 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Could-You-Explain-Programming-Please.aspx
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:02:18 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Could-You-Explain-Programming-Please.aspx
The conversation should have gone:
Him: Hey, you're good with computers right?
Me: No, what gave you that idea?
Mine do. :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> The conversation should have gone:
>
> Him: Hey, you're good with computers right?
> Me: No, what gave you that idea?
>
> Mine do. :)
That sounds much safer...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Could-You-Explain-Programming-Please.aspx
Well, I have... now.
I have had similar experiences relating to programming and would guess that many
of us here have had them as well. However, if you want to experience REAL
frustration, try applying the same general principle to the subject of
philosophy.
At least most people can get a handle on the fact that they can't become
programmers with only a few quick tips over the phone. Just TRY, however, to
convince John. Q. Public that philosophy is a complex intellectual and
technical discipline that takes years of serious study to engage in at any
significant level.
JQP: "Naw, I don't wanna talk about none of that on-tall-o-gee or
ee-piz-toe-mall-o-gee @#!#@, I wanna talk about PHILOSOPHY, y' know - what *I*
think about the meaning of life, the universe and stuff!"
When someone claims to be a programmer, one can reply, "O.K., let's run that
program you've written and see how it works." Any attempt to demonstrate that
a claim to being a philosopher is bogus tends to degenerate into a Monty Python
routine:
"That's not a philosophical argument."
"Yes it is."
"No, it isn't. A philosophical argument is a logically connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition, not just the random explication
of one's subjective impressions or opinions."
"No it isn't." ...
[ Please accept my profound thanks for putting up with my posting a pet rant. I
won't do it any more... much ;-) ]
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:49:48 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> The conversation should have gone:
>>
>> Him: Hey, you're good with computers right?
>> Me: No, what gave you that idea?
>>
>> Mine do. :)
>
>That sounds much safer...
Only last month my brother-in-law, who knows I work with computer and who is
completely handless. Asked me for instructions to format his hard drive and
re-install windows, over the phone!
I beat about the bush for a while and finally said. "Don't be stupid, ask your
grandson to do it." It was one of those moments where your life passes in front
of you :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:54:20 EST, "Mike the Elder" <SPELL: wrote:
>
>JQP: "Naw, I don't wanna talk about none of that on-tall-o-gee or
>ee-piz-toe-mall-o-gee @#!#@, I wanna talk about PHILOSOPHY, y' know - what *I*
>think about the meaning of life, the universe and stuff!"
Oh! you drink in the same pub that I do :)
Computers will take over the world!
Computers will take over the world!
Exterminate!
EXTERMINATE!
EXTER-MIN-ATE!
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Computers will take over the world!
> Computers will take over the world!
> Exterminate!
> EXTERMINATE!
> EXTER-MIN-ATE!
But only on the ground floor, one assumes.
Oh, wait, they can fly now can't they. Huh. Spoilsports.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:16:46 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>
>Oh, wait, they can fly now can't they. Huh. Spoilsports.
Spinach Power! :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:16:46 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, wait, they can fly now can't they. Huh. Spoilsports.
>
> Spinach Power! :)
Right that's a challenge.
QUESTION 11 (EXTRA CREDIT):
'Explain how spinach may be employed to either provide thrust, or
otherwise nullify the effects of gravity such that extermination may be
more conveniently carried out from the air. Be concise, and show all
your working.'
Any takers?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:16:46 +0000, Bill Pragnell
>> <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, wait, they can fly now can't they. Huh. Spoilsports.
>>
>> Spinach Power! :)
>
> Right that's a challenge.
>
> QUESTION 11 (EXTRA CREDIT):
> 'Explain how spinach may be employed to either provide thrust, or
> otherwise nullify the effects of gravity such that extermination may be
> more conveniently carried out from the air. Be concise, and show all
> your working.'
>
> Any takers?
just call Popeye and he'll handle it. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:02:18 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Could-You-Explain-Programming-
Please.aspx
Not exactly like that, but I've had a few that were close to that....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
FWIW, I've had something like this (but less bad).
A while ago my dad bought himself a "learn C++ in 24 hours" book. He has
a Linux machine downstairs, and every now and then he gets as far as
typing in the "hello world" program and asking me how to invoke GCC to
compile it. And how to run the resulting binary.
(Admittedly, it's Linux. You have to write "./HelloWorld" and it's
actually case sensitive...)
I'll never find it now, but there was a Daily WTF article where someone
asked for a product feature to be added and some manager said "my
sources tell me it only involves adding 1 button", as if programming is
only about putting buttons onto a screen or something. (!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:30:46 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> I'll never find it now, but there was a Daily WTF article where someone
> asked for a product feature to be added and some manager said "my
> sources tell me it only involves adding 1 button", as if programming is
> only about putting buttons onto a screen or something. (!)
In fairness, there have been rapid-development tools to do this. I used
to use one called Visual AppBuilder (which then was renamed "Microbrew")
that consisted of designing a UI in a UI designer, and then building
program logic flows by building a flow diagram. There was no actual
coding that took place, and you could do some pretty involved things with
it. The functionality could be extended by a real developer as well, so
you weren't limited to just the modules included in the box.
I may still have a copy of it around here somewhere. It's a pity it
never evolved past being a 16-bit Windows development tool (the Mac
versions were more advanced).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:46:10 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:16:46 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, wait, they can fly now can't they. Huh. Spoilsports.
>>
>> Spinach Power! :)
>
>Right that's a challenge.
>
>QUESTION 11 (EXTRA CREDIT):
>'Explain how spinach may be employed to either provide thrust, or
>otherwise nullify the effects of gravity such that extermination may be
>more conveniently carried out from the air. Be concise, and show all
>your working.'
>
>Any takers?
Ye'r actual Spinach, as every man and woman knows is full of the element Iron.
[Is that not a wonder?]
And as the early Greek thinkers taught us. Iron is of the Earth.
[True, true]
And the Earth is above the water.
[Can't deny it]
And the Fire is above the Earth. Is that not so?
[Verily, verily]
Does not the water repel the Earth and is not the Earth attracted by the Fire?
[Go on, go on]
Thus do elements of the Earth assent into the clouds. Pulled up by the element
Fire and pushed by your waters.
[Well blow me mate! He's right]
Ipso facto
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:47a1fb19$1@news.povray.org...
> In fairness, there have been rapid-development tools to do this. I used
> to use one called Visual AppBuilder (which then was renamed "Microbrew")
> that consisted of designing a UI in a UI designer, and then building
> program logic flows by building a flow diagram. There was no actual
> coding that took place, and you could do some pretty involved things with
> it. The functionality could be extended by a real developer as well, so
> you weren't limited to just the modules included in the box.
Wow, that's the same as Crytec use (not the program you mention) when
editing a map in the new Crysis game - flow graphs! After starting my own
custom map, I find it fascinating to use. It looks so simple, join this
command to that command, and see what happens. The logic node is probably
the most used, but there's a stack of others to use in a map, like a physics
node, math node, etc. It looks easy, but I'm sure there's a fair bit of code
behind these nodes.
~Steve~
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Making programming easier will only bring more idiots doing it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:58:46 +0000, St. wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47a1fb19$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> In fairness, there have been rapid-development tools to do this. I
>> used to use one called Visual AppBuilder (which then was renamed
>> "Microbrew") that consisted of designing a UI in a UI designer, and
>> then building program logic flows by building a flow diagram. There
>> was no actual coding that took place, and you could do some pretty
>> involved things with it. The functionality could be extended by a real
>> developer as well, so you weren't limited to just the modules included
>> in the box.
>
> Wow, that's the same as Crytec use (not the program you mention)
> when
> editing a map in the new Crysis game - flow graphs! After starting my
> own custom map, I find it fascinating to use. It looks so simple, join
> this command to that command, and see what happens. The logic node is
> probably the most used, but there's a stack of others to use in a map,
> like a physics node, math node, etc. It looks easy, but I'm sure there's
> a fair bit of code behind these nodes.
Yep, and if speed is what you're looking for, this isn't a good way to
get it. But for quick RAD applications, I really liked it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:24:49 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Making programming easier will only bring more idiots doing it...
We're already getting a fair share of idiots doing it (present company
excluded, of course <g>).
But giving people tools that allow them to use computers as effective
tools is not a bad thing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Could-You-Explain-Programming-Please.aspx
>
Nothing quite that bad, just the normal family-requiring-tech-support
that want to know if Windows is so bad and I'm at school learning to
program why I don't just write a better OS.
The funny situation occurred when my hairdresser asked if I could write
a spreadsheet system for her, to manage the store's money. After some
banter about how UI isn't really my thing, but the math behind it wasn't
that hard she offered the math in COBOL if I could make an interface.
Me: Wait, you know COBOL, have you tried just any simple spreadsheet?
Her: Yeah, but I type in the numbers and then still have to do the math
on paper. I can't make Microsoft Office do the math for me.
Me: You know, each box can be treated as a variable.
Her: Wait...how?
*scribble on back of credit card bill '=A3 + A5'*
Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
to do it all for her.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:47a21a60$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:58:46 +0000, St. wrote:
> It looks easy, but I'm sure there's a fair bit of code behind these
> nodes.
>
> Yep, and if speed is what you're looking for, this isn't a good way to
> get it.
What do you mean Jim? Do you mean in a RAM way with these flow graphs?
> But for quick RAD applications, I really liked it.
I can understand that after experiencing this method too.
~Steve~
>
> Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
>Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
>to do it all for her.
Are you slipping up? :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:43:04 +0000, St. wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:47a21a60$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:58:46 +0000, St. wrote:
>
>> It looks easy, but I'm sure there's a fair bit of code behind these
>> nodes.
>>
>> Yep, and if speed is what you're looking for, this isn't a good way to
>> get it.
>
> What do you mean Jim? Do you mean in a RAM way with these flow
> graphs?
No, I mean in terms of there being a lack of code-level performance
optimisation when programs are built like this.
>> But for quick RAD applications, I really liked it.
>
> I can understand that after experiencing this method too.
Yeah, it was pretty cool. I wish the company that had bought it hadn't
just decided to drop it before they vanished into space (some say
*literally* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Firmage was one of the
founders). There had been some talk back in 2000 about it being released
into the public domain (as the prior owners have moved on to other
careers).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Nothing quite that bad, just the normal family-requiring-tech-support
> that want to know if Windows is so bad and I'm at school learning to
> program why I don't just write a better OS.
Bahahaha!
Some of you may recall I actually started attempting to write my own OS.
I got as far as a boot loader and VGA driver. Hmm, so many ideas, so
little time...
> Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
> to do it all for her.
Sweet. LOL!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:30:46 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I'll never find it now, but there was a Daily WTF article where someone
>> asked for a product feature to be added and some manager said "my
>> sources tell me it only involves adding 1 button", as if programming is
>> only about putting buttons onto a screen or something. (!)
>
> In fairness, there have been rapid-development tools to do this. I used
> to use one called Visual AppBuilder (which then was renamed "Microbrew")
> that consisted of designing a UI in a UI designer, and then building
> program logic flows by building a flow diagram. There was no actual
> coding that took place, and you could do some pretty involved things with
> it. The functionality could be extended by a real developer as well, so
> you weren't limited to just the modules included in the box.
The point being, just because you only have to add "1 button" doesn't
mean it's "easy". There still has to be a whole stack of control logic
behind that one button, you might have to radically restructure the
innards of the program to add this feature, etc. But hey, "anything is
easy for the person who does not have to implement it". ;-)
FWIW, I used something called... uh... I think it was Rational Rose UML
or something. Draw various UML diagrams (class diagrams, use case
diagrams, event and state diagrams, etc.) and it builds runnable code
that does it. (At least, if you pay out enough money.) It's nowhere near
as easy is just *typing* the code yourself though. (Probably makes
refactoring much easier though...)
I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines" part.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:16:19 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> The point being, just because you only have to add "1 button" doesn't
> mean it's "easy". There still has to be a whole stack of control logic
> behind that one button, you might have to radically restructure the
> innards of the program to add this feature, etc. But hey, "anything is
> easy for the person who does not have to implement it". ;-)
Absolutely, I certainly wouldn't denie that.
> FWIW, I used something called... uh... I think it was Rational Rose UML
> or something. Draw various UML diagrams (class diagrams, use case
> diagrams, event and state diagrams, etc.) and it builds runnable code
> that does it. (At least, if you pay out enough money.) It's nowhere near
> as easy is just *typing* the code yourself though. (Probably makes
> refactoring much easier though...)
I remember reading/hearing about Rational Rose. It sounded fairly
interesting.
> I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
> such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
> program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
> interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
> aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines" part.
There's a coding project you could play with. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I remember reading/hearing about Rational Rose. It sounded fairly
> interesting.
"Roses are Rational"...
It was an OK product. A little buggy though. Still, I think we had a
fairly old version.
>> I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
>> such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
>> program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
>> interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
>> aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines" part.
>
> There's a coding project you could play with. :-)
Haskell is somewhat odd in that *parsing* Haskell source code is quite
hard. However, if you're drawing boxes and lines, there's no parsing to
do, so... ;-)
I suspect certain programs are going to come out looking great this way,
while others will come out looking like spaggetti!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:47:08 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> I remember reading/hearing about Rational Rose. It sounded fairly
>> interesting.
>
> "Roses are Rational"...
>
> It was an OK product. A little buggy though. Still, I think we had a
> fairly old version.
If roses are rational, what are violets?
>>> I think it would be quite neat (and in principle easy) if Haskell had
>>> such a tool. (I.e., a "draw boxes and lines and it makes a runnable
>>> program".) However, there is no pre-existing Haskell compiler or
>>> interpretter that could be easily linked to such a system, and I'm not
>>> aware of any toolkit for doing the whole "drawing boxes and lines"
>>> part.
>>
>> There's a coding project you could play with.
>
> Haskell is somewhat odd in that *parsing* Haskell source code is quite
> hard. However, if you're drawing boxes and lines, there's no parsing to
> do, so... ;-)
So have a go at it. If anything, you might learn something from the
effort. :-)
> I suspect certain programs are going to come out looking great this way,
> while others will come out looking like spaggetti!
That certainly was true in AppWare/MicroBrew. Especially with modules
that took multiple inputs and outputs.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
>> Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
>> to do it all for her.
>
> Are you slipping up? :)
>
No, I was too busy laughing at all the 'Well, see, my hair looks like
this cause I insulted COBOL.' jokes I would be able to make.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder wrote:
> [ Please accept my profound thanks for putting up with my posting a pet rant. I
> won't do it any more... much ;-) ]
Your Monty Python reference saved you.
--
"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's
too late." - Frank Sinatra
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:19:09 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>>
>>> Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
>>> to do it all for her.
>>
>> Are you slipping up? :)
>>
>
>No, I was too busy laughing at all the 'Well, see, my hair looks like
>this cause I insulted COBOL.' jokes I would be able to make.
That's funny I generally cry when I leave the hairdresser :(
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Mike the Elder wrote:
>> [ Please accept my profound thanks for putting up with my posting a pet rant. I
>> won't do it any more... much ;-) ]
>
> Your Monty Python reference saved you.
...THAT WAS MONTY PYTHON???
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Making programming easier will only bring more idiots doing it...
>
> We're already getting a fair share of idiots doing it.
+1
> But giving people tools that allow them to use computers as effective
> tools is not a bad thing.
+1
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I suspect certain programs are going to come out looking great this way,
>> while others will come out looking like spaggetti!
>
> That certainly was true in AppWare/MicroBrew. Especially with modules
> that took multiple inputs and outputs.
Having done Core-level "programming" with NI's Reaktor product, I can
tell you that certain things just look ugly when drawin with wires. And
other things look very much clearer than textual code...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:19:09 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
> >Stephen wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:42:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Should have tried for a free hair cut, after what she offered to pay me
> >>> to do it all for her.
> >>
> >> Are you slipping up? :)
> >>
> >
> >No, I was too busy laughing at all the 'Well, see, my hair looks like
> >this cause I insulted COBOL.' jokes I would be able to make.
>
> That's funny I generally cry when I leave the hairdresser :(
>
> Regards
> Stephen
^^
Why?
Might the reason be on that list?
http://www.csittl.com/old/98list66.html
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:25:52 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> That's funny I generally cry when I leave the hairdresser :(
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>
>^^
>Why?
>Might the reason be on that list?
>http://www.csittl.com/old/98list66.html
Because I've not paid enough and it is a terrible haircut or it's a good haircut
and I paid too much. Not to mention the palaver and personal service they try to
give you.
If it is of any interest, I once went for nine years without getting my hair
cut, Heaven :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike the Elder" wrote:
> When someone claims to be a programmer, one can reply, "O.K., let's run
> that
> program you've written and see how it works." Any attempt to demonstrate
> that
> a claim to being a philosopher is bogus tends to degenerate into a Monty
> Python
> routine:
> "That's not a philosophical argument."
> "Yes it is."
> "No, it isn't. A philosophical argument is a logically connected series of
> statements intended to establish a proposition, not just the random
> explication
> of one's subjective impressions or opinions."
> "No it isn't." ...
I found it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Because I've not paid enough and it is a terrible haircut or it's a good haircut
> and I paid too much. Not to mention the palaver and personal service they try to
> give you.
> If it is of any interest, I once went for nine years without getting my hair
> cut, Heaven :)
You know how all films, video games, etc., always end with a disclaimer
stating that "this is a work of fiction and any resemblence to actual
persons living or dead is entirely coincidental and unintentional"?
Well, at the back of the manual for Atomino, there's a statement that
says something like
"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblence of any character to actual
persons living or dead is entirely coincidental but would be highly
amusing and should be discussed at length with your hairdresser at your
earliest convinience."
Which is doubly amusing since Atomino is a puzzle game and doesn't
feature any "characters" at all...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:45:53 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblence of any character to actual
>persons living or dead is entirely coincidental but would be highly
>amusing and should be discussed at length with your hairdresser at your
>earliest convinience."
LOL
>Which is doubly amusing since Atomino is a puzzle game and doesn't
>feature any "characters" at all...
LOL^2
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:27:46 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> I suspect certain programs are going to come out looking great this
>>> way, while others will come out looking like spaggetti!
>>
>> That certainly was true in AppWare/MicroBrew. Especially with modules
>> that took multiple inputs and outputs.
>
> Having done Core-level "programming" with NI's Reaktor product, I can
> tell you that certain things just look ugly when drawin with wires. And
> other things look very much clearer than textual code...
That's usually true. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:26:17 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> Making programming easier will only bring more idiots doing it...
>>
>> We're already getting a fair share of idiots doing it.
>
> +1
>
>> But giving people tools that allow them to use computers as effective
>> tools is not a bad thing.
>
> +1
I think you've mistaken this for Slashdot. ;-)
(But thanks anyways! <G>)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Making programming easier will only bring more idiots doing it...
>>> We're already getting a fair share of idiots doing it.
>> +1
>>
>>> But giving people tools that allow them to use computers as effective
>>> tools is not a bad thing.
>> +1
>
> I think you've mistaken this for Slashdot. ;-)
>
> (But thanks anyways! <G>)
What sla... uh, never mind...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:21:50 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>>>> Making programming easier will only bring more idiots doing it...
>>>> We're already getting a fair share of idiots doing it.
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> But giving people tools that allow them to use computers as effective
>>>> tools is not a bad thing.
>>> +1
>>
>> I think you've mistaken this for Slashdot. ;-)
>>
>> (But thanks anyways! <G>)
>
> What sla... uh, never mind...
slashdot.org. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I think you've mistaken this for Slashdot. ;-)
>>>
>>> (But thanks anyways! <G>)
>> What sla... uh, never mind...
>
> slashdot.org. :-)
I've visited it several times. I still don't really get what it "is".
But I was thinking more that I'd end up with more "OMG, DON'T YOU KNOW
ANYTHING?!" type comments if I asked...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Could-You-Explain-Programming-Please.aspx
>
Sounds somewhat familiar...
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:24:51 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>>> I think you've mistaken this for Slashdot. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> (But thanks anyways! <G>)
>>> What sla... uh, never mind...
>>
>> slashdot.org. :-)
>
> I've visited it several times. I still don't really get what it "is".
Basically, a news site with the ability for people to comment.
Moderators are selected at random to score others' comments, so I thought
your use of "+1" was like a /. moderation.
Usually the comments end up degenerating into some sort of flamewar, but
I find that the stories themselves tend to point me at things that are
interesting.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> slashdot.org. :-)
>> I've visited it several times. I still don't really get what it "is".
>
> Basically, a news site with the ability for people to comment.
> Moderators are selected at random to score others' comments, so I thought
> your use of "+1" was like a /. moderation.
>
> Usually the comments end up degenerating into some sort of flamewar, but
> I find that the stories themselves tend to point me at things that are
> interesting.
Thankyou for that interesting and insightful response.
(I too have noticed that the comments consist mainly of people yelling
"X sucks! every1 shud yews Y!")
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:55:17 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Thankyou for that interesting and insightful response.
"Interesting" and "Insightful" are in fact two of the +1 modifiers for
moderators to apply. :-)
> (I too have noticed that the comments consist mainly of people yelling
> "X sucks! every1 shud yews Y!")
Yep. When I need to let off some steam, I go over there to start a
fight. :-) Most recently about GNOME vs. KDE.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Thankyou for that interesting and insightful response.
>
> "Interesting" and "Insightful" are in fact two of the +1 modifiers for
> moderators to apply. :-)
There's only 1 reason that I know that:
http://www.xkcd.com/301/
But I was actually just trying to say that you put the salient points
quite well.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:05:09 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Thankyou for that interesting and insightful response.
>>
>> "Interesting" and "Insightful" are in fact two of the +1 modifiers for
>> moderators to apply. :-)
>
> There's only 1 reason that I know that:
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/301/
Ah. :-)
> But I was actually just trying to say that you put the salient points
> quite well.
Well, thank you! :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:24:51 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> slashdot.org. :-)
>> I've visited it several times. I still don't really get what it "is".
>
> Basically, a news site with the ability for people to comment.
> Moderators are selected at random to score others' comments, so I thought
> your use of "+1" was like a /. moderation.
it's useless: anyone who doesn't know who Stallman is will never really
get slashdot... ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
