wedge-shaped
> gizmos. (The other thing is HOW DO THEY DIAL THAT it's smaller than any of
> their FINGERS?).
>
> >Flip phones are a bit more fragile, but don't require unlocking. In
> >my case, I unlocked my one-piece phone before handing it to her.
> >Nokia phones usually unlock with menu-key (usually center of a cursor
> >cluster) then star.
>
> And 25 years ago nobody would have known what you meant by "unlocking a
> phone", and would have envisioned a chain around one of those squat handset
> deals, perhaps to deal with an obstreporous teenager who lived in the house?...

You could fit a "restraining bolt" - like you'd use on a droid -
into one of the holes on the dial wheel, so that it couldn't
be turned.

There are reports of people getting around such measures by
rattling the receiver rest at just the same speed as a
number being dialled.

[Mark Zenier]

In article <jo1037$psd$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <ylfkwr4r...@dd-b.net>,
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>Well, he's rationally chosen what level to operate at, and clearly
>>rational beings will reach the same conclusion from the same data.
>
>I'm going to rec.arts.sf.written,
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom,rec.arts.sf.written
> Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
>because it might provoke an interesting discussion that's not for
>RASFF. What SFnal works have the assumption that "rational beings

>will reach the same conclusion from the same data"?
>
>The one that comes to mind are Larry Niven's Pak. "There is little of
>choice in the Pak", or something like that. A datum is revealed, and
>they all react knowing what they should do and what others are going
>to do based on it.
>

>But I've got a nagging feeling that there are lots more that are just
>not coming to mind. I don't remember enough of _Skylark of Space_,
>luckily, to know whether that was a theme, or perhaps in the Lensmen
>series.

Herbert's _The Dosadi Experiment_, the ruling elite sit in their
situation rooms, and then need little or no discussion on what
the necessary action is for the next battle.


Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

[Dimensional Traveler]

There's also the way Captain Crunch did it later with dial tone phones.
(He used a cereal prize whistle to exactly reproduce the tones.)

[Kip Williams]

See upthread. Time of Day was 484-7070 in my home town, and I didn't
need no steenkin' dial to reach it.

> There's also the way Captain Crunch did it later with dial tone phones.
> (He used a cereal prize whistle to exactly reproduce the tones.)

Just the 2.6kHz tone that used to make the system listen for
instructions (as I recall it). The rest of the tones were chords of two
notes. One blind hacker could apparently manage those by simultaneously
whistling and humming.


Kip W
rasfw

[David Mitchell]

On 05/05/12 14:10, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/5/12 12:00 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>> From observation, the above problem appears to be a major use for
>>> mobile phones amongst adults who seem to wander around shopping centres
>>> mumbling "I'm in front of Target. Where are you?".
>>
>> Only an idiot stands in front of the target when calling in a strike.
>
> ISTR a real-life instance (later used in fiction) of a non-idiot doing
> that, basically surrounded by the enemy with no way out, calling "All
> fire on my location, repeat, everything you got, drop it on my
> location!" or something to that effect.
>
> Got a medal for that, I would presume posthumously.

Rings bell with me, but I can't identify it.
A wounded soldier, with no hope of escape from the battlefield, calling
in strategic targets, based on his position, until he was sniped.

True heroism, IMO.

--
David Mitchell
No, not that one.

[Butch Malahide]

On May 5, 12:59 pm, David Mitchell <david.robot.mitch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/id80.htm

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-360421.html

[Kip Williams]

In fiction, I remember it being used in one of Kurtzman's EC war comics,
as happening in WW1, with Russ Heath doing his usual stunning job on the
artwork.

Here it is. "O.P.", from _Frontline Combat_ #1.

And yeah, that's heroism.


Kip W
rasfw

[Derek Lyons]

The equivalent from the submarine force:
http://www.ussnautilus.org/undersea/gilmore.html

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!

--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Google Groups killfiled here
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press

[Robert Bannister]

On 5/05/12 8:03 AM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> : djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> : Okay, thanks, I have bookmarked it and will think about it. It STILL
> : seems to have more bells and whistles than I want, but ...
>
> Yes, I recall even fewer B&W when I was considering one as a gift.
> But naict, you *can* use it very nearly as if it were a land line,
> and anything other than that can be ignored. It's much how my wife
> uses her phone; she doesn't use the contacts, voicemail, texting...
> well, she uses the camera, but then gets help to download the pictures.
> IIRC, the jitterbug doesn't have a camera, so that wouldn't even be a
> temptation. Basically, it's not that she couldn't do all those things,
> but it's not worth the effort, for her.
>
> Most phones have lots of excess buttons: left menu, right menu,
> navigate, select, end, clear, and send are the usual. But the jitterbug
> (iirc, a bit harder to find the info on their website than it was...)
> has offhook, onhook, yes, no, (so it can prompt you to help you do
> unfamiliar things) and the numbers, and pretty much nothing else.
> Very simple.
>

I'd be very happy if my iPad would send and receive texts. Apparently it
will, but only with other mobile devices with the same operating system.
I can't think of a use for a mobile phone that justifies its expense,
which is why I threw my first and last one away.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 5/05/12 7:48 AM, Greg Goss wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> I don't have a cellphone, and when occasionally called on to use
>> on, I can't figure it out.
> ...
>> I've sometimes thought it might help on occasion if I had a "granny
>> phone" that did NOTHING but telephone and had really simple-to-
>> understand-by-the-older-generation instructions. But I have yet
>> to find one simple enough.
>
> I've seen "granny phones" advertised back in the days before the rise
> of texting. They're probably still out there.

>
> The two features that befuddled my elderly mother when I let her use
> my phone in 97 or so were:
> - Dial first, THEN press green.

If only the "phone" button were always green, and if only the "talk" and
"off" buttons were always obvious. Unfortunately, manufacturers seem to
delight in making every phone different.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

[grin]


--
Robert Bannister

[William December Starr]

In article <slrnjq9i6...@gatekeeper.vic.com>,

d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) said:

> This hasn't seemed to be a problem for me, but does explain
> something I've been wondering about with those clip-onto-the-ear
> Bluetooth wedge-shaped gizmos. (The other thing is HOW DO THEY
> DIAL THAT it's smaller than any of their FINGERS?).

And now I'm remembering that Agent 99 once had a rotary-dial phone
that was concealed under a flip-up _fingernail_. (Or possibly, more
likely in fact, the fingernail-appearing cover was attached by a
retractable cord, so you held it to your ear while talking into your
fingertip. Whatever, it was _small_. I think Barbara Feldon dealt
with it by just miming the act of dialing it.)

-- wds

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I learned to pick the lock, because the lock was on the cradle.

[William December Starr]

In article <13362...@sheol.org>,

It looks to me like you left out a few words. Don't you have
to specify _which_ of three candidates is "the remaining side"?

-- wds

[Wayne Throop]

: Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
: I'd be very happy if my iPad would send and receive texts. Apparently

: it will, but only with other mobile devices with the same operating
: system. I can't think of a use for a mobile phone that justifies its
: expense, which is why I threw my first and last one away.

My cellphone allows sending and receiving texts with J.Random email
accounts. Not "allows me to log into an email account and send and
receive email", but send texts back and forth to email; I don't have a
"data plan" and web access and all like that. Then the iPad could use
email for the other half of the correspondence. Can't all (or at least
most) cellphones do that? Maybe it's a feature of my cpp only.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/5/12 11:00 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> You could fit a "restraining bolt" - like you'd use on a droid -
> into one of the holes on the dial wheel, so that it couldn't
> be turned.
>
> There are reports of people getting around such measures by
> rattling the receiver rest at just the same speed as a
> number being dialled.

I was able to do that, but as I mentioned upthread, the lock they used
on our phone went over the cradle, so you had to get the lock off anyway.

[Bill Snyder]

On 5 May 2012 19:25:09 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

Quotation. Wizard of Oz. Scarecrow.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Kip Williams]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 5/5/12 10:22 AM, Kip Williams wrote:
>> David DeLaney wrote:
>>
>>> And 25 years ago nobody would have known what you meant by "unlocking a
>>> phone", and would have envisioned a chain around one of those squat
>>> handset
>>> deals, perhaps to deal with an obstreporous teenager who lived in the
>>> house?...
>>
>> There was a locked rotary phone at a school building where we rehearsed
>> "Ten Little Indians." I used to call the Time of Day on it manually by
>> clicking on the cradle switch.
>
> I learned to pick the lock, because the lock was on the cradle.

That's outside of my comfort level. Probably my competence level too.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 5/5/12 11:00 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> You could fit a "restraining bolt" - like you'd use on a droid -
>> into one of the holes on the dial wheel, so that it couldn't
>> be turned.
>>
>> There are reports of people getting around such measures by
>> rattling the receiver rest at just the same speed as a
>> number being dialled.
>
> I was able to do that, but as I mentioned upthread, the lock they used
> on our phone went over the cradle, so you had to get the lock off anyway.

The hand that rocks the cradle calls the world.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

Four. It's a William F. Temple book.


Kip W
rasfw

[Kip Williams]

"I got that reference."
--Captain America


Kip W
rasfw

[Wayne Throop]

::: Lensmen can really THINK.

:: The sum of the square roots of an isosceles triangle is equal to the
:: square root of the remaining side.

: wds...@panix.com (William December Starr)
: It looks to me like you left out a few words. Don't you have to

: specify _which_ of three candidates is "the remaining side"?

Huh. Something must have gone wrong when I cut and pasted it from
a google-located web site. And since I had just pasted it, obviously
I didn't have to do even my normally-slapdash job of proofreading.

I'll go out and come in again...

The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle

is equal to the square root of the remaining side.

"Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great
learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come
out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have."
--- Wizard to Scarecrow

"So who else *does* know?
"Boris, the bug squad commanders, and the deep thinkers."
--- Bangladesh Dupree and Klaus Wulfenbach
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20060327

[Richard R. Hershberger]

On May 4, 2:53 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> :: I dunno, but my husband has operated on that principle his whole
> :: life.  He thinks "I am a rational man.  My wife is a rational woman.
> :: Therefore, when I choose to do a thing that is according to reason, I
> :: don't have to TELL her; she will KNOW what I have done because that's
> :: the rational thing to do."  [...]
> :: The commonest example is when we're out somewhere together (shopping,
> :: e.g.) and he decides he's done and goes out to the car without
> :: telling me [...]
> :: I've adapted to the point where, after searching around for him for
> :: maybe five minutes (longer, if it's somewhere huge like Home Depot) I
> :: will go out to the car, and if he's not in it, go and search some
> :: more.  Because he might easily have decided that the rational thing
> :: to do was to go drool over drill bits or something.
>
> Aye, there's the rub.  You two aren't privy to all the same information.
> You don't know what will-o-the-wisp has drifted across his peripheral
> vision to distract him, or just how boring the secton of store he's
> standing in is, etc, etc.

It's far worse than that. The information is inevitably incomplete,
and often of unknown reliability. Therefore even the most rational
person must run it through mental filters to fill in the voids and
assess its reliability. These filters are developed over a lifetime
of experience, and no two persons have identical experiences. The
rational person is conscious of these variables and recognizes that
conclusions are necessarily tentative, but decisions must nonetheless
be made about how to act. So even given the same information, two
rational persons won't necessarily come to the same conclusion.
>
> This is where technology comes to the rescue.  Cellphones.  That way,
> you could either share the extra information, or sync up after the fact,
> without actually plodding all over the store.  I've actually done that;
> phoned my wife while we are in walking distance (but not sight) of each
> other.  In fact, it's a common thing at airports and such.  You don't
> have to wonder where the rational place to wait du-jour may be.
> You just call and sync up.
>
> If a cell phone is too intrusive, you could just tag him with a GPS locator.
> I hear folks in wildlife management have practically painless versions now.
> (Actually, one of the easiest ways to accomplish it would be to plant a
> cell phone with a GPS locator on him... maybe disguise it as a wristwatch,
> if he uses one of those.)
>
> Eventually, you just place a blogcam (or whatever first-person streaming
> web POV equipment is called these days) in his glasses.  You know, when
> it gets inexpensive and user friendly enough.

[Robert Carnegie]

And, importantly, wrong.

[David DeLaney]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> Well, there exists _Gordo: Accidental Ambassador,_ a big fat book
>> full of strips early and late, and reminiscences. I recommend it.
>
>Thanks, I'll look for it. I have _Gordo's Cat_, which is all in the
>later style.

And I have _Gordo's Critters_, which I'm assuming is the latter style.

>A friend of mine has the original art for one of his Sunday pages, and
>he stands ready to trade it for my original art for a 1943 Nancy page,
>but I can't let go of it.

Had several months of the newspaper-distribution strips in Tribune Media
Services weekly collections, but they're now with a California museum.

>(Nancy is still a popular comic strip in the USA.)

...So is Mary Worth, alas.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bill Snyder wrote:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

>>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>>>> The sum of the square roots of an isosceles triangle is
>>>> equal to the square root of the remaining side.
>>>
>>> It looks to me like you left out a few words. Don't you have
>>> to specify _which_ of three candidates is "the remaining side"?
>>
>> Quotation. Wizard of Oz. Scarecrow.
>
>"I got that reference."

"I'd unravel every riddle, for any indi-viddle, in trouble or in pain!"

Dave "ObSFPuns: ...Of course! IT ONLY STANDS TO REASON!" DeLaney

[David DeLaney]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>William December Starr wrote:
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:

>>> The sum of the square roots of an isosceles triangle is
>>> equal to the square root of the remaining side.
>>
>> It looks to me like you left out a few words. Don't you have
>> to specify _which_ of three candidates is "the remaining side"?
>
>Four. It's a William F. Temple book.

Or an Alan E. Nourse one.

Dave

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 06:41:34 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:

>I'd be very happy if my iPad would send and receive texts. Apparently it
>will, but only with other mobile devices with the same operating system.
>I can't think of a use for a mobile phone that justifies its expense,
>which is why I threw my first and last one away.

You mean like phone texting?

Mine does e-mail, book downloading, and connecting to various clouds.
But it isn't a phone.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[William December Starr]

In article <p%ipr.186341$s82....@newsfe10.iad>,

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> said:

> William December Starr wrote:
>> thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>>

>>> The sum of the square roots of an isosceles triangle is equal to
>>> the square root of the remaining side.
>>
>> It looks to me like you left out a few words. Don't you have
>> to specify _which_ of three candidates is "the remaining side"?
>
> Four. It's a William F. Temple book.

I think I first encountered a four-sided triangle in Alan
E. Nourse's _The Universe Between_, when someone whose brain hadn't
been trained for the task[1] tried to directly perceive the other
universe. I think I was more impressed by the topologically
inverted tennis ball though: bare hard rubber on the outside, fuzzy
on the inside.

-----------
*1: Which, if I'm recalling correctly, was the case for every
human being except one.

-- wds