Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW - crosswords are something I hate, 
> because they, frankly, often reference what, for anyone that doesn't do 
> crosswords, are often obscure, or, among the general public, uncommon, 
> references, when/if they don't just stuff something in that involves 
> celebrities, or some other obscura, which no one, other than people 
> obsessed with crosswords, or "popular culture" would give a damn about.

Your use of punctuation is beautiful to watch.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/17/2014 1:31 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 16/01/2014 22:47, FractRacer a écrit :
>>>
>> What about the HQ (human quotient)? The ability to live with others.
>
>
> Herd Quotient would be that ability.
>
> The only Human Quotient would be related to War and kill, many tests
> done and in progress in various area of the worlds. Not a club I want to
> be part of.
>
Actually, there is some recent "rethinking" on primitive societies, 
which have called the idea that violence and war "must be" human traits 
into question. The same argument has been made against, ironically, Jane 
Goodall's "studies" on chimpanzees. Its been argued that group against 
group conflict, and even "internal" conflict, it heavily dependent and 
availability of resources, and that, to better study chimpanzees, 
Goodall introduced a hard to get at, limited, but highly valuable, to a 
chimp, commodity, which all of the groups needed to compete with, to get 
at. In other words, he conclusions where biased by, however 
unintentionally, introducing the catalyst for wide spread aggression, 
and conflict. A similar argument has been made against what is 
considered to be "definitive" work on hunter-gatherer societies, but the 
leading expert in the field. The two problems being - 1. He didn't study 
true hunter gatherers, but rather fringe groups, which tended to have 
fixed locations, and some level of agriculture, and thus a reason to 
derive concepts like "personal property", which extended to the land on 
which their hut sat, and the food they grew, etc. 2. In at least one 
case, lacking modern genetic testing, but wanting to know the details of 
those genetic relationships between people in the local tribe, and 
neighbors, he broke tribal taboo, by seeking out people that disliked 
each other, and convincing them to reveal the information, resulting in 
the appearance of large conflicts, as a result of those breaches. He 
then recorded, as "probably normal" the resulting bloodshed. The other 
researcher, who continued studying them for some time after, and noting 
the disappearance of such conflict, and no reappearance of it, once the 
original left, noted that the tribes, supposedly, now consider the word 
"anthropologist" to mean, "A creature with perverse and unnatural 
tendencies", I think it was.

> Human: probably the only living animal that can kill without the
> need/justfication to eat its prey. Contamination to nearby animals, like
> dogs, has been observed on specific individuals.
>
Uh, no. Starting with cats, this just isn't the case. A common fallacy 
maybe, but the only reason most animals likely do not do this is purely 
because the day to day necessity of finding enough food, in general, 
outweighs any tendency they might otherwise have to play with said food. 
But, take away that necessity, and most of them will exhibit some level 
of such play as well. But, it makes for a nice story, for people to 
explain why its somehow "natural" for humans to do this sort of thing, 
and not cultural, and thus, "can't be fixed". So much stupid shit we do, 
its ridiculous, falls into that, or the other, "Its gotten to big to 
solve, so lets not bother trying.", categories of apathy and lazy 
disregard for change. Many of them are such strong tropes, in fact, that 
people fall into them, even when they should, or think they do, know better.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2014 3:02 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2014 11:28 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 15/01/14 23:07, andrel wrote:
>>> (it is one of the
>>> reasons for the 'her' in my sig)
>>>
>>>      Andrel
>>>
>>
>> I missed that.
>>
>> (Note to self: read the sig properly. It tells you a lot about the
>> person)
>>
>
> Does it?
> What did Patrick's old Sig say?
> Other that he did not like Windows?
> Do you remember the one I'm talking about?
> It went on for pages in the form of a snipit of code.
>
>
It was like 3-4 lines, and, at the bloody time, when Vista and a lot of 
other mad things where being shipped by MS, was a pretty dang good match 
for how the bloody OS worked. They have gotten better. At least in the 
sense that I no only have to worry about "my" mistakes breaking 
something, usually, not having it broken, from the first install.

I haven't found a particular need for a sig since, but, right now, if I 
was going for one, it would probably be about Second Life. Something 
along the lines of, "How to make a virtual world - invent a language no 
one else uses, and doesn't support half the stuff Apple BASIC could do, 
then tack on broken physics, broken weather, broken build tools, etc., 
and a list of excuses why none of these things will ever be fixed." Or, 
something. If I opted for one involving "computers". Otherwise, I am 
sure there are some quotes I could dig up, of one sort or another. What 
sort of "sig" would F-ing impress you?

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 01:39, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> Actually, there is some recent "rethinking" on primitive societies,
> which have called the idea that violence and war "must be" human traits
> into question.

This reminds me, I heard that one of the first high cultures - the Indus 
valley culture - didn't seem to have known any weapons of war.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/01/2014 23:54, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW - crosswords are something I hate,
>> because they, frankly, often reference what, for anyone that doesn't do
>> crosswords, are often obscure, or, among the general public, uncommon,
>> references, when/if they don't just stuff something in that involves
>> celebrities, or some other obscura, which no one, other than people
>> obsessed with crosswords, or "popular culture" would give a damn about.
>
> Your use of punctuation is beautiful to watch.
>

Nice one, Warp.

John

Post a reply to this message

On 19/01/2014 12:53 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

I wondered if you would bite. :-P

It was meant as a gentle dig not an attack. You know, a light punch on 
the arm. Sort o' thing.

> t was like 3-4 lines,

If you say so. ;-)

> and, at the bloody time, when Vista and a lot of
> other mad things where being shipped by MS, was a pretty dang good match
> for how the bloody OS worked.

Yes I give you that and I found it amusing and clever. I really did.
You kept it a bit too long, I think.
I will now pronounce a rule (I bet it has been said before).

Stevie's Rule of Sig Etiquette:

*The life of a Sig should be inversely proportional to the length of the 
Sig.*


> They have gotten better. At least in the
> sense that I no only have to worry about "my" mistakes breaking
> something, usually, not having it broken, from the first install.
>

There are a lot of annoyances, true.
I think of it as the price you pay for affordable software and hardware, 
relatively speaking.

> I haven't found a particular need for a sig since, but, right now, if I
> was going for one, it would probably be about Second Life. Something
> along the lines of, "How to make a virtual world - invent a language no
> one else uses, and doesn't support half the stuff Apple BASIC could do,
> then tack on broken physics, broken weather, broken build tools, etc.,
> and a list of excuses why none of these things will ever be fixed." Or,
> something. If I opted for one involving "computers". Otherwise, I am
> sure there are some quotes I could dig up, of one sort or another. What
> sort of "sig" would F-ing impress you?

None. I don't see what is to be impressed about.
But I will give you one for your consideration.

I heard this with my own ears.
When I used to work for a living. I heard an electrician report on a 
pump he had been working on.
"The fucking fucker's fucking fucked."
Not one that I would use myself but. It may have it's day in the sun, 
one day.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 3:23 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 18/01/2014 23:54, Warp wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> BTW - crosswords are something I hate,
>>> because they, frankly, often reference what, for anyone that doesn't do
>>> crosswords, are often obscure, or, among the general public, uncommon,
>>> references, when/if they don't just stuff something in that involves
>>> celebrities, or some other obscura, which no one, other than people
>>> obsessed with crosswords, or "popular culture" would give a damn about.
>>
>> Your use of punctuation is beautiful to watch.
>>
>
> Nice one, Warp.
>
> John
Who gives a frak about that. Oh, ever so sorry. Which centuries 
punctuation would you like? How about spelling? What does it bloody 
matter, other than that some people insist on being purists, instead of 
just paying attention to the bloody content.

Also.. For someone that can't a) hit send right, and b) realize this, 
when someone replies to them "out of thread" (hint, there is no, "Put my 
reply back in the right place, unlike the email I just got.", button). 
Well...

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 3:49 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/01/2014 12:53 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> I wondered if you would bite. :-P
>
> It was meant as a gentle dig not an attack. You know, a light punch on
> the arm. Sort o' thing.
>
>> t was like 3-4 lines,
>
> If you say so. ;-)
>
>> and, at the bloody time, when Vista and a lot of
>> other mad things where being shipped by MS, was a pretty dang good match
>> for how the bloody OS worked.
>
> Yes I give you that and I found it amusing and clever. I really did.
> You kept it a bit too long, I think.
> I will now pronounce a rule (I bet it has been said before).
>
Ok, maybe 5 lines. But, to get the thing so it looked like code, at all, 
and not something from a "short code competition", which.. kind of 
doesn't work in many languages...

> Stevie's Rule of Sig Etiquette:
>
> *The life of a Sig should be inversely proportional to the length of the
> Sig.*
>
Hmm. True. Think I will go with a Vimes quote, since, right now politics 
are really pissing me off. Wish I could do a reinstall of that shit. Or 
is this too long? ;)

----
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 19/01/2014 4:58 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ok, maybe 5 lines. But, to get the thing so it looked like code, at all,
> and not something from a "short code competition", which.. kind of
> doesn't work in many languages...
>

It worked and the boy done good.

>> Stevie's Rule of Sig Etiquette:
>>
>> *The life of a Sig should be inversely proportional to the length of the
>> Sig.*
>>
> Hmm. True. Think I will go with a Vimes quote, since, right now politics
> are really pissing me off.

I've given up. They all sicken me.

> Wish I could do a reinstall of that shit.

Interesting! Which particular shite (excuse me if I use a more 
traditional spelling, I am having trouble catching up with the century 
of the Earwig) do you mean, or is that your new Sig?

> Or is this too long? ;)
>

It is not the length, as they say. It is what you do with it. :-)

> ----
> Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
> different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
> this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Been there, done that and some idiots are still hanging on. :-)

There is a lot of truth in Sir Terry's writings.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 17:49, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

>>> Your use of punctuation is beautiful to watch.
>>>
>>
>> Nice one, Warp.
>>
>> John
> Who gives a frak about that. Oh, ever so sorry. Which centuries
> punctuation would you like? How about spelling? What does it bloody
> matter, other than that some people insist on being purists, instead of
> just paying attention to the bloody content.

Well, I for one do. Seriously, Patrick, your grammar tends to be so 
convoluted that it is frequently difficult - and sometimes impossible - 
for me to follow.

This isn't about purism. It's ok to be lax about punctuation and grammar 
if it doesn't hamper communication. But in your case it seriously does.

Feel free to not give a bloody frak about punctuation and grammar if you 
don't give a bloody frak about whether people actually give a bloody 
frak about reading your bloody postings. But then I wonder why you even 
give a bloody frak about bloody posting them in the first place.

Post a reply to this message