On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:22:42 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> True, some people, like a certain niece of mine, can't even figure out
> that, "You need to change the oil once in a while."
> 
> But, cars you at least "can" do maintenance on, or have other people do
> so, and you don't generally, on having them do that, find that 90% of
> the "experts" you might want to take them to are going to either a) be
> unable to fix a broken taillight wire, or b) do so without stealing
> every single things you had in the trunk, and throwing it in a dumpster,
> because it was "unfixable" with all your shit still in the vehicle. PCs,
> especially, tend to exhibit both traits....

No, those who want to learn how stuff works can, even with PCs.

But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine, 
too.  The same holds true for magnetic recording media, storage devices, 
etc.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2013 5:43 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine,
> too.

Not any more it's not. ;-)

I used to service my own cars and bikes. Other than check the fluids all 
I can do with the engine nowadays is check that it is still there. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 06:20:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/09/2013 5:43 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine,
>> too.
> 
> Not any more it's not. ;-)
> 
> I used to service my own cars and bikes. Other than check the fluids all
> I can do with the engine nowadays is check that it is still there. :-)

Well, some cars have computers in them now, that's true.  But the 
mechanical parts are still basically the same.  Patrick's analogy is 
flawed because he's comparing physical items in the boot to data on a 
hard drive.  The two are so /not/ comparable it's not even funny.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9/13/2013 9:44 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 06:20:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 13/09/2013 5:43 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine,
>>> too.
>>
>> Not any more it's not. ;-)
>>
>> I used to service my own cars and bikes. Other than check the fluids all
>> I can do with the engine nowadays is check that it is still there. :-)
>
> Well, some cars have computers in them now, that's true.  But the
> mechanical parts are still basically the same.  Patrick's analogy is
> flawed because he's comparing physical items in the boot to data on a
> hard drive.  The two are so /not/ comparable it's not even funny.
>
> Jim
>
Give me a break. It was supposed to be a bit of a joke. But, it is never 
the less true anyway. "Reinstall" is practically a #1 solution in 
Windows, when things break bad enough, and, even if you don't throw out 
everything in the trunk when you do that (instead of the equivalent of 
taking it out, then putting it all back in again), the process of 
"fixing" a problem by doing such a thing goes a bit beyond replacing the 
air freshener. Its more like stripping the car down to the body shell, 
then having to "reinstall" every single part, from the ground up, just 
to fix a loose wire, at least.. under Windows anyway. Linux is a bit 
less stupid about it. But, if you want a better example, how about a 
motor home, instead of a car? Those things are, from what I brother 
says, built with no clear plan, beyond the chassis, everything tacked on 
where ever it fits, and damn near no intention/design-considerations, 
with respect to, "How the fuck is someone supposed to get at this part 
of the vehicle, to fix it, when it break, without literally removing 
half of the entire vehicle, and everything installed in it?"

So, yeah, there can be some valid comparisons you can make.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:17:48 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Give me a break. 

OK, done. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/09/2013 5:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 06:20:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 13/09/2013 5:43 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine,
>>> too.
>>
>> Not any more it's not. ;-)
>>
>> I used to service my own cars and bikes. Other than check the fluids all
>> I can do with the engine nowadays is check that it is still there. :-)
>
> Well, some cars have computers in them now, that's true.

Would you not consider a car's fuel control system a computer?

> But the mechanical parts are still basically the same.

Yes the bits that go roundy round are basically similar as is the 
structural nits. But how do you set up the spark plug timing on your car?

> Patrick's analogy is
> flawed because he's comparing physical items in the boot to data on a
> hard drive.  The two are so /not/ comparable it's not even funny.
>
All analogies break down at some point, eh?
The real problem is that computers are domestic appliances now. They are 
not just for geeks.
Here is another analogy or parable, whatever.
Rule number one when working with electrical equipment is disconnect it 
from the mains before opening it up. Yes?
So you can understand in a way why my boss's boss gave me a bollocking 
for working on exposed live equipment. (H&S to the forefront)
He had no answer to my question "How do I trouble shoot if it is dead?"
He went away, I powered it up, found the fault and all was well.
Mixing techie and non-techie is a very hard thing to do.

I've run out of steam, now.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:50:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/09/2013 5:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 06:20:50 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/09/2013 5:43 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine,
>>>> too.
>>>
>>> Not any more it's not. ;-)
>>>
>>> I used to service my own cars and bikes. Other than check the fluids
>>> all I can do with the engine nowadays is check that it is still there.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Well, some cars have computers in them now, that's true.
> 
> Would you not consider a car's fuel control system a computer?

Depends on the car.  Not if it's just a throttle cable.

>> But the mechanical parts are still basically the same.
> 
> Yes the bits that go roundy round are basically similar as is the
> structural nits. But how do you set up the spark plug timing on your
> car?

I have no idea - but I could ask my father-in-law or brother-in-law.  
IIRC, there's a timing belt/chain in older cars that don't use electronic 
fuel injection.

>> Patrick's analogy is flawed because he's comparing physical items in
>> the boot to data on a hard drive.  The two are so /not/ comparable it's
>> not even funny.
>>
> All analogies break down at some point, eh?
> The real problem is that computers are domestic appliances now. They are
> not just for geeks.
> Here is another analogy or parable, whatever.
> Rule number one when working with electrical equipment is disconnect it
> from the mains before opening it up. Yes?

Not necessarily.  First, unplugging it isn't going to protect you from a 
charged capacitor - any first year electronics student knows that.

> So you can understand in a way why my boss's boss gave me a bollocking
> for working on exposed live equipment. (H&S to the forefront)
> He had no answer to my question "How do I trouble shoot if it is dead?"
> He went away, I powered it up, found the fault and all was well.
> Mixing techie and non-techie is a very hard thing to do.

Well, sure.

> I've run out of steam, now.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2013 6:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:50:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>>> Well, some cars have computers in them now, that's true.
>>
>> Would you not consider a car's fuel control system a computer?
>
> Depends on the car.  Not if it's just a throttle cable.
>

Maybe it is just me but I've not had a car that had a direct throttle 
drive for 20 years or so and I don't buy new cars. Current one is almost 
10 years old and the one before that was 13 years old when it died on me.

>>> But the mechanical parts are still basically the same.
>>
>> Yes the bits that go roundy round are basically similar as is the
>> structural nits. But how do you set up the spark plug timing on your
>> car?
>
> I have no idea - but I could ask my father-in-law or brother-in-law.
> IIRC, there's a timing belt/chain in older cars that don't use electronic
> fuel injection.
>
It is the distributor that you adjust. Using a timing light connected to 
the #1 spark plug. The strobe effect makes a timing mark on the fan belt 
drive wheel appear stationary. The distributor is adjusted to that the 
dynamic timing mark is at TDC. IIRC

>>> Patrick's analogy is flawed because he's comparing physical items in
>>> the boot to data on a hard drive.  The two are so /not/ comparable it's
>>> not even funny.
>>>
>> All analogies break down at some point, eh?
>> The real problem is that computers are domestic appliances now. They are
>> not just for geeks.
>> Here is another analogy or parable, whatever.
>> Rule number one when working with electrical equipment is disconnect it
>> from the mains before opening it up. Yes?
>
> Not necessarily.  First, unplugging it isn't going to protect you from a
> charged capacitor - any first year electronics student knows that.
>

That why I missed that out so not to take up more bandwidth and to 
respect you savy-ness.

>> So you can understand in a way why my boss's boss gave me a bollocking
>> for working on exposed live equipment. (H&S to the forefront)
>> He had no answer to my question "How do I trouble shoot if it is dead?"
>> He went away, I powered it up, found the fault and all was well.
>> Mixing techie and non-techie is a very hard thing to do.
>
> Well, sure.
>

So that is where the problem lies. Manufacturers don't make a lot of 
money if they can't sell a product to lots of non technical people.
And if you try to make a computer idiot proof, techies rail at the 
restrictions imposed.
I want to buy a new laptop but I don't want Win 8 with "even your 5 year 
old can operate it" OS. Nor do I want Linux where I'll have to learn a 
new OS or not be able to run M$ office, for work compatibility.

I might as well ask here. Does anyone have any recommendations for a 
light weight laptop that has a reasonable spec to run PovRay and Blender 
and weighs a lot less the the 3kg (6.6 lb) DTR I have to lug around?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:52:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 14/09/2013 6:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 07:50:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Well, some cars have computers in them now, that's true.
>>>
>>> Would you not consider a car's fuel control system a computer?
>>
>> Depends on the car.  Not if it's just a throttle cable.
>>
>>
> Maybe it is just me but I've not had a car that had a direct throttle
> drive for 20 years or so and I don't buy new cars. Current one is almost
> 10 years old and the one before that was 13 years old when it died on
> me.

Well, yeah, like I said, if it's not an EFI system, but those have been 
around for a while.

>>>> But the mechanical parts are still basically the same.
>>>
>>> Yes the bits that go roundy round are basically similar as is the
>>> structural nits. But how do you set up the spark plug timing on your
>>> car?
>>
>> I have no idea - but I could ask my father-in-law or brother-in-law.
>> IIRC, there's a timing belt/chain in older cars that don't use
>> electronic fuel injection.
>>
> It is the distributor that you adjust. Using a timing light connected to
> the #1 spark plug. The strobe effect makes a timing mark on the fan belt
> drive wheel appear stationary. The distributor is adjusted to that the
> dynamic timing mark is at TDC. IIRC

See how much I know about cars?  I changed the battery once and was shown 
how to change the brake pads once, but I'm no expert.  Amy knows a lot 
more about that sort of stuff - which makes sense, since she grew up in a 
family that works on cars (her brother teaches auto body repair at the 
local vocational/technical school where she grew up).

>> Not necessarily.  First, unplugging it isn't going to protect you from
>> a charged capacitor - any first year electronics student knows that.
>>
> That why I missed that out so not to take up more bandwidth and to
> respect you savy-ness.

;)

>>> So you can understand in a way why my boss's boss gave me a bollocking
>>> for working on exposed live equipment. (H&S to the forefront)
>>> He had no answer to my question "How do I trouble shoot if it is
>>> dead?" He went away, I powered it up, found the fault and all was
>>> well.
>>> Mixing techie and non-techie is a very hard thing to do.
>>
>> Well, sure.
>>
>>
> So that is where the problem lies. Manufacturers don't make a lot of
> money if they can't sell a product to lots of non technical people.
> And if you try to make a computer idiot proof, techies rail at the
> restrictions imposed.

Yep.  And that's the problem Patrick has.  The system is idiot-proof, but 
he's no idiot, and wants to do what he wants to do.  You can't mass-
market something like that, though, because the non-technical people who 
make up the "masses" are going to be idiots when it comes to technology, 
because they just want to drive to work, they don't want to fine-tune the 
fuel injection system.

> I want to buy a new laptop but I don't want Win 8 with "even your 5 year
> old can operate it" OS. Nor do I want Linux where I'll have to learn a
> new OS or not be able to run M$ office, for work compatibility.

So you have to compromise and get the mass-market option.

> I might as well ask here. Does anyone have any recommendations for a
> light weight laptop that has a reasonable spec to run PovRay and Blender
> and weighs a lot less the the 3kg (6.6 lb) DTR I have to lug around?

I've been happy with my Dell laptop, but I'm not sure how much it 
weighs.  It's a couple years old - the 17R (N7110 is another number I see 
associated with it), but is pretty speedy (i7 processor) and has plenty 
of memory (8GB, max for this model).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14/09/2013 9:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:52:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>
> See how much I know about cars?  I changed the battery once and was shown
> how to change the brake pads once, but I'm no expert.  Amy knows a lot
> more about that sort of stuff - which makes sense, since she grew up in a
> family that works on cars (her brother teaches auto body repair at the
> local vocational/technical school where she grew up).
>

It was necessity that taught me. Not a love of getting my hands dirty.

>> So that is where the problem lies. Manufacturers don't make a lot of
>> money if they can't sell a product to lots of non technical people.
>> And if you try to make a computer idiot proof, techies rail at the
>> restrictions imposed.
>
> Yep.  And that's the problem Patrick has.  The system is idiot-proof, but
> he's no idiot, and wants to do what he wants to do.  You can't mass-
> market something like that, though, because the non-technical people who
> make up the "masses" are going to be idiots when it comes to technology,
> because they just want to drive to work, they don't want to fine-tune the
> fuel injection system.
>

I was going to say, not quite idiot proof, but then I thought of one of 
my brothers-in-law. Who is handless but only knackers his computer 
because he downloads every free game he can. So I suppose it is.

Maybe it is age that makes me feel that I can't be bothered keeping up 
with the times but want to stay with something that works the way I know 
it works. And since I don't want all the touch screen junk. I might buy 
an ultra laptop (what a name) and buy a copy of Win7 and install that 
over Win 8.

>> I want to buy a new laptop but I don't want Win 8 with "even your 5 year
>> old can operate it" OS. Nor do I want Linux where I'll have to learn a
>> new OS or not be able to run M$ office, for work compatibility.
>
> So you have to compromise and get the mass-market option.
>

Yes. Doesn't make me a happy bunny, though.

>> I might as well ask here. Does anyone have any recommendations for a
>> light weight laptop that has a reasonable spec to run PovRay and Blender
>> and weighs a lot less the the 3kg (6.6 lb) DTR I have to lug around?
>
> I've been happy with my Dell laptop, but I'm not sure how much it
> weighs.  It's a couple years old - the 17R (N7110 is another number I see
> associated with it), but is pretty speedy (i7 processor) and has plenty
> of memory (8GB, max for this model).
>

It looks good, similar spec to my Toshiba but with a bigger HDD. Still 
it is hefty at > 3 kg. I want something lighter even if it has a lower 
spec. All the travelling that I'm doing atm means my tennis elbow is 
playing up.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:42:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 14/09/2013 9:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 20:52:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
> 
>> See how much I know about cars?  I changed the battery once and was
>> shown how to change the brake pads once, but I'm no expert.  Amy knows
>> a lot more about that sort of stuff - which makes sense, since she grew
>> up in a family that works on cars (her brother teaches auto body repair
>> at the local vocational/technical school where she grew up).
>>
>>
> It was necessity that taught me. Not a love of getting my hands dirty.

I think that was the case for Amy as well.  Family business, everyone 
chips in.

> I was going to say, not quite idiot proof, but then I thought of one of
> my brothers-in-law. Who is handless but only knackers his computer
> because he downloads every free game he can. So I suppose it is.

:)

> Maybe it is age that makes me feel that I can't be bothered keeping up
> with the times but want to stay with something that works the way I know
> it works. And since I don't want all the touch screen junk. I might buy
> an ultra laptop (what a name) and buy a copy of Win7 and install that
> over Win 8.

Well, you just want to use it as a tool - you don't want to be a 
mechanic. :)

>>> I might as well ask here. Does anyone have any recommendations for a
>>> light weight laptop that has a reasonable spec to run PovRay and
>>> Blender and weighs a lot less the the 3kg (6.6 lb) DTR I have to lug
>>> around?
>>
>> I've been happy with my Dell laptop, but I'm not sure how much it
>> weighs.  It's a couple years old - the 17R (N7110 is another number I
>> see associated with it), but is pretty speedy (i7 processor) and has
>> plenty of memory (8GB, max for this model).
>>
>>
> It looks good, similar spec to my Toshiba but with a bigger HDD. Still
> it is hefty at > 3 kg. I want something lighter even if it has a lower
> spec. All the travelling that I'm doing atm means my tennis elbow is
> playing up.

Some of the ultras are supposed to be pretty good - ISTR that Dell has 
something like the Macbook Air now.  I'm actually a little surprised that 
Apple hasn't sued them yet.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 15/09/2013 7:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
.
>
> Well, you just want to use it as a tool - you don't want to be a
> mechanic. :)
>

But the sad thing is, I did want to be a mechanic. Well an electronic, 
mechanic. And I was for many years.
When I started working with computers. You had to enter about a dozen 
instructions in binary (or BCD) into switch registers just to tell it 
that you wanted it to read from a paper tape reader. Then you would load 
an operating system then load the program. Then wind the tape back into 
rolls.
Now it is a washing machine. That does (or mostly not) what I want it to do.



> Some of the ultras are supposed to be pretty good - ISTR that Dell has
> something like the Macbook Air now.

Why is that a standard?
Anyway I will look into it, I don't want to spend a fortune for 
something that will run Blender, I can't see me seriously using Pov on 
it for a while.

> I'm actually a little surprised that
> Apple hasn't sued them yet.
>

They have probably got enough on their plate atm.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 22:09:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 15/09/2013 7:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, you just want to use it as a tool - you don't want to be a
>> mechanic. :)
>>
> But the sad thing is, I did want to be a mechanic. Well an electronic,
> mechanic. And I was for many years.

People change over time, though - obviously.  I may well get to that 
point myself.

> When I started working with computers. You had to enter about a dozen
> instructions in binary (or BCD) into switch registers just to tell it
> that you wanted it to read from a paper tape reader. Then you would load
> an operating system then load the program. Then wind the tape back into
> rolls.
> Now it is a washing machine. That does (or mostly not) what I want it to
> do.

I don't remember those days, but I do remember entering BASIC programs 
from Dragon magazine to generate characters for D&D.  We didn't have a 
cassette drive or disk drive at first, so if I wanted to run the program, 
I had to enter it by hand.  That meant the computer stayed on more than 
it probably needed to be, and on more than one occasion, my parents 
turned it off without realizing that they'd caused a day's worth of data 
entry to be lost.

>> Some of the ultras are supposed to be pretty good - ISTR that Dell has
>> something like the Macbook Air now.
> 
> Why is that a standard?

Because it's small and lightweight, and generally (I hear) has good 
battery life.

> Anyway I will look into it, I don't want to spend a fortune for
> something that will run Blender, I can't see me seriously using Pov on
> it for a while.

That's part of the tradeoff these days, I think - you can have small and 
lightweight, or you can have power.  Granted, the power in the smaller 
systems is increasing. :)

>> I'm actually a little surprised that Apple hasn't sued them yet.
>>
> They have probably got enough on their plate atm.

*snortlaugh* like that ever stopped them. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine,
>> too.
>
> Not any more it's not. ;-)

Especially given that most engines have needed several microchips even 
to start for at least a decade or two.

> I used to service my own cars and bikes. Other than check the fluids all
> I can do with the engine nowadays is check that it is still there. :-)

All cars have a diagnostic port, there is pretty cheap equipment you can 
buy to attach to this and do lots of useful things. I was able to 
diagnose a faulty fuel pressure sensor, replace it and reset the fault 
codes. It cost me almost nothing, whereas the garage wanted it for 3 
days to diagnose (surely $$$).

Engines have got a lot more complicated, but now we have the internet so 
unless you have a *really* exotic car, there is always going to be 
someone somewhere who has done/fixed what you want and documented it.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-09-17 05:51, scott a écrit :
>>> But a microchip is just a tad more complex than a combustion engine,
>>> too.
>>
>> Not any more it's not. ;-)
>
> Especially given that most engines have needed several microchips even
> to start for at least a decade or two.
>
>> I used to service my own cars and bikes. Other than check the fluids all
>> I can do with the engine nowadays is check that it is still there. :-)
>
> All cars have a diagnostic port, there is pretty cheap equipment you can
> buy to attach to this and do lots of useful things. I was able to
> diagnose a faulty fuel pressure sensor, replace it and reset the fault
> codes. It cost me almost nothing, whereas the garage wanted it for 3
> days to diagnose (surely $$$).
>

There's usually also a sequence with your car key that you can do to get 
the "service engine" light to blink error codes.  If you don't have an 
R2 unit handy to interface with the onboard computers.

> Engines have got a lot more complicated, but now we have the internet so
> unless you have a *really* exotic car, there is always going to be
> someone somewhere who has done/fixed what you want and documented it.

Yep.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't see how it's any different to any other modern GUI in terms of
>> graphical capabilities. The icons are much bigger because it's meant for
>> much higher dpi screens and using your fingers rather than a mouse.
>
> And the reduced colour set and the all-caps sans serif text and the
> square button edges?

The buttons seem to me to be full resolution 24bit colour, and I don't 
see how all-caps and square edges are anything to do with graphical 
capability - that's just design decisions.

If you want to see what it would look like with 30-year-old graphics 
capability then take any of the screen-grabs of Win8 from Google image 
search, and convert it to 160x256x3bpp or 640x256x1bpp (the modes the 
BBC had at the time). Then scroll it across your screen at 1fps :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 15/09/2013 10:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 22:09:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>
> People change over time, though - obviously.  I may well get to that
> point myself.
>

You may indeed when new challenges arrive.

>
> I don't remember those days, but I do remember entering BASIC programs
> from Dragon magazine to generate characters for D&D.  We didn't have a
> cassette drive or disk drive at first, so if I wanted to run the program,
> I had to enter it by hand.  That meant the computer stayed on more than
> it probably needed to be, and on more than one occasion, my parents
> turned it off without realizing that they'd caused a day's worth of data
> entry to be lost.
>

Groan!


>>
>> Why is that a standard?
>
> Because it's small and lightweight, and generally (I hear) has good
> battery life.
>

That makes sense.

>> Anyway I will look into it, I don't want to spend a fortune for
>> something that will run Blender, I can't see me seriously using Pov on
>> it for a while.
>
> That's part of the tradeoff these days, I think - you can have small and
> lightweight, or you can have power.  Granted, the power in the smaller
> systems is increasing. :)
>

I know that but I don't want it to be so. :-)
If I keep wishing then maybe...

>>> I'm actually a little surprised that Apple hasn't sued them yet.
>>>
>> They have probably got enough on their plate atm.
>
> *snortlaugh* like that ever stopped them. ;)
>

Lawsuit ping pong.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:11:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> People change over time, though - obviously.  I may well get to that
>> point myself.
>>
> You may indeed when new challenges arrive.

Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:

"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary 
and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's 
invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting 
and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything 
invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

I'm now 43 (as of a couple weeks ago) - I think the ages aren't 
necessarily set in stone, but in principle, this makes sense.  You 
eventually get to the point where keeping up is too much of a bother, and 
things were "always" better "back in the old days". :)

>> I had to enter it by hand.  That meant the computer stayed on more than
>> it probably needed to be, and on more than one occasion, my parents
>> turned it off without realizing that they'd caused a day's worth of
>> data entry to be lost.
>>
> Groan!

One of a couple things my parents did when I was a kid that drove me 
crazy. Another was deciding when the one TV programme I wanted to watch 
that day was on that *that* was the time I needed to be told to go clean 
my room/take out the trash/whatever. 30 or 60 minutes later wasn't good 
enough, it had to be done *right then*.

Before we had a VCR, it was even worse.

>>> Anyway I will look into it, I don't want to spend a fortune for
>>> something that will run Blender, I can't see me seriously using Pov on
>>> it for a while.
>>
>> That's part of the tradeoff these days, I think - you can have small
>> and lightweight, or you can have power.  Granted, the power in the
>> smaller systems is increasing. :)
>>
>>
> I know that but I don't want it to be so. :-)
> If I keep wishing then maybe...

LOL

>>>> I'm actually a little surprised that Apple hasn't sued them yet.
>>>>
>>> They have probably got enough on their plate atm.
>>
>> *snortlaugh* like that ever stopped them. ;)
>>
> Lawsuit ping pong.

Indeed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/09/2013 8:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:11:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>
> Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:
>

Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.

> "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary
> and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's
> invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting
> and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything
> invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
>

It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the 
mustard.

> I'm now 43 (as of a couple weeks ago)

Belated happy birthday.

> - I think the ages aren't
> necessarily set in stone, but in principle, this makes sense.  You
> eventually get to the point where keeping up is too much of a bother, and

Yes, but at midlife?
I've reached the stage where keeping up with domestic computer tech is 
too much bother. I don't think that it is because I'm nearing retirement 
age but that the effort is not worth the return. Especially, when 
changes are done more in the spirit of selling new products rather than 
for innovative functionality.

> things were "always" better "back in the old days". :)
>

I see the smiley. And I hear it often.
It falls into two categories, IMO.
Life was better when I was young, people were better educated, more 
polite and had time for others. Better quality of life etc.
And: Technology is too complicated, things were better when you could 
understand how they worked. Such as a baud rate of 9600, RAM memory 640 
kB. Cars that did not have ABS, seat belts, crumple zones. I cold go on.

I've heard it since I was a kid and if you extrapolate backwards...

>
> One of a couple things my parents did when I was a kid that drove me
> crazy. Another was deciding when the one TV programme I wanted to watch
> that day was on that *that* was the time I needed to be told to go clean
> my room/take out the trash/whatever. 30 or 60 minutes later wasn't good
> enough, it had to be done *right then*.
>
> Before we had a VCR, it was even worse.
>

As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/09/2013 8:10 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:11:47 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 
> 
>> Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:
>>
>>
> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.

:)

Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as 
they went past. :)

>> "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary
>> and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's
>> invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and
>> exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
>> Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order
>> of things."
>>
>>
> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
> mustard.

Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for 
everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of 
sense.

>> I'm now 43 (as of a couple weeks ago)
> 
> Belated happy birthday.

Thanks!

>> - I think the ages aren't necessarily set in stone, but in principle,
>> this makes sense.  You eventually get to the point where keeping up is
>> too much of a bother, and
> 
> Yes, but at midlife?

Well, like I said, it depends on the person.  I know some people who hit 
that "35" point much earlier, and some who hit it much later.  I think 
the point isn't so much the specific values, but that this happens to 
pretty much everyone at some point.

> I've reached the stage where keeping up with domestic computer tech is
> too much bother. I don't think that it is because I'm nearing retirement
> age but that the effort is not worth the return. Especially, when
> changes are done more in the spirit of selling new products rather than
> for innovative functionality.

Another Adams quote applies:

"We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that 
works."

>> things were "always" better "back in the old days". :)
>>
>>
> I see the smiley. And I hear it often.

Yup.

> It falls into two categories, IMO.
> Life was better when I was young, people were better educated, more
> polite and had time for others. Better quality of life etc.
> And: Technology is too complicated, things were better when you could
> understand how they worked. Such as a baud rate of 9600, RAM memory 640
> kB. Cars that did not have ABS, seat belts, crumple zones. I cold go on.

Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays 
by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for example, 
said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when 
they were kids.  But the average American kid back in the 70s (or 
earlier) wasn't exposed to all the world's problems unless they were on a 
very huge scale.  So memories of the time tend to be far more idyllic 
than the actual time. 

> I've heard it since I was a kid and if you extrapolate backwards...

:)

> 
>> One of a couple things my parents did when I was a kid that drove me
>> crazy. Another was deciding when the one TV programme I wanted to watch
>> that day was on that *that* was the time I needed to be told to go
>> clean my room/take out the trash/whatever. 30 or 60 minutes later
>> wasn't good enough, it had to be done *right then*.
>>
>> Before we had a VCR, it was even worse.
>>
>>
> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.

I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is 
pretty well adjusted, too. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2013 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.
>
> :)
>
> Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as
> they went past. :)
>

Woosh! ;-)


>>>
>> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
>> mustard.
>
> Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for
> everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of
> sense.
>

Very few of the people I know are like that.
But I won't argue, for once. :-)


>
>>> - I think the ages aren't necessarily set in stone, but in principle,
>>> this makes sense.  You eventually get to the point where keeping up is
>>> too much of a bother, and
>>
>> Yes, but at midlife?
>
> Well, like I said, it depends on the person.  I know some people who hit
> that "35" point much earlier, and some who hit it much later.  I think
> the point isn't so much the specific values, but that this happens to
> pretty much everyone at some point.
>

I am a fairy and my name is Nuff.

Fairy Nuff. ;-)

>
> Another Adams quote applies:
>
> "We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
> works."
>

True.

>> It falls into two categories, IMO.
>> Life was better when I was young, people were better educated, more
>> polite and had time for others. Better quality of life etc.
>> And: Technology is too complicated, things were better when you could
>> understand how they worked. Such as a baud rate of 9600, RAM memory 640
>> kB. Cars that did not have ABS, seat belts, crumple zones. I cold go on.
>
> Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays
> by idealizing the past as well.

I think that is the crux of the matter.

> I hear this sort of thing, for example,
> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when
> they were kids.

Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could be 
wrong and I was, once before. ;-)

> But the average American kid back in the 70s (or
> earlier) wasn't exposed to all the world's problems unless they were on a
> very huge scale.

For a start most kids don't pay attention to what is going on outside 
their own environment. And I get the feeling that most Americans are 
quite insular, happy to live in their own world. (No offence intended.)

> So memories of the time tend to be far more idyllic
> than the actual time.
>

Indeed, it is only looking back on my childhood, with the eyes of an 
adult who has travelled. That I see I was brought up in a deprived area 
and time. Then The sixties and seventies were upon us. And swinging 
Britain made everything groovy.

>>>
>> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.
>
> I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is
> pretty well adjusted, too. ;)
>

:-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:30:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 22/09/2013 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as
>> they went past. :)
>>
>>
> Woosh! ;-)

Yup.  The quote is actually etched into the glass of the returns desk at 
our local library. :)

>>> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
>>> mustard.
>>
>> Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for
>> everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of
>> sense.
>>
>>
> Very few of the people I know are like that.
> But I won't argue, for once. :-)

Awww, that's no fun. ;)

>>>> - I think the ages aren't necessarily set in stone, but in principle,
>>>> this makes sense.  You eventually get to the point where keeping up
>>>> is too much of a bother, and
>>>
>>> Yes, but at midlife?
>>
>> Well, like I said, it depends on the person.  I know some people who
>> hit that "35" point much earlier, and some who hit it much later.  I
>> think the point isn't so much the specific values, but that this
>> happens to pretty much everyone at some point.
>>
>>
> I am a fairy and my name is Nuff.
> 
> Fairy Nuff. ;-)

:)

>> Another Adams quote applies:
>>
>> "We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff
>> that works."
>>
>>
> True.

Based on that, I can respect (even if I don't agree with) his decision to 
use Macs. ;)

>> I hear this sort of thing, for example,
>> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back
>> when they were kids.
> 
> Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could be
> wrong and I was, once before. ;-)

LOL

>> But the average American kid back in the 70s (or earlier) wasn't
>> exposed to all the world's problems unless they were on a very huge
>> scale.
> 
> For a start most kids don't pay attention to what is going on outside
> their own environment. And I get the feeling that most Americans are
> quite insular, happy to live in their own world. (No offence intended.)

Exactly.  And yeah, no offense taken - I see this with a lot of people I 
interact with over here - the only thing that matters is them, not the 
other people around them.

It's less common amongst liberals, I think, than conservatives.  The 
irony is that many conservatives claim to be Christian, but then do 
things like cut foot stamp programs because they help those "freeloading 
poor people".  Yeah, because living high on the hog when you're poor is 
*so* great.

>> So memories of the time tend to be far more idyllic than the actual
>> time.
>>
>>
> Indeed, it is only looking back on my childhood, with the eyes of an
> adult who has travelled. That I see I was brought up in a deprived area
> and time. Then The sixties and seventies were upon us. And swinging
> Britain made everything groovy.

One of the most eye-opening experiences I had was going to Moscow when I 
was 17.  Seeing that people there were essentially the same as people 
here really colored my worldview about the difference between people and 
politicians/politics.

>>> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.
>>
>> I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is
>> pretty well adjusted, too. ;)
>>
>>
> :-D

I know, a shock. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/09/2013 9:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:30:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 22/09/2013 7:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:18:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pity, he did not have a theory about keeping deadlines.
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Well, he sort of did, but it had to do more with the noise they made as
>>> they went past. :)
>>>
>>>
>> Woosh! ;-)
>
> Yup.  The quote is actually etched into the glass of the returns desk at
> our local library. :)
>
>>>> It sounds like a good theory but I don't really think that it cuts the
>>>> mustard.
>>>
>>> Well, like I said, the ages involved perhaps aren't accurate for
>>> everyone, but for a large number of people, I think this makes a lot of
>>> sense.
>>>
>>>
>> Very few of the people I know are like that.
>> But I won't argue, for once. :-)
>
> Awww, that's no fun. ;)
>

For you maybe. :-)

>>
>> Fairy Nuff. ;-)
>
> :)
>

Up yer chuff.
Oops! did I say that out loud?

>>> Another Adams quote applies:
>>>
>>> "We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff
>>> that works."
>>>
>>>
>> True.
>
> Based on that, I can respect (even if I don't agree with) his decision to
> use Macs. ;)
>

A techy he was not.

(A worker he was not either.)

>>> I hear this sort of thing, for example,
>>> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back
>>> when they were kids.
>>
>> Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could be
>> wrong and I was, once before. ;-)
>
> LOL

I'm quoting from Peanuts.

>

> Exactly.  And yeah, no offense taken - I see this with a lot of people I
> interact with over here - the only thing that matters is them, not the
> other people around them.
>
:-(

> It's less common amongst liberals, I think, than conservatives.  The
> irony is that many conservatives claim to be Christian, but then do
> things like cut foot stamp programs because they help those "freeloading
> poor people".  Yeah, because living high on the hog when you're poor is
> *so* great.
>

Grrr!

We have the likes here too. :-(


>
> One of the most eye-opening experiences I had was going to Moscow when I
> was 17.  Seeing that people there were essentially the same as people
> here really colored my worldview about the difference between people and
> politicians/politics.
>

Yeah, people are people. It's the bloody politicians and religion, in 
fact leaders in general that give us a bad name.

>>>> As long as you didn't repeat their mistakes.
>>>
>>> I made a conscious effort not to.  I'm happy to say that our kid is
>>> pretty well adjusted, too. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> :-D
>
> I know, a shock. :)
>

No, a delight.

This is radio free Stephen, signing off until next weekend. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:09:54 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Very few of the people I know are like that.
>>> But I won't argue, for once. :-)
>>
>> Awww, that's no fun. ;)
>>
>>
> For you maybe. :-)

Well, from my point of view, that's the one that matters. ;)

>>> Fairy Nuff. ;-)
>>
>> :)
>>
>>
> Up yer chuff.
> Oops! did I say that out loud?

I believe you did. :)

>> Based on that, I can respect (even if I don't agree with) his decision
>> to use Macs. ;)
>>
>>
> A techy he was not.

Certainly true, though he was a fan of technology.

> (A worker he was not either.)

:)

>>> Somehow some people think that most people want to hear that. I could
>>> be wrong and I was, once before. ;-)
>>
>> LOL
> 
> I'm quoting from Peanuts.

Interesting, I don't recognise it as Peanuts myself.

>> Exactly.  And yeah, no offense taken - I see this with a lot of people
>> I interact with over here - the only thing that matters is them, not
>> the other people around them.
>>
> :-(

Black Friday is about the best example.

>> It's less common amongst liberals, I think, than conservatives.  The
>> irony is that many conservatives claim to be Christian, but then do
>> things like cut foot stamp programs because they help those
>> "freeloading poor people".  Yeah, because living high on the hog when
>> you're poor is *so* great.
>>
>>
> Grrr!
> 
> We have the likes here too. :-(

As someone who actually tried to collect unemployment (and someone who is 
reportedly pretty smart), I couldn't see how the system could be "gamed" 
the way that is claimed.

Maybe I'm just not devious enough.

>> One of the most eye-opening experiences I had was going to Moscow when
>> I was 17.  Seeing that people there were essentially the same as people
>> here really colored my worldview about the difference between people
>> and politicians/politics.
>>
>>
> Yeah, people are people. It's the bloody politicians and religion, in
> fact leaders in general that give us a bad name.

Yup.

>>> :-D
>>
>> I know, a shock. :)
>>
> No, a delight.

I'll take that, too. :)

> This is radio free Stephen, signing off until next weekend. :-)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523def0c$1@news.povray.org...

> Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:

> "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary
> and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's
> invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting
> and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything
> invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

I agree with the timeline (40 next week), but I have a different 
interpretation. I feel differently about "new" things as my perspective 
increases. I remember being believing in gradeschool that we'd be 
millionaires if we "learned computers." I remember believing in Junior High 
that we'd all be replaced by robots. I remember believing in my early 20s 
that we'd all be working at home by now. I remember feeling that history was 
made up of "before the Internet" and "after the Internet."

... and I hear young people now talking the same way about social networking 
and crowd sourcing. To me, it's the young who feel these things are "against 
the natural order." As a middle-aged person, I see them as very much part of 
the natural order, just more of the same.

I remember asking my 100-year-old great-grandmother, who crossed Texas on a 
covered wagon, what she thought of modern automobiles and flying a spaceship 
to the moon. She shrugged. "People still get up, put on their shoes, and go 
out to work."

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523f3d6e$1@news.povray.org... 

> Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays 
> by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for example, 
> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when 
> they were kids. 

BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging

Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:29:57 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523f3d6e$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind
>> plays by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for
>> example,
>> said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back
>> when they were kids.
> 
> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
> 
> Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

That's not the type of "better" I (or the pundits) am talking about.  
Nor, really, is the "recent" past what's being compared to.  The pundits 
in question (mostly on Fox news, but not exclusively there) are referring 
to the 50's and 60's, when they were kids.

One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food 
related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".

But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about are things they 
claim are going on today that weren't back then (but they were, they just 
weren't aware of them because, as a kid, you don't notice international 
events so much - even when they're covered in school).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:18:53 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523def0c$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Indeed.  Douglas Adams had a theory about that:
> 
>> "Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary
>> and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's
>> invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and
>> exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
>> Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order
>> of things."
> 
> I agree with the timeline (40 next week), but I have a different
> interpretation. I feel differently about "new" things as my perspective
> increases. I remember being believing in gradeschool that we'd be
> millionaires if we "learned computers." I remember believing in Junior
> High that we'd all be replaced by robots. I remember believing in my
> early 20s that we'd all be working at home by now. I remember feeling
> that history was made up of "before the Internet" and "after the
> Internet."

Yep.

> ... and I hear young people now talking the same way about social
> networking and crowd sourcing. To me, it's the young who feel these
> things are "against the natural order." As a middle-aged person, I see
> them as very much part of the natural order, just more of the same.

Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.  The way I look 
at technology is that the same ideas get rehashed over and over again.  
"Social media" today is what the BBS was when we were kids.  The numbers 
of people are much larger (and the various systems were more diverse/
separate back then, excluding FidoNET), but conceptually, it's not that 
much different.

> I remember asking my 100-year-old great-grandmother, who crossed Texas
> on a covered wagon, what she thought of modern automobiles and flying a
> spaceship to the moon. She shrugged. "People still get up, put on their
> shoes, and go out to work."

That's an interesting take - I usually apply it to so-called "hero 
worship" that's popular today.  I have all the respect in the world for, 
let's say, people like Mike Massimino, but at the end of the day, he 
still takes his pants off just like anyone else.  (Well, OK, it's maybe a 
little different in zero-G environments, but you know what I mean)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...

> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".

Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I 
went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child there 
would have been considered overweight when we were kids.

> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about

I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to talk 
radio.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org... 

> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new. 

Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
> 
>> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
>> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".
> 
> Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I
> went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child
> there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.

That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.

But food-related health issues certainly have been around.  Logically, we 
now know things about (for example) fat content, sodium consumption, 
sugars, and so on that we didn't know 30 years ago.

Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too - 
"moderation".  We've certainly gone through "eggs are bad for you," "eggs 
are good for you," back and forths over the last 10-15 years that have 
led me to not really trust any of it beyond moderating intake of 
everything.  Fast food once in a while is OK.  Fast food as a steady 
diet?  Not so much.

>> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about
> 
> I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to talk
> radio.

That's probably a better way to stay sane, certainly. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:40:27 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org...
> 
>> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.
> 
> Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.

I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet, 
Stephen M. ;) ) - it's been a weird day today with the work I'm trying to 
do being superceded by MS Office problems.  Again.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/30/2013 05:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
>>> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".
>>
>> Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I
>> went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child
>> there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.
>
> That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.

I just did an image search for "obesity timeline." I don't have time to 
examine any individual studies, but there seems to be a consensus.

>
> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too -
> "moderation".

I hear that often, but the obesity trend demonstrates that our idea of 
moderate isn't.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:40:27 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.
> >
> > Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.
>
> I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet,
> Stephen M. ;) )

Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <non### [at] nonenone> wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:523f3d6e$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > Both situations are true - but I think it also is a trick the mind plays
> > by idealizing the past as well.  I hear this sort of thing, for example,
> > said by pundits here talking about how much better things were back when
> > they were kids.
>
> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
>
> Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

That is called growing up and putting aside childish things.

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen"  wrote in message 
news:web.524aa68bcafa64a77d8c6e9c0@news.povray.org...

"Shay" <non### [at] nonenone> wrote:
>>
>> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
>>
> >Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.

> That is called growing up and putting aside childish things.

No, *collectively* we were less-childish in the recent past. My growing up 
has little to do with it. My 16-year-old self would have been "too old for 
this shit."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
> >
> >> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact, food
> >> related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old days".
> >
> > Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me. I
> > went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every child
> > there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.
>
> That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.

Have a look at films from the 60's and 70's. There is very seldom a fat child
unless it is to laugh at. And even then you would not think of them as fat
nowadays. :-(

>
> But food-related health issues certainly have been around.  Logically, we
> now know things about (for example) fat content, sodium consumption,
> sugars, and so on that we didn't know 30 years ago.
>
> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too - 
"moderation".

That is my maxim too. Moderation in everything, including moderation.
It is okay (IMO) to go off the rails, once in a while.


> We've certainly gone through "eggs are bad for you," "eggs
> are good for you," back and forths over the last 10-15 years that have
> led me to not really trust any of it beyond moderating intake of
> everything.

"Eggs" have two problems. Dairy food is good for you and dairy food is bad for
you, arguments. And salmonella in the food chain.

> Fast food once in a while is OK.  Fast food as a steady
> diet?  Not so much.
>

Master of the understatement, you are.

> >> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about
> >
> > I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to talk
> > radio.
>
> That's probably a better way to stay sane, certainly. ;)
>

Talk radio turns your brain to mush and television caters for those with an
attention span not much above that of a goldfish.
All IMO, of course.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 06:38:12 -0400, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:40:27 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dde0@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> >> Well, yes, but these "new" things aren't really that new.
>> >
>> > Puzzled by the 'but'. I think we agree completely.
>>
>> I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet,
>> Stephen M. ;) )
> 
> Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)

Of course I did, that's why I warned you off. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:02:15 -0400, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>> > "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> >> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact,
>> >> food related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old
>> >> days".
>> >
>> > Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise
>> > me. I went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago.
>> > Every child there would have been considered overweight when we were
>> > kids.
>>
>> That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.
> 
> Have a look at films from the 60's and 70's. There is very seldom a fat
> child unless it is to laugh at. And even then you would not think of
> them as fat nowadays. :-(

"Fat Albert" is a counterexample.  OK, it was a cartoon, but still.

That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.  Hollywood makes 
intentional choices (most of the time) for reasons.  That they didn't 
show any overweight people (or rarely did) just means that they made that 
choice, not that overweight people didn't exist.

>> But food-related health issues certainly have been around.  Logically,
>> we now know things about (for example) fat content, sodium consumption,
>> sugars, and so on that we didn't know 30 years ago.
>>
>> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too - 
>> "moderation".
> 
> That is my maxim too. Moderation in everything, including moderation.
> It is okay (IMO) to go off the rails, once in a while.

Yep. :)

>> We've certainly gone through "eggs are bad for you," "eggs are good for
>> you," back and forths over the last 10-15 years that have led me to not
>> really trust any of it beyond moderating intake of everything.
> 
> "Eggs" have two problems. Dairy food is good for you and dairy food is
> bad for you, arguments. And salmonella in the food chain.

And better ways of dealing with those problems now than in the past.

>> Fast food once in a while is OK.  Fast food as a steady diet?  Not so
>> much.
>>
>>
> Master of the understatement, you are.

I was looking for an obvious example. ;)

>> >> But the topic the pundits in particular are talking about
>> >
>> > I'll take your word for it. I don't watch television or listen to
>> > talk radio.
>>
>> That's probably a better way to stay sane, certainly. ;)
>>
>>
> Talk radio turns your brain to mush and television caters for those with
> an attention span not much above that of a goldfish.
> All IMO, of course.

The Internet does a lot of that as well, unfortunately.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 05:32:58 -0500, Shay wrote:

> On 09/30/2013 05:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> "Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>>> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact,
>>>> food related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old
>>>> days".
>>>
>>> Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me.
>>> I went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every
>>> child there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.
>>
>> That seems pretty anecdotal to me.  I'd want to see some real data.
> 
> I just did an image search for "obesity timeline." I don't have time to
> examine any individual studies, but there seems to be a consensus.

I'd have to see how those studies were conducted.  But with the increase 
of things like high fructose corn syrup in everything now as a sweetner 
it wouldn't surprise me.

>> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too -
>> "moderation".
> 
> I hear that often, but the obesity trend demonstrates that our idea of
> moderate isn't.

True.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/10/2013 4:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 06:38:12 -0400, Stephen wrote:

>>> I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet,
>>> Stephen M. ;) )
>>
>> Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)
>
> Of course I did, that's why I warned you off. ;)
>
Or gave me a challenge. :-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/10/2013 12:49 PM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Stephen"  wrote in message
> news:web.524aa68bcafa64a77d8c6e9c0@news.povray.org...
>
> "Shay" <non### [at] nonenone> wrote:
>>>
>>> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
>>>
>> >Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.
>
>> That is called growing up and putting aside childish things.
>
> No, *collectively* we were less-childish in the recent past. My growing
> up has little to do with it. My 16-year-old self would have been "too
> old for this shit."

Yes, I think that you are right. We grew up earlier then, more 
responsibilities.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 01/10/2013 5:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> "Fat Albert" is a counterexample.  OK, it was a cartoon, but still.
>

This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over 
weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over indulgence. 
When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash diet.

> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.

It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P

> Hollywood makes intentional choices (most of the time) for reasons.  That they
didn't
> show any overweight people (or rarely did) just means that they made that
> choice, not that overweight people didn't exist.

The choice being that it was not acceptable to show fat (or unattractive 
people) as being normal.
It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states. 
That gap is closing rapidly.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:19:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/10/2013 4:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 06:38:12 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> 
>>>> I do as well.  And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too
>>>> (quiet,
>>>> Stephen M. ;) )
>>>
>>> Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)
>>
>> Of course I did, that's why I warned you off. ;)
>>
> Or gave me a challenge. :-)

Would I do that? :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/10/2013 5:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "Fat Albert" is a counterexample.  OK, it was a cartoon, but still.
>>
>>
> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over indulgence.
> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
> diet.

Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but 
the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.

The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough to 
mind their own business.  Many people feel the need to comment - directly 
- to people they don't know about their weight.

>> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.
> 
> It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P

LOL

>> Hollywood makes intentional choices (most of the time) for reasons. 
>> That they didn't show any overweight people (or rarely did) just means
>> that they made that choice, not that overweight people didn't exist.
> 
> The choice being that it was not acceptable to show fat (or unattractive
> people) as being normal.

Except that in many cases, they /are/ normal.  It's not really for others 
to judge - just like people who get angry at those who have no *apparent* 
disability parking in handicapped spaces.  We don't get to ask them for 
their whole health history to determine if they meet our expectations for 
someone who should or shouldn't have one of the mirror hangers that lets 
them park there.

As much as we here in America want health care decisions to be between 
doctor and patient, our current system has insurance companies there, and 
a large proportion want to stick their noses in others' medical business.

> It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states.
> That gap is closing rapidly.

Perhaps so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05/10/2013 5:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
>> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over indulgence.
>> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
>> diet.
>
> Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but
> the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.
>

Indeed it is. I had an uncle who had something wrong with him. He was 
small, even for Glasgow, and rotund. Which is the nicest way I can say 
it. It made his life a misery. He did live to a ripe old age, though. 
And my mother and brother were/are on constant diets.
I hope that you don't think I was being personal.

> The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough to
> mind their own business.  Many people feel the need to comment - directly
> - to people they don't know about their weight.
>
>>> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.
>>
>> It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P
>
> LOL
>

I win. :-P

>> The choice being that it was not acceptable to show fat (or unattractive
>> people) as being normal.
>
> Except that in many cases, they /are/ normal.  It's not really for others
> to judge -

Yes and yes.

> just like people who get angry at those who have no *apparent*
> disability parking in handicapped spaces.  We don't get to ask them for
> their whole health history to determine if they meet our expectations for
> someone who should or shouldn't have one of the mirror hangers that lets
> them park there.
>

A couple of years ago, we had a spate of forged disability stickers, 
going around. And there was a lot of hard stares going on. It would only 
be a very boorish person that would ask. Having said that, there has 
been an increase in road rage. And a man was killed, recently over a 
parking space at a supermarket. But then when things like that make the 
headlines. It must be rare.


> As much as we here in America want health care decisions to be between
> doctor and patient, our current system has insurance companies there, and
> a large proportion want to stick their noses in others' medical business.
>

I am reading the news stories about obamacare and I'm thinking that 
there must be a lot of evil selfish people over there.
But I know what happens when a socialist says anything on the internet. ;-)

>> It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states.
>> That gap is closing rapidly.
>
> Perhaps so.
>

I think so. Kids and much older are aping American youth culture. Just 
like in the 50's but not James Dean or Marlon Brando.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/10/2013 5:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >Or gave me a challenge.:-)
> Would I do that?:)

I could give you one at TC-RTC when I get my act together after this month.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:25:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/10/2013 5:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >Or gave me a challenge.:-)
>> Would I do that?:)
> 
> I could give you one at TC-RTC when I get my act together after this
> month.

:)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:23:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/10/2013 5:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 
>>> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
>>> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over
>>> indulgence.
>>> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
>>> diet.
>>
>> Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but
>> the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.
>>
>>
> Indeed it is. I had an uncle who had something wrong with him. He was
> small, even for Glasgow, and rotund. Which is the nicest way I can say
> it. It made his life a misery. He did live to a ripe old age, though.
> And my mother and brother were/are on constant diets.
> I hope that you don't think I was being personal.

Oh, no, I didn't think you were being personal at all

>> The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough
>> to mind their own business.  Many people feel the need to comment -
>> directly - to people they don't know about their weight.
>>
>>>> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.
>>>
>>> It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P
>>
>> LOL
>>
>>
> I win. :-P

D*mn you, I'll get you next time. ;)

>> just like people who get angry at those who have no *apparent*
>> disability parking in handicapped spaces.  We don't get to ask them for
>> their whole health history to determine if they meet our expectations
>> for someone who should or shouldn't have one of the mirror hangers that
>> lets them park there.
>>
>>
> A couple of years ago, we had a spate of forged disability stickers,
> going around. And there was a lot of hard stares going on. It would only
> be a very boorish person that would ask. Having said that, there has
> been an increase in road rage. And a man was killed, recently over a
> parking space at a supermarket. But then when things like that make the
> headlines. It must be rare.

It probably is - headlines are intended to be sensational, not to inform.

When I broke my leg in the mid 90's, I was given a handicapped tag (a 
temporary one).  It amazed me how many people parked in the spaces who 
didn't appear to have a need - but there are, of course, plenty of hidden 
causes, to - extreme asthma comes to mind, and that's sadly all too 
common here in Utah - because we often have such poor air quality, and 
the altitude doesn't help.

>> As much as we here in America want health care decisions to be between
>> doctor and patient, our current system has insurance companies there,
>> and a large proportion want to stick their noses in others' medical
>> business.
>>
>>
> I am reading the news stories about obamacare and I'm thinking that
> there must be a lot of evil selfish people over there.
> But I know what happens when a socialist says anything on the internet.
> ;-)

It really seems there *are* a lot of selfish people here.  The really odd 
thing (to me, anyways) is that the most selfish claim to be following a 
guy allegedly from about 2,000 years ago who taught such things as caring 
for the sick and the poor.  That was, in fact, one of the core lessons 
taught.

>>> It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states.
>>> That gap is closing rapidly.
>>
>> Perhaps so.
>>
>>
> I think so. Kids and much older are aping American youth culture. Just
> like in the 50's but not James Dean or Marlon Brando.

Arguably, we don't have "football hooligans" over here, nor have we (yet) 
had riots like the one in London a year or two ago.  Well, at least not 
*recently*.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/10/2013 12:24 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:23:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>
> Oh, no, I didn't think you were being personal at all
>

Good.


>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>>
>> I win. :-P
>
> D*mn you, I'll get you next time. ;)
>

I am sure that you will get your chance. :-)


>>>
>> A couple of years ago, we had a spate of forged disability stickers,
>> going around. And there was a lot of hard stares going on. It would only
>> be a very boorish person that would ask. Having said that, there has
>> been an increase in road rage. And a man was killed, recently over a
>> parking space at a supermarket. But then when things like that make the
>> headlines. It must be rare.
>
> It probably is - headlines are intended to be sensational, not to inform.
>

True.

> When I broke my leg in the mid 90's, I was given a handicapped tag (a
> temporary one).  It amazed me how many people parked in the spaces who
> didn't appear to have a need

AFAIK we only give disabled stickers (handicapped has dropped out of 
use) to permanently disabled people. My wife qualifies because of her 
sight and I could use it to drive her places. But she has never applied 
for one because she is mobile and and can walk. (It seems strange to 
think of a partially sighted who cannot drive, getting a parking sticker.)

> - but there are, of course, plenty of hidden
> causes, to - extreme asthma comes to mind, and that's sadly all too
> common here in Utah -

Well here is another "no data" opinion. :-)
I think that the increase in allergies, hay fever, asthma etc. Could be 
due to the amount of processed food, we eat.
Discus. ;-)

> because we often have such poor air quality, and
> the altitude doesn't help.
>

I did not know about the air quality, the altitude, yes.



>>>
>> I am reading the news stories about obamacare and I'm thinking that
>> there must be a lot of evil selfish people over there.
>> But I know what happens when a socialist says anything on the internet.
>> ;-)
>
> It really seems there *are* a lot of selfish people here.  The really odd
> thing (to me, anyways) is that the most selfish claim to be following a
> guy allegedly from about 2,000 years ago who taught such things as caring
> for the sick and the poor.  That was, in fact, one of the core lessons
> taught.
>

Taught but not learnt.
It is funny how they pick and chose which parts of the bible they want 
to believe. And how it is mostly the old testament, they chose.
It would make you boak. Funny how the Scots have a lot of words for 
unpleasant things. :-)


>> I think so. Kids and much older are aping American youth culture. Just
>> like in the 50's but not James Dean or Marlon Brando.
>
> Arguably, we don't have "football hooligans" over here, nor have we (yet)
> had riots like the one in London a year or two ago.  Well, at least not
> *recently*.

Tradition, really.
The riots are sometimes the only way to get the politician's attention.
Hell mend the lot of them!

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message