The Non-Existent Newsreader :-)

[ClutterFreak]

In a usenet forum that people interested in physics frequent, a few
tools should be available. One is of course ability to type text and
show that text to others. But discussing physics is more than typing
poetry for each other or writing anecdotes and reminiscences from
decades earlier. Or worse, throwing links at each other, which
essentially shoots the reader out of the discussion and into somewhere
else on the wide world of internet. I think this lack of additional
tools that physics discussions need has eventually caused those who knew
some physics and had interest in it to gradually leave, and the forum be
left filled with idle talk or wacky nonsense and pure crap. If you can't
effectively talk physics, crap will eventually replace it.

Tools we need:

1- We need to have an easy way to type clearly readable formulas and
math in general for each other, using familiar notations. Without it no
discussion of physics would go beyond unproven nonsense blabber.

Do you guys remember Mathcad 2 ? It worked on DOS OS and out of what was
available on your funky screen of those years it could create and depict
sufficiently readable and convenient formulas for any discussion or
explanation of a physics problem and/or concept. Couldn't someone
implement that capability in usenet messages? The software, by the way,
is now free to download from internet. Is considered freeware (back in
late 1980s I paid more than $200 for a 2nd hand copy of it plus a manual).

2- We need to show graphs to each other. Writing math and physics
equations doesn't do all the job. Visual checking of results are often
needed. Both 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional graphs.

Mathcad 2 did that also nicely. It could even solve many equations for
us itself. Even some differential equations. And it created the graphs
to show results in a nice visual way using what little was available on
monitors of those years. I think there should be a way to include this
capability inside usenet messages, so message be sent along the
necessary information added by Mathcad, then when message is downloaded
by readers, their newsreaders would show the message as well as using
the Mathcad additional information accompanying the message to create
identical results on readers' screen. All that's required seems to me is
a newsreader that has Mathcad 2 built into it.

Can't this be done? I mean after all these decades, why someone hasn't
taken the trouble of creating a newsreader that has the free Mathcad 2
built into it? Should the entire usenet just blabber texts and nothing
else? If it started by military's money, why should it continue like a
bland limited military tool of some sort? Decades after decades!

3- We need a way to show pictures! How can one discuss physics without
showing a picture of something?? This ability should also be built into
the right newsreader.


4- Often we need to show animation of movements and changes in
configuration of something in our physics messages. And sometimes clips
of videos. I think this ability should also be built into the newsreader.

To close this talk, we need a "physics newsreader" to become available
that can bring its Mathcad 2 up and let the user create all the texts,
formulas, equations, and graphs that he needs, then add to it any
animations, pictures, and/or videos that helps, then convert the whole
package into a file that news-servers around the world can handle just
like text; and vice versa, receive the news server messages and convert
them to what Mathcad and other features in the newsreader can process
for the reader. Is it asking too much? No. Does that newsreader turn all
scientific newsgroups alive, active, informative, and fruitful? Yes. Can
schools and universities put it into good use? Absolutely.

Clutterfreak Incarnate



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jim Pennino]

ClutterFreak <clutterfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a usenet forum that people interested in physics frequent,

What forum would that be?

>a few
> tools should be available. One is of course ability to type text and
> show that text to others.

You do understand that USENET is by definition ASCII based?

> But discussing physics is more than typing
> poetry for each other or writing anecdotes and reminiscences from
> decades earlier.

You do understand that USENET has always allowed uuencoded attachements
and real news readers, i.e. those not written by Relf, support them?

> To close this talk, we need a "physics newsreader" to become available
> that can bring its Mathcad 2 up

Sounds like a GIANT opportunity to hack a system to me.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

If you don't have a modern NewsReader/NewsServer combo,
like BlockNews.NET, Mozilla Thunderbird ( which is hard to configure )
and/or Google groups ( which can't be configured ),
then you might've missed:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/k-3h5MVSIkA/m/iarC7MxYEQAJ

[DFS]

In TBird all I had to do was click a dropdown and 'allow content from
i.giphy.com' and I see the animated .gif.

You almost got run over.

[Jackson Sprat]

I did not 'miss' it. My news client is set to not automatically download that kind of crap which is out of place on Usenet.
Better you just provide a hyperlink in a text message. Stop being rude and contrary to accepted Usenet protocols.

My client graciously provided the following:

"Agent has blocked the images in this HTML message. Press Ctrl+Enter to download the images. Right-click here for more options.

Thank you, Agent.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

I don't know of this .mp4 video will show on Google Groups are not.

<video><source type="video/mp4" src="https://i.imgur.com/47zPNc0.mp4" Alt="New School vs Old School."></video>

[Jackson Sprat]

I looked; it shows.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Oops, that was my fault.  Trying again.  .mp4 video.

<video></video>

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Trying again.  .mp4 video.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Try #4.  .mp4 video.

[ClutterFreak]

That just caters to teenage pregnant girls. Physicists have other needs.

A simple example:
Write me the equation for self-inductance of a current loop (the
so-called "L"), then write the relation for so-called emf
("electromotive force") generated by that L, then write the relation for
the current generated by this same emf. Now let current in the circuit
start from zero and get to I. Graph the current vs time and show it to us.

Does your candy-bar pussy-laden newsreader let you do that? Or is it
just for teenage pussies busy popping out more of themselves like
roaches while munching on candy bars? Jeff! That crude ancient mathcad 2
could do it in a jiffy if you knew your physics and knew how to use
mathcad. Don't give me the cro-magnon.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Last Try.  .mp4 video.

Crazy Russian

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Steve:
> you probably won't get any video tag to work.

Yes, Google Groups doesn't support <video> tags.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/k-3h5MVSIkA/m/kqqGbBphEQAJ
Jeff-R...@Apr.23--0.35pm.Seattle.2021

Google Groups' "Show Original" no longer works, I noticed.

[Jim Pennino]

ClutterFreak <clutterfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/2021 12:17 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> If you don't have a modern NewsReader/NewsServer combo,
>> like BlockNews.NET, Mozilla Thunderbird ( which is hard to configure )
>> and/or Google groups ( which can't be configured ),
>> then you might've missed:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/k-3h5MVSIkA/m/iarC7MxYEQAJ
>>
>
>
>
> That just caters to teenage pregnant girls. Physicists have other needs.
>
> A simple example:
> Write me the equation for self-inductance of a current loop (the
> so-called "L"),

Since a google search shows about 3,000,000 hits for self inductance
formula, what would be the point, particularly when most of the readers
here are baffled by an equation as simple as F=ma?

And if you have invented blazing, new science not to be found on google,
USENET would not be the appropriate place to announce it.


<snip>

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 03:03:41 UTC+10, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
Nothing

[whodat]

On 4/23/2021 6:35 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, 24 April 2021 at 03:03:41 UTC+10, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>
> Nothing
>

Why don't you leave Jeff alone, he makes more sense than you do.

[rbowman]

On 04/23/2021 01:35 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> Last Try. .mp4 video.
>
> Crazy Russian
>
>

That one has the video arrow but doesn't play. Nice balalaika.

[DFS]

On 4/24/2021 1:13 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 04/23/2021 01:35 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> Last Try.  .mp4 video.
>>
>> Crazy Russian
>>
>>
>
> That one has the video arrow but doesn't play.

Played for me, in TBird Windows (v 78.10)


> Nice balalaika.


I didn't know what a balalaika looked or sounded like.

This balalaika jam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvWWVub9cc4

reminded me of a mandolin, and the best use of a mandolin in a rock song
is, of course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88b0OYxdtyM

[ClutterFreak]

The trend is to tailor it for Americans of today, which are quite
stupefied compared to last generations. In fact the trend itself has
come about and enforced by the stupefied today Americans.

Sign of the times.

Best thing Jews did to stupefy Americans was to leave matters in the
hands of "engineers." Engineers are by nature not the smartest but more
like the smart alecks of the societies. Modern human who can think
physics can always manipulate them. I can make an engineer go fuck
himself :) Let alone other ventures and plots and intrigues one could
achieve playing with them. Jews in the entertainment industry depict
them as "minions." :) They're both "mini" compared to them and do their
"menial" jobs for them. Hence the "minion." That's what an "engineer"
is compared to modern human.

[Sergio]

so minion, are you looking for a new Master ?

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -

[whodat]

On 4/24/2021 5:47 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - flush -
>

See?

[rbowman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6pPP2kfHzU

My wife brought me a prima balalaika from the USSR but it was wall
hanger grade. The Soviets really pushed the instrument since they saw it
as a folk instrument of the proletariat.

'Prima' in this case refers to the size. Sort of like a violin, cello,
etch there are 4 common sizes, with the contrabass being the granddaddy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtAWkLxXWTo

It is sort of like a mandolin in not having much sustain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHMpzGqqMpo


I'm a finger picker and not a strummer. I never could get the action
down. It might have something to do with being left handed and not
having the necessary right hand control.

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -

[whodat]

Restring it for use by a left handed individual.

That is done with all sorts of instruments.

[rbowman]

On 04/24/2021 09:07 PM, whodat wrote:
>
>
> Restring it for use by a left handed individual.
>
> That is done with all sorts of instruments.

That always seemed awkward to me. There are some things I've always done
right handed like shooting a rifle.

Restringing a banjo wouldn't work too well unless I went the Elizbeth
Cotten route.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pUdUX5Gagc

Albert King, Dick Dale, and some others also played like that.

[ClutterFreak]

On 4/23/2021 4:05 AM, ClutterFreak wrote:
> In a usenet forum that people interested in physics frequent, a few
> tools should be available. One is of course ability to type text and
> show that text to others. But discussing physics is more than typing
> poetry for each other or writing anecdotes and reminiscences from
> decades earlier. Or worse, throwing links at each other, which
> essentially shoots the reader out of the discussion and into somewhere
> else on the wide world of internet. I think this lack of additional
> tools that physics discussions need has eventually caused those who knew
> some physics and had interest in it to gradually leave, and the forum be
> left filled with idle talk or wacky nonsense and pure crap. If you can't
> effectively talk physics, crap will eventually replace it.
>
> Tools we need:
>
> 1- We need to have an easy way to type clearly readable formulas and
> math in general for each other, using familiar notations. Without it no
> discussion of physics would go beyond unproven nonsense blabber.
>
> Do you guys remember Mathcad 2 ? It worked on DOS OS and out of what was
> available on your funky screen of those years it could create and depict
> sufficiently readable and convenient formulas for any discussion or
> explanation of a physics problem and/or concept. Couldn't someone
> implement that capability in usenet messages? The software, by the way,
> is now free to download from internet. Is considered freeware (back in
> late 1980s I paid more than $200 for a 2nd hand copy of it plus a manual).
>
> 2- We need to show graphs to each other. Writing math and physics
> equations doesn't do all the job. Visual checking of results are often
> needed. Both 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional graphs.
>
> Mathcad 2 did that also nicely. It could even solve many equations for
> us itself. Even some differential equations. And it created the graphs
> to show results in a nice visual way using what little was available on
> monitors of those years. I think there should be a way to include this
> capability inside usenet messages, so message be sent along the
> necessary information added by Mathcad, then when message is downloaded
> by readers, their newsreaders would show the message as well as using
> the Mathcad additional information accompanying the message to create
> identical results on readers' screen. All that's required seems to me is
> a newsreader that has Mathcad 2 built into it.
>
> Can't this be done? I mean after all these decades, why someone hasn't
> taken the trouble of creating a newsreader that has the free Mathcad 2
> built into it? Should the entire usenet just blabber texts and nothing
> else? If it started by military's money, why should it continue like a
> bland limited military tool of some sort? Decades after decades!
>
> 3- We need a way to show pictures! How can one discuss physics without
> showing a picture of something?? This ability should also be built into
> the right newsreader.
>
>
> 4- Often we need to show animation of movements and changes in
> configuration of something in our physics messages. And sometimes clips
> of videos. I think this ability should also be built into the newsreader.
>
> To close this talk, we need a "physics newsreader" to become available
> that can bring its Mathcad 2 up and let the user create all the texts,
> formulas, equations, and graphs that he needs, then add to it any
> animations, pictures, and/or videos that helps, then convert the whole
> package into a file that news-servers around the world can handle just
> like text; and vice versa, receive the news server messages and convert
> them to what Mathcad and other features in the newsreader can process
> for the reader. Is it asking too much? No. Does that newsreader turn all
> scientific newsgroups alive, active, informative, and fruitful? Yes. Can
> schools and universities put it into good use? Absolutely.
>
> Clutterfreak Incarnate
>
>
>


The only free version is Mathcad 2, the DOS version. You can get it
from: http://www.winworldpc.com together with anything DOS you'll ever
need. I remember it worked fast on DOS machines, but when you use it
inside a virtual DOS environment on your win10 it slows down
considerably. But still usable for casual inquiries and even light
computations. It's just a jewel of a software, kudos to those forgotten
fine old men up there in MA.

Using it requires a period of learning. That's why its users manual was
I think %90 of the price of the package (even in a consignment 2nd hand
store) back in late 1980s. But a physics major does it in a jiffy before
enjoying the heck out of the software.

I don't want to get a DOS machine again just for that although the
thought of it is tempting. Better perhaps to blow some of the earned
dogecoin money and get the current version! Mathcad Prime 7. On dogecoin
I'm already up about $2500, but this last version could be way more
expensive than that!

They have divided Mathcad versatility and power into many separate
libraries, sold separately, I think about $600 each. Each library deals
with a specific area of physics. This might suit "engineers" who stick
their heads into their own asses and stay there happy for the rest of
their lives, but might not be a good development for physics majors.
Especially the free spirited ones playing with it for personal reasons
and inquiries and as a hobby.

That jewel of a software, mathcad 2.5 for DOS, light yet comprehensive,
everything in one, might work well enough for a hobbyist. But requires a
fast DOS machine. Yet one more computer. So I'm undecided.

[ClutterFreak]

There are other software that are around for scientific expressions and
communication of them. I'm just not familiar with them. Some of them are
free as well! They're good candidates for getting incorporated into a
free newsreader, giving it a mighty tool to communicate equations,
derivations, examples, and all sorts of physics conjectures and/or solid
theories and laws as well as variety of graphs depicting them.

This distinctive stench of "military" style utility and outlook in the
makeup of sci.physics, I suspect is the result of the epidemic of
"engineers" packed in that. Physicists need something better while
"house-maids" need nothing more than present to carry out their
function: blabber nonsense. "Cooks" need nothing more than this. Ask Jim
Pennino! He's a cook as far as a physics major is concerned. His only
use for a physics major. A house-maid. He happens to be a good cook too
according to his own claims.


Swear to GOD I have no use for this man in or out of sci.physics but to
have him shut up and cook for me :-) Lol. I'm being %100 honest.

So these "engineers" have favored the present state of sci.physics for
decades and resist parting with such limited facility.

But why the notion of "military"? Cause military is the right place for
engineers and engineer type dorks. That's why. Engineers will have to
shut up and just take orders :-) Will have to be what they are.
House-maids. Only then they become useful things to have around. A
physicist, when needed (i.e. in wars!) puts their confused oblivious
asses into use and these little shits cannot say _one_word_ about what
they're told. When Morse was doing his operations research for the
Atlantic scene thousands of engineers stopped opening their traps and
began following ORDERS from this physicist.

Yes, only in an active military role, when actually deployed, these
"engineers" function as they should. Outside military they're just smart
aleck nuisance. Cause they can open their mouths and fill up the space
anywhere their dicks take them.

And sci.physics is one spot in usenet expanse where "engineers" do not
belong.

This forum should be shaped by physicists not others. We need the tools
I mentioned above. We need them to speculate with them and start from
0 step conjectures and use them to go all the way, step by step, to more
and more reformed and realistic useful stuff to spend our time
discussing them. But why? This is something an "engineer" or "chemist"
doesn't understand. So read below.

For a physicist a forum like this can fulfill an important existing
demand because physics is not a subject like other scientific
disciplines and fields. In other fields, when they get to a dead end
they still have physics to resort to and find their answers, while in
physics there's no other field to go! When you are at a dead end, that's
it. You'll only have your own head and other physicists'. No "engineer"
or "Chemist" or "janitor" for that matter can come to your help! So an
active and functioning sci.physics should be there in such cases to go
to to discuss and contact other physicists. You can't take your
first-step conjectures to formal physics seminars and conferences, can
you? So this demand exists and is not fulfilled yet.

Give us the tools so we could take our needs to sci.physics! Develop
them, express them, derive , calculate, and present them for others to
see. And for others to express their own responses, their own
derivations and calculations, and a way to present them back. These
activities requires the tools I mentioned in this thread.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Physicists of our time are worse than cockroaches. Engineers have to kick them out of reckoning and redefine physics on the lines I have set, for marvellous gains.

[Clutterfreak]

On 4/30/2021 9:03 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>
>
> Give us the tools so we could take our needs to sci.physics! Develop
> them, express them, derive , calculate, and present them for others to
> see. And for others to express their own responses, their own
> derivations and calculations, and a way to present them back. These
> activities requires the tools I mentioned in this thread.
>
>
>
>

I tested various ways of using thunderbird neasreader to write math for
physics communication in usenet. The add−ons out there for thunderbird
are not reliable and generally don′t work consistently. The easiest way
to write a limited amount of math in usenet is using an online math
keyboard like:

https://usefulwebtool.com/math-keyboard

Which can then be copied and pasted into any newsreader in text format.
It has a lot of shortcomings. A line of Math requires more than one line
of text to be correctly and clearly written. If you have to squeeze it
within one line it gets hard to read and confusing to see the details.
Online math keyboards do just that, they squeeze everything inside one
line′s height. But still are usable to some degree. Examples are:

∫ψ²dt

∂²y/∂x²

∇²j = 0

24°F

[1/(4π∊ₒ)] (q₁q₂/r²), etc

As you see, fractions are squeezed into one line making it difficult to
separate what′s the numerator and what is the denominator.

But at least the symbols are accessible in this way.

If the online math keyboard doesn′t have what you need you can download
and install (free) Microsoft′s keyboard layout creator and make your own
math layout. Result will still be squeezed in one line of text but you
customize the layout just the way you want for your own use. I don′t
think it will be worth the effort though.

Nothing will beat a newsreader that can use an older free version of
mathcad, convert the results in as many lines of text as is required to
show the math clearly and realistically (even large matrices) so it
could be sent on usenet and be read on any newsreader with no
accommodations necessary on the part of the readers.

Somebody needs to do that. To get it done free, this task can be given
as a project or even an undergraduate (or perhaps graduate) thesis to
students.

I read somewhere anytime industry in Germany has a question or need
that′s involved and time consuming and expensive to accomplish by
professionals they give it to universities to dispense them among their
students. The professors then send the work of the few who got to the
answers back to the industry.

The article didn′t mention any compensations made for such works.

[Jim Pennino]

Clutterfreak <clutterfre...@gmail.com> babbled:

<snip babble>

> Somebody needs to do that. To get it done free, this task can be given
> as a project or even an undergraduate (or perhaps graduate) thesis to
> students.

USENET and most news readers have been able to do MIME encoding for
several decades.

Your ignorance of the tools long available is the real issue here.

[Clutterfreak]

On 7/5/2021 8:54 PM, Clutterfreak wrote:
> If the online math keyboard doesn′t have what you need you can download
> and install (free) Microsoft′s keyboard layout creator and make your own
> math layout. Result will still be squeezed in one line of text but you
> customize the layout just the way you want for your own use. I don′t
> think it will be worth the effort though.

This has partially been done. You can download it at:

https://jkorpela.fi/math/kbd.html

Then you can use Microsoft keyboard layout creator to re-arrange and add
to it and perfect it, as what's done in that layout is not enough at
all. For instance everytime you need to use a greek letter that the
layout doesn't provide you have to change fonts to Euclid (for greek
letters) and back to normal.

So the layout isn't quite usable but saves a lot of time if you want to
complete it the way you want.

[Clutterfreak]

On 7/6/2021 3:02 PM, Clutterfreak wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 8:54 PM, Clutterfreak wrote:
>> If the online math keyboard doesn′t have what you need you can
>> download and install (free) Microsoft′s keyboard layout creator and
>> make your own math layout. Result will still be squeezed in one line
>> of text but you customize the layout just the way you want for your
>> own use. I don′t think it will be worth the effort though.
>
>
> This has partially been done. You can download it at:
>
> https://jkorpela.fi/math/kbd.html
>
> Then you can use Microsoft keyboard layout creator to re-arrange and add
> to it and perfect it, as what's done in that layout is not enough at
> all. For instance everytime you need to use a greek letter that the
> layout doesn't provide you have to change fonts to Euclid (for greek
> letters) and back to normal.
>
> So the layout isn't quite usable but saves a lot of time if you want to
> complete it the  way you want.
>
>
>
>

I showed in another post (under "test" subject header) that by embedding
an htm file with a link to a javascript program that utilizes mathjax
capabilities one can write math expressions using either of a few
different available input conventions, then the file when loaded by your
browser will automatically convert the expressions into correct standard
math forms easy to see and understand the details fast. The htm file can
then be attached to your post for what it's worth. A sample is attached
to this post.

This of course has its main limitation of separating the math from the
context of discussion and placing it in an attached file. Really a
ridiculously acrobatic way of conveying thoughts. It will also not work
for in-line math.

Free usenet news servers generally do not allow binary files posted, so
you cannot make the post itself in html, embedding that javascript
program. If they'd allow that, then all we needed to do to write math
expressions correctly in our discussions was to post and read in html
format instead of ascii, and embed the necessary javascript file (loaded
from the cloud) in them.

So, the need for development of a newsreader capable of outputting
simultaneous multi-line material in ascii for displayed math still
remains. For the portion of math expressions that only require one line
of text there's no issue cause there are online sites doing such
conversions, and all we'd need is to copy the output (which is in ascii)
and place them either in-line or displayed in our posts. But the portion
of math that requires more than one line to get correctly written
remains out of reach in available newsreaders.


This isn't my line of work. If it was, it would've already been done in
1980s by myself. But if there's any of you today whose line of work is
related, when you read this note you need to realize that at least in a
physics forum (but also in math and biology forums of course) such a
tool needs to be present because in almost any subject in those fields
as soon as they're discussed they get into areas not trodden in
mainstream teaching material and will _need_ such discussions to take
place and efficiently continued. So development of a newsreader that can
do that plays a vital role, so you may want to consider personally
developing the right newsreader for it, or explaining such need to
parties who do have the background to develop that.

I would like to remind you that it was the need for physics scientists
that created world wide web. But everybody benefited from it.