King Size Numbers, Just For Laughs
John Savard
form of hexadecimal notation with which we are most familiar nowadays:
0123456789ABCDEF
Of course, today's C programmers, and others, are permitted to take
one minor libery with it:
0123456789abcdef
The Bendix G-15 manual uses "u" and "v" in opcodes, leading to wonder
if this form of hexadecimal notation was intended:
0123456789uvwxyz
And the ORDVAC, presumably for reasons of legibility (B looks like an
8, and D like a 0, under some circumstances) came up with the scheme
whose mnemonic provided the title for this post:
0123456789KSNJFL
although they called it *sexadecimal* notation. For obvious reasons,
the name never caught on.
Some of us may be familiar with a proposal to add two symbols, "dek"
and "el", for duodecimal notation - "dek" looks like an X but with two
hooked corners, "el" like an upside down 3 of a sort - and I believe
there has been one proposal to have six distinct symbols for the new
hexadecimal digits.
In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Roland Hutchinson
John Savard wrote:
> In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
> hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
0123456789STUVWX
on the first machine I ever programmed (or used), the mighty Monrobot XI
(about which google and dejagoogle now seem to find much more information
than the last time I looked, including a scan of the Quickcomp reference
card and the fact that the Charles Babbage Institute archives have a set of
manuals).
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Jeff Fox
> In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
> hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
No. But base 36 numbers were used for a number of tricks and
permitted numbers like 0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
so people would take hex numbers and print them out in base 36
to get strings.
Best Wishes
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> And the ORDVAC, presumably for reasons of legibility (B looks like an
> 8, and D like a 0, under some circumstances) came up with the scheme
> whose mnemonic provided the title for this post:
>
> 0123456789KSNJFL
>
> although they called it *sexadecimal* notation. For obvious reasons,
> the name never caught on.
>
Flexowriter models that used 10 through 15 as the character codes for
KSNJFL. It was *not* really for legibility.
Two other mnemonics were:
"Kind Souls Never Josh Fat Ladies"
and
"Know Sixteen Numbers Just For Laughs"
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Hansen
<rich...@plano.net> wrote:
>John Savard wrote:
[...]
>> 0123456789KSNJFL
[...]
>The Illiac and copies used the same notation. It was due to the
>Flexowriter models that used 10 through 15 as the character codes for
>KSNJFL. It was *not* really for legibility.
Indeed. Consider how much S looks like 5.
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Brian Inglis
jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>As we all know, the IBM System/360 series of computers popularized the
>form of hexadecimal notation with which we are most familiar nowadays:
>
>0123456789ABCDEF
>0123456789abcdef
>
>The Bendix G-15 manual uses
>0123456789uvwxyz
>
>And the ORDVAC,
>0123456789KSNJFL
>
>although they called it *sexadecimal* notation. For obvious reasons,
>the name never caught on.
>In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
>hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the likes?
;^>
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Eric Sosman
> fOn Thu, 27 May 2004 20:53:37 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
>
>>As we all know, the IBM System/360 series of computers popularized the
>>form of hexadecimal notation with which we are most familiar nowadays:
>>
>>0123456789ABCDEF
>>0123456789abcdef
>>
>>The Bendix G-15 manual uses
>
>
>>0123456789uvwxyz
>>
>>And the ORDVAC,
>
>
>>0123456789KSNJFL
>>
>>although they called it *sexadecimal* notation. For obvious reasons,
>>the name never caught on.
>
>
>>In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
>>hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
>
>
> Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the likes?
> ;^>
How about 0123456789TETTFF?
("*I'll* tackle the high-level stuff, and *you'll* do
the input conversion routines, okay?")
Roland Hutchinson
Sosman wrote:
> Brian Inglis wrote:
>> Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the likes?
>> ;^>
>
> How about 0123456789TETTFF?
>
> ("*I'll* tackle the high-level stuff, and *you'll* do
> the input conversion routines, okay?")
"Okedoke. Hm, I don't think I'll be able to write a context-free grammar
for THIS one..."
jmfb...@aol.com
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <40B7947C...@sun.com> on Friday 28 May 2004 15:35, Eric
>Sosman wrote:
>
>> Brian Inglis wrote:
>
>>> Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the likes?
>>> ;^>
>>
>> How about 0123456789TETTFF?
>>
>> ("*I'll* tackle the high-level stuff, and *you'll* do
>> the input conversion routines, okay?")
>
>"Okedoke. Hm, I don't think I'll be able to write a context-free grammar
>for THIS one..."
>
as in [this intentionally left blank]".
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
Brian Inglis <Brian....@SystematicSw.Invalid> wrote:
>fOn Thu, 27 May 2004 20:53:37 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
>jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
>>As we all know, the IBM System/360 series of computers popularized the
>>form of hexadecimal notation with which we are most familiar nowadays:
>>
>>0123456789ABCDEF
>>0123456789abcdef
>>
>>The Bendix G-15 manual uses
>
>>0123456789uvwxyz
>>
>>And the ORDVAC,
>
>>0123456789KSNJFL
>>
>>although they called it *sexadecimal* notation. For obvious reasons,
>>the name never caught on.
>
>>In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
>>hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
>
>Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the likes?
>;^>
Am I glad you guys are Good Guys.
David Powell
> How about 0123456789TETTFF?
>
> ("*I'll* tackle the high-level stuff, and *you'll* do
>the input conversion routines, okay?")
0123456789:;<=>?
I'll do the ASCII conversion routines, you can have the high level
stuff.
Regards,
David P.
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
>Brian Inglis wrote:
>
>> fOn Thu, 27 May 2004 20:53:37 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
>> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>>
>>>In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
>>>hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
>>
>> Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the
>> likes?
>> ;^>
>
> How about 0123456789TETTFF?
Hey, you had that same math text that I did! But it only did
base 12, right?
> ("*I'll* tackle the high-level stuff, and *you'll* do
>the input conversion routines, okay?")
Spoken like a true salesman. 1/2 :-)
("Okay, you skin that bear. I'll get us another one.")
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Carl Lowenstein
John Savard <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
>As we all know, the IBM System/360 series of computers popularized the
>form of hexadecimal notation with which we are most familiar nowadays:
>
>0123456789ABCDEF
>
>Of course, today's C programmers, and others, are permitted to take
>one minor libery with it:
>
>0123456789abcdef
>
>The Bendix G-15 manual uses "u" and "v" in opcodes, leading to wonder
>if this form of hexadecimal notation was intended:
>
>0123456789uvwxyz
My experience with the G-15 in 1964-65 was that UVWXYZ represented the
upper Hex digits. One of the computer's favorite error messages was
"Z0ZZ Y00". Sometimes I felt thoroughly Z0ZZed.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clow...@ucsd.edu
Paul Repacholi
> In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
> hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
NCR had one, sort of for OCRing from register tapes.
10 was 10, think a squared off 0 plus a bar conecting them
11 was like 69ing Ns, or an 11 that had been T-boned and had the top
shoved over
and so on.
All the characters where designed so as to be unique and readable with
only horizontal scans.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Howard Long
news:40b6535e...@news.ecn.ab.ca...
> In any case, does anyone remember any other variant forms of
> hexadecimal inflicted on the long-suffering computer programmer?
In the 70's I used to program the General Instruments Microelectronics
LP8000 chip (you can trace its lineage to the PIC in common use nowadays).
We used 0123456789JKLMNO, and ISTR it was called 'modified hex'. Now - how
did we delineate between 0 and O? Well, the 0 always had a slash through it
(interestingly this practice is far less common these days than it used to
be) and the O we called 'square' and wrote it as a square.
We also never had the luxury of assemblers or dissassemblers - we wrote the
code straight into modified hex. For anything more than the most trivial of
programs, we wrote the hex onto paper with a pen without mnemonics, and
manually calculated the jumps. Being limited to 1k of RAM it was hardly that
much of a chore. Ahhh, those were the days....
Kind Regards, Howard
John Savard
<Brian....@SystematicSw.Invalid> wrote, in part:
>Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the likes?
>;^>
I was thinking that in order to be mnemonic, one might, if one for
some reason couldn't use the obvious ABCDEF, go to:
0123456789XYCTFV
X - Roman "10"
Y - follows X
C - 3rd letter of alphabet, stands for 12 (multiple of 3)
T - Thirteen
F - Fourteen
V - Roman "5", stands for 15 (multiple of 5)
... but I could not see the point.
But using JQK for 11, 12, and 13 certainly is another way to avoid the
0123456789TETTFF problem cited in a reply to your post.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Roland Hutchinson
June 2004 01:35, John Savard wrote:
> I was thinking that in order to be mnemonic, one might, if one for
> some reason couldn't use the obvious ABCDEF
And that is the "obvious" convention because... ?
(I suspect it's for the same reason that the "obvious" length for bytes is
eight bits: we've gotten used to it.)
John Savard
<Brian....@SystematicSw.Invalid> wrote, in part:
>Did anyone ever use: 0123456789TJQKRV, 0123456789TEWHRV, or the likes?
>;^>
I was thinking that in order to be mnemonic, one might, if one for
John Savard
<ddotp...@icuknet.co.uk> wrote, in part:
>0123456789:;<=>?
> I'll do the ASCII conversion routines, you can have the high level
>stuff.
And according to one post, 0123456789KSNJFL was designed for the same
reason.
But in Fieldcom, weren't the letters in alphabetical order... and,
while many Flexowriters used a 6-bit version of 5-level code, I've
checked, and the codes for KSNJFL, whether you take the bits in
forwards or reverse order, don't seem to have an obvious pattern.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Helmut P. Einfalt
>> I was thinking that in order to be mnemonic, one might, if one for
>> some reason couldn't use the obvious ABCDEF
>
> And that is the "obvious" convention because... ?
...because if it *has* to be anything else than numbers, the (Western)
alphabet in its (Western) alphabetic order would be the first thing
anyone would think of...
Now if the problem had been encountered and solved, say, in Russia, it
would have been ABVGDE... *obvious* to any Russian -- and I don't want
to figure out what would have happened if the Arabs had contributed to
that matter (let alone syllable-based languages).
> (I suspect it's for the same reason that the "obvious" length for
> bytes is eight bits: we've gotten used to it.)
Well, yes, sure, we've gotten used to... to the alphabet as we know
it, and to ("Arabic") numbers as we know them. It is a convention,
period. We *could* use Roman notation, or 12-base Maya numerals or
whatever -- if our general convention were that way (or if we had six
fingers per hand or for any reason, good or bad).
"Eight bit to the byte" is a convention -- that we have gotten
accustomed to. It is one that makes sense, for 8 (2x2x2 = 2^3) is
definitely better suited for calculus than, say, 7 (7^1) or 11... but
probably we could do fine with thirteen, too, if we wanted to.
Helmut
--
All typos Š My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.
Roland Hutchinson
Wednesday 02 June 2004 14:46, Helmut P. Einfalt wrote:
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>
>>> I was thinking that in order to be mnemonic, one might, if one for
>>> some reason couldn't use the obvious ABCDEF
>>
>> And that is the "obvious" convention because... ?
>
> ...because if it *has* to be anything else than numbers, the (Western)
> alphabet in its (Western) alphabetic order would be the first thing
> anyone would think of...
And yet, oddly, we've just seen reports here of half a dozen or so OTHER
conventions that were in actual use.
You are, I think, quite correct that the letters of the alphabet in
alphabetical order seemed the obvious way to go to most people, but as far
as I can see there's nothing sacrosanct or particularly obvious about using
the FIRST six letters of the alphabet. That is the point I meant to query.
Eric Sosman
>
> You are, I think, quite correct that the letters of the alphabet in
> alphabetical order seemed the obvious way to go to most people, but as far
> as I can see there's nothing sacrosanct or particularly obvious about using
> the FIRST six letters of the alphabet. That is the point I meant to query.
s/query/qwerty/
... and did anybody use 0123456789QWERTY? ;-)
Kelli Halliburton
How about 0123456789!@#$%^
Dave Hansen
<kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote:
>Eric Sosman wrote:
[...]
>> ... and did anybody use 0123456789QWERTY? ;-)
>
>How about 0123456789!@#$%^
Maybe that should be 0123456789)!@#$% (shift adds 10).
Of course, someone will bring up nonstandard (;-) keyboards...
Brian Boutel
It looks too much like an obscenity. :-)
--brian
--
Brian Boutel
Wellington New Zealand
Note the NOSPAM
Helmut P. Einfalt
> And yet, oddly, we've just seen reports here of half a dozen or so
> OTHER conventions that were in actual use.
Well -- one can think up anything, why not.
> You are, I think, quite correct that the letters of the alphabet in
> alphabetical order seemed the obvious way to go to most people, but
> as far as I can see there's nothing sacrosanct or particularly
> obvious about using the FIRST six letters of the alphabet. That is
> the point I meant to query.
"Obvious, adh. [L. obvius, in the way, meeting ...]
1. easy to see or understand; plain, evident..." (Webster)
It's probably a "Lets start at the very beginning! -- A very good
place the start!" matter.
It is probably much more "easy to see or understand" to use the first
letters of the alphabet for the first range of numbers outside range
that can be described by single digits, even if one *could* as well
have started with the tenth letter of the alphabet for 10, the
eleventh for 11, etc.
Now, without counting -- do you know which is the tenth letter of the
alphabet?
Helmut
--
All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.
John Savard
<helmut.p.ei...@aon.at> wrote, in part:
>It's probably a "Lets start at the very beginning! -- A very good
>place the start!" matter.
I wonder how many people, sipping a cup of tea as they have a slice of
bread with jam on it, recognized the source of that quotation.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
> --
> "My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here
> because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of
> the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has
> come an era of peace in the Pacific." G. W. Bush, Tokyo, 18 Feb 2002
I guess his father failed to tell him about the recent
unpleasantness. It was also intimately connected with oil.
However, he is a war President by his own declaration.
--
fix (vb.): 1. to paper over, obscure, hide from public view; 2.
to work around, in a way that produces unintended consequences
that are worse than the original problem. Usage: "Windows ME
fixes many of the shortcomings of Windows 98 SE". - Hutchison
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
> Now, without counting -- do you know which is the tenth letter
> of the alphabet?
Zero based or one based? The Greeks used letters for numerals.
jmfb...@aol.com
Brian Boutel <boutel...@acm.org> wrote:
>Kelli Halliburton wrote:
>
>> Eric Sosman wrote:
>>
>>>Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are, I think, quite correct that the letters of the alphabet in
>>>>alphabetical order seemed the obvious way to go to most people, but
>>>>as far as I can see there's nothing sacrosanct or particularly
>>>>obvious about using the FIRST six letters of the alphabet. That is
>>>>the point I meant to query.
>>>
>>> s/query/qwerty/
>>>
>>> ... and did anybody use 0123456789QWERTY? ;-)
>>
>>
>> How about 0123456789!@#$%^
>
>It looks too much like an obscenity. :-)
Which is exactly what us typists would have been muttering when
keying your code sheets.
jmfb...@aol.com
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <a5b2b542.04060...@posting.google.com> on Wednesday
02
>June 2004 01:35, John Savard wrote:
>
>> I was thinking that in order to be mnemonic, one might, if one for
>> some reason couldn't use the obvious ABCDEF
>
>And that is the "obvious" convention because... ?
>
>(I suspect it's for the same reason that the "obvious" length for bytes is
>eight bits: we've gotten used to it.)
>
singing the song [emoticon raises hand] me..for one.
Helmut P. Einfalt
>> It's probably a "Lets start at the very beginning! -- A very good
>> place the start!" matter.
>
> I wonder how many people, sipping a cup of tea as they have a slice
of
...looking at female deers sitting in a drop of golden sun, calling
myself names...
Rich Alderson
> We *could* use Roman notation, or 12-base Maya numerals or whatever -- if our
> general convention were that way (or if we had six fingers per hand or for
> any reason, good or bad).
The Mayan counting system is vigesimal, not duodecimal (base twenty, not base
twelve).
--
Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
ne...@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
"You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
--Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |
Helmut P. Einfalt
>> We *could* use Roman notation, or 12-base Maya numerals or whatever
>> -- if our general convention were that way (or if we had six
fingers
>> per hand or for any reason, good or bad).
>
> The Mayan counting system is vigesimal, not duodecimal (base twenty,
> not base twelve).
Or was it Aztec, Mixtec, Zapotec? Some kind of Mesoamerican it was,
and it doesn't really matter...
But thanks for setting things right.
Helmut
--
All typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept.
Rich Alderson
> "Helmut P. Einfalt" wrote:
> ... snip ...
>> Now, without counting -- do you know which is the tenth letter of the
>> alphabet?
> Zero based or one based? The Greeks used letters for numerals.
But had neither a notion of "zero" nor a (strong) notion of positional value.
1 Alpha 10 Iota 100 Rho
2 Beta 20 Kappa 200 Sigma
3 Gamma 30 Lambda 300 Tau
4 Delta 40 Mu 400 Y psilon
5 E psilon 50 Nu 500 KHi
6 F (wau) 60 Xi 600 PHi
7 Zeta 70 O mikron 700 PSi
8 H (eta) 80 Pi 800 O mega
9 THeta 90 Qoppa 900 (= (sampi)
where F, Q, and (= were dropped from the alphabet, but retained as numerals.
A diacritic multiplied the value by 1000, so a word *could* be read as a number
by interpreting the position of repeated letters as so marked: The name of the
first letter, if spelled out, had the value 1601.
Charlie Gibbs
jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) writes:
>On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 04:35:38 -0000, "Helmut P. Einfalt"
><helmut.p.ei...@aon.at> wrote, in part:
>
>>It's probably a "Lets start at the very beginning! -- A very good
>>place the start!" matter.
>
>I wonder how many people, sipping a cup of tea as they have a slice
>of bread with jam on it, recognized the source of that quotation.
I certainly do. In fact, I used to use it regularly in arguments
with Structured Programming zealots who wanted to slice & dice a
program into a million tiny functions jumping all over the place,
or with Pascalites who wanted to write programs umop-apisdn.
BTW, here's the full quote:
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. "Where shall I begin,
please your Majesty?" he asked.
"Begin at the beginning," the King said, gravely, "and go on
till you come to the end: then stop."
A marvelous way to organize programs, don't you think?
David Powell
jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) in
alt.folklore.computers wrote:
I don't know about 6, I migrated from 5-level to ASCII, but Google for
the Illiac 5-level code. Those alpha chars were originally figures
shift codes. 0123456789alphas would have been unpleasant to use in
either Elliott or Ferranti 5-level. :(
Regards,
David P.
Alan Balmer
wrote:
>Giles Todd wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>> --
>> "My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here
>> because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of
>> the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has
>> come an era of peace in the Pacific." G. W. Bush, Tokyo, 18 Feb 2002
>
>I guess his father failed to tell him about the recent
>unpleasantness. It was also intimately connected with oil.
>However, he is a war President by his own declaration.
Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President and we
are at war. No?
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerc...@att.net
Alan Balmer
wrote:
>In article <40bf0de...@news.ecn.ab.ca>
>jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) writes:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 04:35:38 -0000, "Helmut P. Einfalt"
>><helmut.p.ei...@aon.at> wrote, in part:
>>
>>>It's probably a "Lets start at the very beginning! -- A very good
>>>place the start!" matter.
>>
>>I wonder how many people, sipping a cup of tea as they have a slice
>>of bread with jam on it, recognized the source of that quotation.
>
>I certainly do. In fact, I used to use it regularly in arguments
>with Structured Programming zealots who wanted to slice & dice a
>program into a million tiny functions jumping all over the place,
>or with Pascalites who wanted to write programs umop-apisdn.
>
>BTW, here's the full quote:
>
> The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. "Where shall I begin,
> please your Majesty?" he asked.
>
> "Begin at the beginning," the King said, gravely, "and go on
> till you come to the end: then stop."
>
>A marvelous way to organize programs, don't you think?
Sounds like what I call "stream of consciousness" programming.
Charles Richmond
"Star Spangled Banner"???
--
+-------------------------------
| Charles and Francis Richmond
| richmond at plano dot net
| Re-Defeat Bush!!!
+-------------------------------
John Savard
> In article <40bf0de...@news.ecn.ab.ca>
> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) writes:
> >On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 04:35:38 -0000, "Helmut P. Einfalt"
> ><helmut.p.ei...@aon.at> wrote, in part:
> >>It's probably a "Lets start at the very beginning! -- A very good
> >>place the start!" matter.
> >I wonder how many people, sipping a cup of tea as they have a slice
> >of bread with jam on it, recognized the source of that quotation.
> BTW, here's the full quote:
> The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. "Where shall I begin,
> please your Majesty?" he asked.
> "Begin at the beginning," the King said, gravely, "and go on
> till you come to the end: then stop."
> A marvelous way to organize programs, don't you think?
That certainly is a _related_ quote, and indeed it is the correct way
to organize programs (of course, don't use it as an excuse to eschew
subroutines, and don't unroll all your loops) but if you look at
Helmut Einfalt's reply to my post, you might find the source of the
_exact_ quote.
Essentially, after the precise words quoted by Helmut Einfalt are
said, it is then noted that the alphabet starts with A, B, C, and then
the basic alphabet of another activity is Do, Re, Mi... and a song
subsequently begins in which the elements of the Tonic Sol-Fa Method
of sight-singing are illustrated in terms of the definitions of the
English words they sound like (which is an odd thing for someone in
Austria to do, when you think of it, but perhaps a German word could
be found for each position on the diatonic scale in the same fashion).
John Savard
Larry Elmore
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:44:25 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Giles Todd wrote:
>>
>>... snip ...
>>
>>>--
>>>"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here
>>> because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of
>>> the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has
>>> come an era of peace in the Pacific." G. W. Bush, Tokyo, 18 Feb 2002
>>
>>I guess his father failed to tell him about the recent
>>unpleasantness. It was also intimately connected with oil.
>>However, he is a war President by his own declaration.
I think he meant to say "for a half-century now". He misspoke, as he
frequently does in public. He's got as bad a case of foot-in-mouth
disease as I've ever seen. It's painful to watch him give a speech.
Clinton was lot better in that regard, but is and was a buffoon.
--Larry
Charlie Gibbs
(Charles Richmond) writes:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Nope. Not everybody knows the correct sequence of RSTUVW without
>> singing the song [emoticon raises hand] me..for one.
>
>Do you know *all* the words to the first verse of the
>"Star Spangled Banner"???
Wait a minute - that's another set of letters. Remember that
question that went "What's the next letter in the following
sequence: O T T F F S..."? It's Buckwheat singing the Star
Spangled Banner: "O tay tan foo fee, sy ga bawn's merly wight..."
Charlie Gibbs
g...@prullenbak.todd.nu (Giles Todd) writes:
>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:35:03 -0700, Alan Balmer <alba...@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President and we
>> are at war. No?
>
>Hmm... Let's see. There's the War against Drugs and the War against
>Terror. The UK Government has recently declared a War against
>Obesity, but I don't know whether the USA has joined its Coalition in
>this particular war.
>
>Maybe Bush and Blair like to declare wars on abstractions in general
>and then claim to be war leaders. But implied comparisons with
>Roosevelt and Churchill can only provoke laughter.
I think you hit it. Bush is a "war president" because war is
how he gets his rocks off. (Mind you, he's not unique - the
U.S. has been psychologically and economically dependent on
war at least as far back as WWII.)
On the flip side, I don't consider myself to be a Windows programmer,
even though I write lots of programs that happen to run under Windows.
They happen to run under other OSes as well; I never pledged an oath
of allegiance to Bill.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Giles Todd wrote:
>>>
>>... snip ...
>>> --
>>> "My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason.
>>> It begins here because for a century and a half now, America
>>> and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances
>>> of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace
>>> in the Pacific." G. W. Bush, Tokyo, 18 Feb 2002
>>
>> I guess his father failed to tell him about the recent
>> unpleasantness. It was also intimately connected with oil.
>> However, he is a war President by his own declaration.
>
> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President
> and we are at war. No?
No, it is because he declared himself so. See first part of sig
below.
--
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office
in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." - Bush.
"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
>
> I certainly do. In fact, I used to use it regularly in arguments
> with Structured Programming zealots who wanted to slice & dice a
> program into a million tiny functions jumping all over the place,
> or with Pascalites who wanted to write programs umop-apisdn.
umop- what? (Only a slight run in with Pascal, years ago.)
The comment above also applies to books which are heavily foot-
or endnoted, which can wreck a train of thought. Magazines seem
to thrive on sidepanels and "Cont'd on page +nn" layouts.
>
> BTW, here's the full quote:
>
> The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. "Where shall I begin,
> please your Majesty?" he asked.
>
> "Begin at the beginning," the King said, gravely, "and go on
> till you come to the end: then stop."
>
> A marvelous way to organize programs, don't you think?
Depends on the programmer. Sometimes page after page of mind-
numbing crap, sometimes a beautiful story.
Nick Spalding
I do, and I can recite the alphabet backwards as fast as forwards!
--
Nick Spalding
jmfb...@aol.com
jmfb...@aol.com
I heard that he's thinking faster than his mouth can keep up. That
would explain all the hesitations. I've worked with people who
were thinking so fast that they could explain any of the steps other
than the results. A politician can't do that.
>Clinton was lot better in that regard, but is and was a buffoon.
Clinton's speeches were all about himself. One of the comments
of a reporter after one of those Press Meetings* when GWBush gave
his first talk, is that it was wonderful to have a boring speech
about politics rather than a well-spoken speech about Me, Myself,
and I.
*It's a regularly held meeting of reporters where a person is
asked to give a talk--Press Club?
/BAH
Dave Hansen
[...]
>Essentially, after the precise words quoted by Helmut Einfalt are
>said, it is then noted that the alphabet starts with A, B, C, and then
>the basic alphabet of another activity is Do, Re, Mi... and a song
So you're suggesting 0123456789DRMFSL?
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Dave Hansen
Wiggeshoff) wrote:
>"Charlie Gibbs" (cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes:
>>
>> I certainly do. In fact, I used to use it regularly in arguments
>> with Structured Programming zealots who wanted to slice & dice a
>> program into a million tiny functions jumping all over the place,
>> or with Pascalites who wanted to write programs umop-apisdn.
>
> umop- what? (Only a slight run in with Pascal, years ago.)
Turn it, er, upside-down...
Besides picking the wrong quote, Charlie just seems to be bemoaning
the proper, hygenic practice of keeping your functions small enough to
be easily understood, and to actually defining them before you try to
use them. ;-)
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
>
> I do, and I can recite the alphabet backwards as fast as forwards!
So, you launch homemeade rockets? B-)
Alan Balmer
wrote:
>> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President
>> and we are at war. No?
>
>No, it is because he declared himself so. See first part of sig
>below.
Sorry, I believe that I have stated the obvious definition of a war
president, and your obvious dislike of Mr. Bush doesn't change that.
Why should he not say (or "declare", since that's the spin you like)
what is obviously true?
If Mr. Kerry were elected (an event I suppose you would approve of no
matter the consequences) he would be a war president also.
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
> On 4 Jun 2004 08:43:15 GMT, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W.
> Wiggeshoff) wrote:
>
>>"Charlie Gibbs" (cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes:
>>>
>>> I certainly do. In fact, I used to use it regularly in arguments
>>> with Structured Programming zealots who wanted to slice & dice a
>>> program into a million tiny functions jumping all over the place,
>>> or with Pascalites who wanted to write programs umop-apisdn.
>>
>> umop- what? (Only a slight run in with Pascal, years ago.)
>
> Turn it, er, upside-down...
That's what I tried, but the '-a' in '-apisdn' spoiled it for me.
I saw this once before in the famous "If your nose is running and
your feet smell, then you're built ..."
>
> Besides picking the wrong quote, Charlie just seems to be bemoaning
> the proper, hygenic practice of keeping your functions small enough to
> be easily understood, and to actually defining them before you try to
> use them. ;-)
As in XPL. (A Compiler Generator by McKeeman, Horning, Wortman)
krw
spal...@iol.ie says...
--
Keith
Alan Balmer
wrote:
>
>Maybe Bush and Blair like to declare wars on abstractions in general
>and then claim to be war leaders.
The action in Iraq and Afghanistan is a rather serious "abstraction."
Actually, I doubt that many of those actually involved would consider
it an "abstraction." You seem to be a bit abstracted yourself. Wake
up, look around - there's a world outside your head, even while you
keep it buried in the sand.
> But implied comparisons with
>Roosevelt and Churchill can only provoke laughter.
I certainly never did any such "implied comparison", unless you assume
that those two were the only "war presidents" in history. Is that what
you are implying?
CBFalconer
> Larry Elmore <ljelmore_@_comcast_._net> wrote:
>
... snip about Bush verbal frothing ...
>>
>> I think he meant to say "for a half-century now". He misspoke, as he
>> frequently does in public. He's got as bad a case of foot-in-mouth
>> disease as I've ever seen. It's painful to watch him give a speech.
>
> I heard that he's thinking faster than his mouth can keep up. That
> would explain all the hesitations. I've worked with people who
> were thinking so fast that they could explain any of the steps other
> than the results. A politician can't do that.
No, he simply goes off half-cocked. The problem is that he does
that in other areas than his mouthings, and the armed forces and
hapless aliens have to pay the penalty.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President
>>> and we are at war. No?
>>
>> No, it is because he declared himself so. See first part of sig
>> below.
>
> Sorry, I believe that I have stated the obvious definition of a war
> president, and your obvious dislike of Mr. Bush doesn't change that.
>
> Why should he not say (or "declare", since that's the spin you like)
> what is obviously true?
>
> If Mr. Kerry were elected (an event I suppose you would approve of
> no matter the consequences) he would be a war president also.
Well, my primary interest is in enforcing 'One term per Bush'.
However, there is a subtle difference between a 'war president'
who creates the war, and a 'president during war' who inherits the
mess. The two classifications are not mutually exclusive.
I don't believe there has been an executive since Nixon as
vice-president who could create such distaste and unrest as can
the reigning shrub, as shown by the gathering of the Romans
today. The opprobrium for Nixon was strictly localized, while
Bush cannot appear outside the country without engendering
protests. He even struts like Mussolini.
Charles Richmond
Stan Barr
>
>Besides picking the wrong quote, Charlie just seems to be bemoaning
>the proper, hygenic practice of keeping your functions small enough to
>be easily understood, and to actually defining them before you try to
>use them. ;-)
Which is forced upon you in Forth, but us Forthers are used to people
thinking we do everything backwards :-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com
(Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.)
The future was never like this!
Charlie Gibbs
(Dave Hansen) writes:
>Besides picking the wrong quote, Charlie just seems to be bemoaning
>the proper, hygenic
Hygenic? Ah, yes, I've worked in scummy shops too.
"...and put that program on a dirty disk!"
>practice of keeping your functions small enough to be easily
>understood,
Small functions are a sign of a short attention span. :-)
>and to actually defining them before you try to use them. ;-)
Well, I do put all my prototypes at the top. But I always
found it ironic that people would sing the praises of top-down
development, and then write their programs bottom-up.
From The Devil's DP Dictionary:
middle-out adj. Relating to a new programming methodology
allowing progress up or down as the mood of the team dictates.
Compare [bottom-down]; [bottom-up]; [top-down].
The top-down/bottom-up schism is now confined to those computing
backwaters where the DP VOGUE magazine arrives 2 weeks late.
The middle-out approach allows an early, honest, and reassuring
report to the DPM that the project is "definitely about halfway."
The middle-outer sees no contradiction in the proposition that
one can break down vague tasks into precise subtasks and, at the
same time, combine ill-conceived subroutines to form well-defined
programs.
Charlie Gibbs
(Alan Balmer) writes:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 01:45:23 +0200, Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu>
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe Bush and Blair like to declare wars on abstractions in general
>>and then claim to be war leaders.
>
>The action in Iraq and Afghanistan is a rather serious "abstraction."
>Actually, I doubt that many of those actually involved would consider
>it an "abstraction." You seem to be a bit abstracted yourself. Wake
>up, look around - there's a world outside your head, even while you
>keep it buried in the sand.
I don't think Giles was referring to specific things like Afghanistan
or Iraq. You're right, those aren't abstractions. But something like
terrorism certainly is, especially when used in a political context,
e.g. "War on Terrorism", "War on Drugs", etc.
When you think about it, it's all a bunch of silly posturing.
When I go out into the garden, I don't declare a "War on Weeds".
But this is an old political trick: get people pumped up over a
term that's so vague that it gives you carte blanche to do whatever
you want. A lot of police states got their start that way.
(Hmmm... how about declaring a "war on poverty"... maybe we can
go into the ghettos with flame throwers and toast the bums...)
>> But implied comparisons with
>>Roosevelt and Churchill can only provoke laughter.
>
>I certainly never did any such "implied comparison", unless you assume
>that those two were the only "war presidents" in history. Is that what
>you are implying?
If, as you implied elsewhere, "war president" is defined merely as
someone who's president while a war is going on, why don't we just
calmly accept it as a fact and leave out all the breast-beating?
Alan Balmer
<rich...@plano.net> wrote:
>> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President and we
>> are at war. No?
>>
>I do *not* recall a declaration of war coming from Congress...
Quiz: Do you recall the last time a declaration of war came from
Congress?
The definition (and existence) of war predates Congress.
krw
alba...@att.net says...
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:25:41 -0700, Charles Richmond
> <rich...@plano.net> wrote:
>
> >> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President and we
> >> are at war. No?
> >>
> >I do *not* recall a declaration of war coming from Congress...
>
> Quiz: Do you recall the last time a declaration of war came from
> Congress?
> The definition (and existence) of war predates Congress.
Not to mention that Congress gave GWB the express power and funding to
make war. If that wasn't a declaration of war on Saddam, there will
never be another declaration of war on anyone.
--
Keith
Jack Peacock
news:40C0CCB6...@plano.net...
> >
> I do *not* recall a declaration of war coming from Congress...
>
the War Powers Act the President can only deploy forces for 30 days on his
own; after that Congress has to authorize continued deployment. The debate
and resolution in Congress was televised at the time. You might remember
several senators on the Capitol steps singing the national anthem afterward.
Effectively there's been a declaration of war for over two years.
Jack Peacock
Rupert Pigott
> Alan Balmer wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:44:25 GMT, CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Giles Todd wrote:
>>>
>>>... snip ...
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here
>>>> because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of
>>>> the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has
>>>> come an era of peace in the Pacific." G. W. Bush, Tokyo, 18 Feb 2002
>>>
>>>I guess his father failed to tell him about the recent
>>>unpleasantness. It was also intimately connected with oil.
>>>However, he is a war President by his own declaration.
>>
>>Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President and we
>>are at war. No?
>>
>
> I do *not* recall a declaration of war coming from Congress...
Crikey, that must mean there are hordes of illegal combatants running
around in the middle east.
Cheers,
Rupert
Larry Elmore
> Alan Balmer wrote:
>
>>CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President
>>>>and we are at war. No?
>>>
>>>No, it is because he declared himself so. See first part of sig
>>>below.
>>
>>Sorry, I believe that I have stated the obvious definition of a war
>>president, and your obvious dislike of Mr. Bush doesn't change that.
>>
>>Why should he not say (or "declare", since that's the spin you like)
>>what is obviously true?
>>
>>If Mr. Kerry were elected (an event I suppose you would approve of
>>no matter the consequences) he would be a war president also.
>
>
> Well, my primary interest is in enforcing 'One term per Bush'.
> However, there is a subtle difference between a 'war president'
> who creates the war, and a 'president during war' who inherits the
> mess. The two classifications are not mutually exclusive.
>
> I don't believe there has been an executive since Nixon as
> vice-president who could create such distaste and unrest as can
> the reigning shrub, as shown by the gathering of the Romans
> today. The opprobrium for Nixon was strictly localized, while
> Bush cannot appear outside the country without engendering
> protests. He even struts like Mussolini.
No, he just walks like a fighter pilot. Which he was.
--Larry
D.J.
Alan Balmer <alba...@att.net> wrote:
] On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 12:25:41 -0700, Charles Richmond
] <rich...@plano.net> wrote:
]
] >> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President and we
] >> are at war. No?
] >>
] >I do *not* recall a declaration of war coming from Congress...
]
] Quiz: Do you recall the last time a declaration of war came from
] Congress?
]
] The definition (and existence) of war predates Congress.
The reason there is no official delclaration of war is that the US
Congrees looses oversight of the process. With a declaraion, the
President has a freer hand.
JimP.
--
djim70 at tyhe cableone dot net. Disclaimer: Standard.
http://evergame.drivein-jim.net/ June 2, 2004 Everquest
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ April 7, 2004:
http://crestar.drivein-jim.net/new.html May 7, 2004 AD&D
Kelli Halliburton
> Nope. Not everybody knows the correct sequence of RSTUVW without
> singing the song [emoticon raises hand] me..for one.
You mean Twinkle Twinkle Little Star?
Shortly after I learned the a;phabet song, I also learned
ab-kuh-def-ghee-jekyll-minopp-kur-stoov-wix-is. It's the most remarkable
word I've ever seen.
Kelli Halliburton
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 01:45:23 +0200, Giles Todd <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu>
> wrote:
>> Maybe Bush and Blair like to declare wars on abstractions in general
>> and then claim to be war leaders.
>
> The action in Iraq and Afghanistan is a rather serious "abstraction."
> Actually, I doubt that many of those actually involved would consider
> it an "abstraction." You seem to be a bit abstracted yourself. Wake
> up, look around - there's a world outside your head, even while you
> keep it buried in the sand.
The war against terrorism and the war on drugs are fairly abstract. The
actual battles may be concrete and laden with casualties on both sides (not
the least of which happen to be human beings, but also some abstractions
like "civil liberties"), but abstract concepts don't really go away.
>> But implied comparisons with
>> Roosevelt and Churchill can only provoke laughter.
>
> I certainly never did any such "implied comparison", unless you assume
> that those two were the only "war presidents" in history. Is that what
> you are implying?
Wilson (WWI)? T. Roosevelt (Spanish-American War)? Lincoln (Civil War)?
Madison (War of 1812)?
And of course, Churchill was not a president, he was a prime minister.
Kai Henningsen
> On 3 Jun 2004 14:59:43 -0700, jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (John Savard) wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Essentially, after the precise words quoted by Helmut Einfalt are
> >said, it is then noted that the alphabet starts with A, B, C, and then
> >the basic alphabet of another activity is Do, Re, Mi... and a song
>
> So you're suggesting 0123456789DRMFSL?
Digital Rights Management For Some Lawyers? Excuse me while I barf ...
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > "Helmut P. Einfalt" wrote:
>
> > ... snip ...
>
> >> Now, without counting -- do you know which is the tenth letter of the
> >> alphabet?
>
> > Zero based or one based? The Greeks used letters for numerals.
>
> But had neither a notion of "zero" nor a (strong) notion of positional
> value.
>
> 1 Alpha 10 Iota 100 Rho
> 2 Beta 20 Kappa 200 Sigma
> 3 Gamma 30 Lambda 300 Tau
> 4 Delta 40 Mu 400 Y psilon
> 5 E psilon 50 Nu 500 KHi
> 6 F (wau) 60 Xi 600 PHi
> 7 Zeta 70 O mikron 700 PSi
> 8 H (eta) 80 Pi 800 O mega
> 9 THeta 90 Qoppa 900 (= (sampi)
>
> where F, Q, and (= were dropped from the alphabet, but retained as numerals.
>
> A diacritic multiplied the value by 1000, so a word *could* be read as a
> number by interpreting the position of repeated letters as so marked: The
> name of the first letter, if spelled out, had the value 1601.
A prequel?
Kai Henningsen
> Now, without counting -- do you know which is the tenth letter of the
> alphabet?
10 = hex a, so it's J. (Do I have to explain this?)
Morten Reistad
Since ancient Greek had at least three different diacritical marks
you could use that for Thousand, Million and Billion. Cool.
v
Morten 40+70000+100+300+5+50 = 70495
Or didn't they use more than one letter in each [a-th][i-Q][r-(=] group?
jmfb...@aol.com
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Alan Balmer wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hmm. I thought he was a war president because he is President
>>>> and we are at war. No?
>>>
>>> No, it is because he declared himself so. See first part of sig
>>> below.
>>
>> Sorry, I believe that I have stated the obvious definition of a war
>> president, and your obvious dislike of Mr. Bush doesn't change that.
>>
>> Why should he not say (or "declare", since that's the spin you like)
>> what is obviously true?
>>
>> If Mr. Kerry were elected (an event I suppose you would approve of
>> no matter the consequences) he would be a war president also.
>
>Well, my primary interest is in enforcing 'One term per Bush'.
You would rather open the gates to Al Queda rather than see
Bush elected for another term?
>However, there is a subtle difference between a 'war president'
>who creates the war, and a 'president during war' who inherits the
>mess. The two classifications are not mutually exclusive.
>
>I don't believe there has been an executive since Nixon as
>vice-president who could create such distaste and unrest as can
>the reigning shrub, as shown by the gathering of the Romans
>today.
You forget about Reagan, Johnson, and Carter.
> ...The opprobrium for Nixon was strictly localized, while
>Bush cannot appear outside the country without engendering
>protests.
I see. We should only elect people of whom Europeans approve?
Fuck that.
> .. He even struts like Mussolini.
Take any aspect of the man and imagine a way to use it as proof
of incapability. You keep losing your battles with your fairy
tales.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Kelli Halliburton" <kell...@crosswinds.not> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> Nope. Not everybody knows the correct sequence of RSTUVW without
>> singing the song [emoticon raises hand] me..for one.
>
>You mean Twinkle Twinkle Little Star?
By gum. That is the tune, isn't it?
>
>Shortly after I learned the a;phabet song, I also learned
>ab-kuh-def-ghee-jekyll-minopp-kur-stoov-wix-is. It's the most remarkable
>word I've ever seen.
ROTFL. Good grief! That one never appeared in my head when
I voiced it.
Jack Peacock
news:c9rgkf$4...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Wilson (WWI)? T. Roosevelt (Spanish-American War)? Lincoln (Civil War)?
> Madison (War of 1812)?
>
in the army in Cuba and became his vice-president in 1901 after the war was
over.
Also James Polk (US-Mexican war), who managed to avoid a third war with
Britain over British Columbia, but wasn't as successful in negotiating the
issue of California and Texas with Mexico.
Jack Peacock
Rupert Pigott
[SNIP]
> I see. We should only elect people of whom Europeans approve?
Because the US Administration keeps telling us how to run our --ing
countries (probably more so the UK than many other of the larger
European countries).
I didn't vote for President Bush, yet his god forsaken opinion carries
more weight in this country than my elected representitives. Don't
expect me to like that or go along with it, tugging my forelock all
the way.
> Fuck that.
Indeed, Fuck that.
Cheers,
Rupert
John Savard
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > I do *not* recall a declaration of war coming from Congress...
>
> Crikey, that must mean there are hordes of illegal combatants running
> around in the middle east.
Congress has authorized the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq, and
their use of force.
What it did not do is "declare war" on Iraq. The last time a
*declaration of war*, a specific legal document with a specific legal
meaning, came from Congress is when the United States declared war
first on Japan, and then subsequently on Germany, in the wake of Pearl
Harbor.
To be brief, and hopefully uncontroversial, the primary reason for
this is that the United States is a signatory to the UN Charter,
according to which war, as such, is illegal.
Of course, one might rightly ask what else deploying troops to a
foreign country with the intent to effect regime change therein ought
to be called, but that "keeping up appearances" is sometimes
considered of value in foreign diplomacy should come as no surprise.
Incidentally, absent a declaration of war on North Vietnam, it was not
feasible to charge Jane Fonda with treason for some of her hijinks
during the military activities in South Vietnam.
John Savard
John Savard
<pea...@simconv.com> wrote, in part:
>Also James Polk (US-Mexican war), who managed to avoid a third war with
>Britain over British Columbia, but wasn't as successful in negotiating the
>issue of California and Texas with Mexico.
Ah, he must be the one who seized the Alaska Panhandle from Canada
without any justification whatever. I cannot understand why your
country has not returned it, in the interests of world peace.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
>
> Ah, he must be the one who seized the Alaska Panhandle from Canada
> without any justification whatever. I cannot understand why your
> country has not returned it, in the interests of world peace.
Tourism and salmon?
Jack Peacock
news:40c2535...@news.ecn.ab.ca...
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 08:27:51 -0700, "Jack Peacock"
> <pea...@simconv.com> wrote, in part:
>
> >Also James Polk (US-Mexican war), who managed to avoid a third war with
> >Britain over British Columbia, but wasn't as successful in negotiating
the
> >issue of California and Texas with Mexico.
>
> Ah, he must be the one who seized the Alaska Panhandle from Canada
> without any justification whatever. I cannot understand why your
> country has not returned it, in the interests of world peace.
>
referendum the Grand Banks would be all US territory, and it would be
american cod we weren't catching.
Jack Peacock
Jack Peacock
news:csd2c0dqkap5f7t3j...@4ax.com...
> The reason there is no official delclaration of war is that the US
> Congrees looses oversight of the process. With a declaraion, the
> President has a freer hand.
>
For one thing it takes too long these days. The President has to be able to
respond within hours of an attack, in as little as 15 minutes if its a
missile strike (the reason there's always a staff officer somewhere in the
President's entourage, carrying a special briefcase known as the
"football"). So the President gets 30 days before he has to get a
resolution from Congress, but the mandated congressional approval is still
there. The War Powers act was a good compromise to maintain constitutional
procedures while being pragmatic about the realities of modern warfare.
Congress still has to appropriate funds for any actions. Every president
has had to deal with Ways and Means in prosecuting a war. A declaration
doesn't give anyone a free hand.
Jack Peacock
Jack Peacock
> I didn't vote for President Bush, yet his god forsaken opinion carries
> more weight in this country than my elected representitives.
>
record time. So it appears as if a majority of your elected representatives
must agree with Blair, and by implication Bush, rather than you. I still
have trouble envisioning a hawkish New Labor battling it out with Tory
appeasers...
Referring to Bush as "god forsaken", well that one made me laugh. He's been
called many things but never god forsaken. Somehow I don't see Kerry
including that in the next TV ad.
I bet you didn't much care for Thatcher either?
Jack Peacock
Rupert Pigott
> "Rupert Pigott" <r...@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:10864528...@teapot.planet.gong...
>
>>I didn't vote for President Bush, yet his god forsaken opinion carries
>>more weight in this country than my elected representitives.
>>
>
> If that were true then Tony Blair would be out in a no confidence vote in
> record time. So it appears as if a majority of your elected representatives
> must agree with Blair, and by implication Bush, rather than you. I still
There is enough evidence that suggest that is not necessarily the case.
Specifically the comments by senior members of Blair's cabinet and the
resignations, public opinion and the like. Oh, and his legal dudes too.
> have trouble envisioning a hawkish New Labor battling it out with Tory
> appeasers...
Me too, but what has actually happened is that they've all whined but
failed to change policy. There have in fact been a number of calls for
some debate on our relationship with America (from all the parties
in the commons).
> Referring to Bush as "god forsaken", well that one made me laugh. He's been
"Thou shalt not kill."
> called many things but never god forsaken. Somehow I don't see Kerry
> including that in the next TV ad.
>
> I bet you didn't much care for Thatcher either?
Thatcher wasn't exactly my favourite, but she was quite a different
animal from Blair. Blair has chosen the Chamberlin approach to powerful
nations invading smaller weaker nations. BTW : I wouldn't even have
thought of that if Bush hadn't tried to make political capital out of
the D-Day rememberance. That was very bad taste, it's not gone unnoticed
by a number of folks who served here either.
- Rupert
CBFalconer
>> US Congrees looses oversight of the process. With a declaraion,
>> the President has a freer hand.
>
> There were practical reasons to do away with a formal Declaration
> of War. For one thing it takes too long these days. The President
> has to be able to respond within hours of an attack, in as little
> as 15 minutes if its a missile strike (the reason there's always
> a staff officer somewhere in the President's entourage, carrying a
> special briefcase known as the "football"). So the President gets
> 30 days before he has to get a resolution from Congress, but the
> mandated congressional approval is still there. The War Powers
> act was a good compromise to maintain constitutional procedures
> while being pragmatic about the realities of modern warfare.
<sarcasm> This was absolutely necessary in dealing with Iraq and
Saddam. He had all those ICBMs with MIRVed nuclear warheads
waiting to strike. </sarcasm>
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
CBFalconer
> Rupert Pigott wrote:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>>> I do *not* recall a declaration of war coming from Congress...
>>
>> Crikey, that must mean there are hordes of illegal combatants
>> running around in the middle east.
>
> Congress has authorized the deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq,
> and their use of force.
>
> What it did not do is "declare war" on Iraq. The last time a
> *declaration of war*, a specific legal document with a specific
> legal meaning, came from Congress is when the United States
> declared war first on Japan, and then subsequently on Germany,
> in the wake of Pearl Harbor.
Actually Germany, in one of Hitlers brilliancies, declared war on
the US, removing one of FDRs political problems. I do not know
whether a reciprocal US action followed.
Jack Peacock
>
> I wouldn't even have
> thought of that if Bush hadn't tried to make political capital out of
> the D-Day rememberance.
>
appearance for the D-Day events. Reagan's Pointe du Hoc speech was all over
TV last night. The stunts of other presidents at Normandy don't bear
repeating, but Bush isn't there for a photo op. His speech won't get much
coverage today due to Reagan's death.
Jack Peacock
Jack Peacock
news:40C2BC8E...@yahoo.com...
> <sarcasm> This was absolutely necessary in dealing with Iraq and
> Saddam. He had all those ICBMs with MIRVed nuclear warheads
> waiting to strike. </sarcasm>
>
No, he didn't have the ICBMs. And now he never will.
Jack Peacock
CBFalconer
> "Rupert Pigott" wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't even have thought of that if Bush hadn't tried to
>> make political capital out of the D-Day rememberance.
>>
> Over the last 25 years it's come to be a tradition for presidents
> to make an appearance for the D-Day events. Reagan's Pointe du
> Hoc speech was all over TV last night. The stunts of other
> presidents at Normandy don't bear repeating, but Bush isn't there
> for a photo op. His speech won't get much coverage today due to
> Reagan's death.
In all fairness, the Bushian mouthings in Normandy that I have
seen do not appear to be political. He would probably have drawn
more scorn (and deservedly so) by not appearing.
We would all be better off if he had spent the money on caring for
the veterans rather than on breaking things, hurting people,
removing civil rights, enriching the wealthy, throwing the poor to
the wolves, and generating worldwide opprobrium. To quote Reagan
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?".
--
When Clinton lied, he lost no lives.
grey...@yahoo.com
You don't mean _gasp_, it couldn't be, _SHOCK_ _HORROR_, no, I can't
believe that. [The Democrats had Ronald switched off, to attract
attention from Bush's speech].
/me hurriedly puts on foil hat
--
greymaus
Al Firan RumaiDin
97.025% of statistics are wrong
Jack Peacock
> When Clinton lied, he lost no lives.
>
garners more respect than a president who actually follows through on what
he says.
Jack Peacock
Morten Reistad
Kelli Halliburton
> Ah, he must be the one who seized the Alaska Panhandle from Canada
> without any justification whatever. I cannot understand why your
> country has not returned it, in the interests of world peace.
Juneau we thought about it, but there are those who think it'd be flushing
it all down the Seward.
(The content of this post is null, and serves only as an excuse to make bad
puns.)
(Is "bad pun" a redundancy?)
Jack Peacock
news:oe20ac...@via.reistad.priv.no...
> >Ah, he must be the one who seized the Alaska Panhandle from Canada
> >without any justification whatever. I cannot understand why your
> >country has not returned it, in the interests of world peace.
>
>
At the time land floating on oil was considered worthless, unfit for
cultivation or housing. At best it might be an alternative if there was
ever a shortage of whales, which after all ARE a renewable energy resource.
Odd how Greenpeace or the Sierra Club never brings up that particular point.
Jack Peacock