>> ?? I thought all animals made choices? Even a single logic gate is
>> capable of making a choice.
> A logic gate know why it make a choice?

How do you want to define "knowing" why it made a choice? Because it 
can't talk to you or write to you to explain itself? How about if it 
spoke a simple message like "I chose action X because A and B were both 
positive", would that count as knowing why it made the choice?

> Human know about his choice. It
> is what I want to say.

Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you 
train a dog to do certain things?

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 2:19 PM, scott wrote:
>> A logic gate know why it make a choice?
>
> How do you want to define "knowing" why it made a choice?

It must be some sort of intelligent design. ;-)

> Because it
> can't talk to you or write to you to explain itself? How about if it
> spoke a simple message like "I chose action X because A and B were both
> positive", would that count as knowing why it made the choice?
>
>> Human know about his choice. It
>> is what I want to say.
>
> Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you
> train a dog to do certain things?

And if they have done something wrong.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 17/01/2014 15:47, Stephen a écrit :
> On 17/01/2014 2:19 PM, scott wrote:
>>> A logic gate know why it make a choice?
>>
>> How do you want to define "knowing" why it made a choice?
>
> It must be some sort of intelligent design. ;-)
>
>> Because it
>> can't talk to you or write to you to explain itself? How about if it
>> spoke a simple message like "I chose action X because A and B were both
>> positive", would that count as knowing why it made the choice?
>>
A logic gate isn't intelligent, even if a message like "I chose action X 
because A and B were both positive" is emit, the gate can't explain the 
words "positive" or "A"...
Can we says the machine are intelligent?
>>> Human know about his choice. It
>>> is what I want to say.
>>
>> Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you
>> train a dog to do certain things?
>
> And if they have done something wrong.
>
Yes, Human know if he make wrong action, waht about animals? Good or 
evil are humans concepts, not animals, not machines.
I think humans are the only creatures able to really choose. Some 
"educated" animals can also choose, but are they able to say waht is 
good or bad?

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 3:10 PM, FractRacer wrote:
> Le 17/01/2014 15:47, Stephen a écrit :

> A logic gate isn't intelligent, even if a message like "I chose action X
> because A and B were both positive" is emit, the gate can't explain the
> words "positive" or "A"...
> Can we says the machine are intelligent?

Again, what do we mean by intelligence? I cannot answer until I know 
what you understand the meaning is.
And then we would probably argue over if for so long. We would have 
forgotten what the question was. :-)

>>>> Human know about his choice. It
>>>> is what I want to say.
>>>
>>> Surely other animals know about their choices too? How about when you
>>> train a dog to do certain things?
>>
>> And if they have done something wrong.
>>
> Yes, Human know if he make wrong action, waht about animals? Good or
> evil are humans concepts, not animals, not machines.
> I think humans are the only creatures able to really choose. Some
> "educated" animals can also choose, but are they able to say waht is
> good or bad?
>

It was animals I was talking about. I was thinking about dogs in particular.



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 3:30 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Can we says the machine are intelligent?
>
> Again, what do we mean by intelligence?

To give you a quick answer. No, not at the moment.
But that is not to say that they never will be. IMO

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> A logic gate isn't intelligent, even if a message like "I chose action X
> because A and B were both positive" is emit, the gate can't explain the
> words "positive" or "A"...

With a few more logic gates it could look up the definition on wikipedia 
and read it out to you. An animal can't explain any words though. Which 
is more intelligent?

> I think humans are the only creatures able to really choose.

Your brain gets inputs and stores them, and then when it is required to 
make a decision it utilises the past inputs to make a decision. If that 
process can be called "choosing", then it seems to me like other animals 
and machines can also "choose". What's the difference?

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.01.2014 09:31, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> 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.

That's actually nonsense, arising from some kind of "inverse 
human-centric" mindset. Some examples:

When male lions defeat others to take over their harem, they tend to try 
and kill any cubs the females are currently raising. (This seems to be a 
common trend in other felines as well, except that males only rarely 
come across cubs.)

During the "salmon season", Bears are know to kill many more salmons 
than they can possibly eat, devouring only the most tasty parts and 
leaving the rest of the cadavers to rot.

Orcas have been observed in what appear to be "killing games" with seals.

In plenty of species, rival males sometimes fight to the death.

In some spider species, females tend to kill the male they mate with.


(Not to mention the countless species that, when aggravated, will try to 
kill whatever they deem a threat to their young.)


I suspect the list could be continued with plenty more examples if we 
only dared to look more carefully at the habits of other creatures.

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.01.2014 16:10, schrieb FractRacer:

> Yes, Human know if he make wrong action, waht about animals? Good or
> evil are humans concepts, not animals, not machines.
> I think humans are the only creatures able to really choose. Some
> "educated" animals can also choose, but are they able to say waht is
> good or bad?

Are /you/ able to say what is good or bad? If so, tell me.


Kitten do learn what is good or bad, by interacting with their siblings 
and their mother. Good := behaviour provoking positive feedback, evil := 
behaviour provoking negative feedback.

For instance, kitten learn not to play too rough because this will cause 
the siblings to abort the game.

This way, some kitten will learn to actually /be/ good, while others 
will learn to not get /caught/ when being evil.


No difference there to humans. We, too, unconsciously follow the very 
same underlying definition of good and evil, the details of which we 
have learned during childhood, in the very same manner.

Note that as a consequence there is no such thing as a universal concept 
of good and evil; each individual /inevitably/ has its own unique 
concept thereof, shaped by the family, society and culture he was 
brought up in.

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.01.2014 11:23, schrieb scott:

> I don't know much about how the old system worked in the UK, but I
> assume if you couldn't keep up or were obviously too bright you switched
> schools (eg you had a bad day or a fluke for the entry exam)? After all
> this kind of system seems to work ok in other countries (eg Germany),
> seems to me like the implementation details were just wrong here.

There are tendencies in Germany to try and get rid of that system. Not 
sure I approve of that.

Post a reply to this message

On 17/01/2014 10:23 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Not if the separation was a totally different school rather than just
>>> different classes.
>>
>> Didn't the UK try that already? Didn't that lead to a generation of
>> people being labelled according to which type of school they got sent
>> to, rather than anything they actually achieved while there?
>
> And how is that any different than the labelling of people today based
> on which university they went to rather than what they actually
> achieved? And what is the problem with that (assuming they passed the
> course)?

I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody 
seems to care much where you got it. (Unless it was somewhere really 
famous like Oxford or Cambridge. But that's because almost nobody goes 
there...)

By the time you reach adulthood, you have presumably given up on calling 
people names because they're "teacher's pet". Question is, how do we get 
younger children to do that...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:30:58 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody
> seems to care much where you got it.

As long as it's from an accredited institution.

Often times, they don't even care what it's in.  That you got it is 
what's important to a lot of HR people.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody
>> seems to care much where you got it.
>
> As long as it's from an accredited institution.
>
> Often times, they don't even care what it's in.  That you got it is
> what's important to a lot of HR people.

Seems most *employers* don't really give a fig what qualifications 
you've got - they just want experience.

Then again, given the number of people we've interviewed with "20 years 
of development experience" who can't work out how to perform trivial 
programming tasks like deciding whether a variable is negative or positive.

(Our office favourite is the guy who replied to one question with "oh, 
I'm not sure how you'd do that - I haven't used strings for a while".)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:16:23 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody
>>> seems to care much where you got it.
>>
>> As long as it's from an accredited institution.
>>
>> Often times, they don't even care what it's in.  That you got it is
>> what's important to a lot of HR people.
> 
> Seems most *employers* don't really give a fig what qualifications
> you've got - they just want experience.

But as a gate to that experience, they want a degree.  At least here in 
the US.

I've been self-employed now for nearly 3 years.  In the field I was 
working in for nearly a decade before I was laid off, I was recognized by 
peers as having a firm grasp on the concepts and ideas - and seen inside 
my employer as a leader with expertise.

After the layoff, I applied at companies in that particular field 
(technical certification program management), and with at least one, my 
lack of a degree was cited as a *specific* issue they'd have with hiring 
me.  I didn't even get an interview.

My experience didn't even matter in that instance.

> Then again, given the number of people we've interviewed with "20 years
> of development experience" who can't work out how to perform trivial
> programming tasks like deciding whether a variable is negative or
> positive.
> 
> (Our office favourite is the guy who replied to one question with "oh,
> I'm not sure how you'd do that - I haven't used strings for a while".)

LOL

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Le 17/01/2014 18:12, clipka a écrit :
> Am 17.01.2014 16:10, schrieb FractRacer:
>
>> Yes, Human know if he make wrong action, waht about animals? Good or
>> evil are humans concepts, not animals, not machines.
>> I think humans are the only creatures able to really choose. Some
>> "educated" animals can also choose, but are they able to say waht is
>> good or bad?
>
> Are /you/ able to say what is good or bad? If so, tell me.
>
When I say good or bad, I don't set or defined rules, I just think 
humans can have ethics - no matter what here. Yes, this ethics are 
learned, but we can also think otherwise - we can question our 
education, we can build new rules.
Human is able of abstract

> Kitten do learn what is good or bad, by interacting with their siblings
> and their mother. Good := behaviour provoking positive feedback, evil :=
> behaviour provoking negative feedback.
>
> For instance, kitten learn not to play too rough because this will cause
> the siblings to abort the game.
>
> This way, some kitten will learn to actually /be/ good, while others
> will learn to not get /caught/ when being evil.
>

But kitten can't name his act. If kitten is a male, when it is 
fully-grown it can kill some others kittens to have a chance to 
copulate. This behavior, based on instinct, is normal in animals world; 
for the humans it is reprehensible.

> No difference there to humans. We, too, unconsciously follow the very
> same underlying definition of good and evil, the details of which we
> have learned during childhood, in the very same manner.
>
Humans are considered responsible of their acts, not animals.

> Note that as a consequence there is no such thing as a universal concept
> of good and evil; each individual /inevitably/ has its own unique
> concept thereof, shaped by the family, society and culture he was
> brought up in.
>
I agreed, when I spoke about good and evil, I just refer to a conceptual 
thing.
But I think humans are not  - in general - focused on evil, I think 
mutual aid is a instinctive quality (out of the good-evil concepts - 
this concepts are relatively recent in the human history.)


---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.01.2014 18:47, schrieb FractRacer:

>> Kitten do learn what is good or bad, by interacting with their siblings
>> and their mother. Good := behaviour provoking positive feedback, evil :=
>> behaviour provoking negative feedback.
>>
>> For instance, kitten learn not to play too rough because this will cause
>> the siblings to abort the game.
>>
>> This way, some kitten will learn to actually /be/ good, while others
>> will learn to not get /caught/ when being evil.
>
> But kitten can't name his act.

Well, they can't talk, but they /are/ aware of whether they're behaving 
"evil". Just watch a domestic cat that you have caught stealing food 
from the table or some such.


> If kitten is a male, when it is
> fully-grown it can kill some others kittens to have a chance to
> copulate. This behavior, based on instinct, is normal in animals world;

That's because although kittens learn that /playing/ rough is evil, 
there is a biological /necessity/ for /fighting/ rough. (In the wild, a 
male cat that doesn't will never ever reproduce, and a female cat that 
doesn't will not be able to secure a sufficient supply of food).

Note that we can only observe the /behaviour/ of the cat, not what 
/thoughts/, /emotions/ or /instincts/ are driving this behaviour. Just 
because the cat acts like it doesn't consider its acts evil doesn't 
necessarily mean it really doesn't. It may well be that a young male cat 
/will/ hesitate to seriously attack another male cat, but that in the 
end its instincts are simply stronger - because in the wild that's how 
it must be.


> for the humans it is reprehensible.

Quote you from a few posts ago:

"But human is the only species which can make a choice (ex: kill or 
not). Unfortunately, the choice made is often the wrong (kill). Humans 
can live in peace if they want, why it is not the case?"

Maybe it is testimony that our ability to make an educated choice is 
overestimated, and that we, too, just like cats, are subject to 
instincts that may overwhelm us?

Post a reply to this message

On 18-1-2014 19:17, clipka wrote:
> Am 18.01.2014 18:47, schrieb FractRacer:
>

>>> This way, some kitten will learn to actually /be/ good, while others
>>> will learn to not get /caught/ when being evil.
>>
>> But kitten can't name his act.
>
> Well, they can't talk, but they /are/ aware of whether they're behaving
> "evil". Just watch a domestic cat that you have caught stealing food
> from the table or some such.

obligatory cheezburger reference: http://cheezburger.com/55780097


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Le 18/01/2014 19:17, clipka a écrit :
> Am 18.01.2014 18:47, schrieb FractRacer:
>
>
> Well, they can't talk, but they /are/ aware of whether they're behaving
> "evil". Just watch a domestic cat that you have caught stealing food
> from the table or some such.

Yes, but the cat can rob again another piece of food, we just try to 
make his education based on our life. The cat seems playing whis us.

>
>> for the humans it is reprehensible.
>
> Quote you from a few posts ago:
>
> "But human is the only species which can make a choice (ex: kill or
> not). Unfortunately, the choice made is often the wrong (kill). Humans
> can live in peace if they want, why it is not the case?"
>
> Maybe it is testimony that our ability to make an educated choice is
> overestimated, and that we, too, just like cats, are subject to
> instincts that may overwhelm us?
>
Maybe our education choice is overestimated, or maybe others 
/educationals/ concepts must be take into consideration, I think of all 
ouside influences.
I don't believe that a education made in the meaning of respect of life 
and others people can be break easily. The education must learn us to 
control our instincts. It is here I placed the difference between human 
and others animals, we can control our instincts, we are social animals. 
But sometimes some humans won't respect the implicit rules. Why? Why 
this people acts against their peers? Bad education? Bad models? 
Psychological disorders?

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la
protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com

Post a reply to this message

On 1/15/2014 8:21 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Oh dear, Patrick. You seem to have become obsessed with justifying your
> original comment by descending to the level of the bullies.
> If you had read my original post post properly, you would have noticed
> my comment about joining Thick As A Brick.
>
Yeah, I had. And, part of being "thick as a brick" for such groups is 
presuming that mostly self selected people, taking special tests, which 
they don't let anyone outside the group verify as being anything but 
another silly, and useless IQ test, but **assert** must work, because, 
its just not possible, unlike everyone else that believes in such tests, 
that their own might have the same bloody flaws...

Kind of reminds me of a recent article, on the subject of intelligence, 
talking about tracking methods used by certain "primitives", or rather, 
by those attempting to maintain their methods, while having other 
alternative they didn't before. After years of studying them the author 
concluded that a) he would never be any where near as good at it, b) 
while it used a lot of speculative prediction, our of necessity, it 
contained the basic scientific principle that hypothesis about what 
animals are doing require revision, if the original expectation was 
wrong, and that c) the skill level of prior generations, who had to rely 
in it far more, was likely even vastly superior to what the "current" 
generation, who have other resources they can rely on, which their 
ancestors didn't. In other words, the people in question probably had a 
snowballs change in hell of passing a Mensa test, but they ***had to*** 
have the same level of logic and cognitive skills, which such tests are 
"supposed to" test for, just to survive in a place where it might take 
days to track an animal, and being able to take limited data, and 
"project", with a high chance of being right, what every track and sign 
they came across really meant, determined life or death. (This being 
apposed to other regions, with things like forests, lakes, and, again, 
other resources, which didn't bloody move around a lot, and where in 
plain sight). It makes a skeptical of all "tests" you might give to take 
such a measurement, in a modern context.

> Secondly, stop using lol as a comment - it's juvenile.
>
Ah, gee.. Sorry for using "internet conventions". You sound like one of 
the people that objects to language on the basis that it isn't long 
winded enough to be inoffensive, even if the long winded version is 
saying the same bloody things. Juvenile.. Apparently "adult" is saying 
"get off my lawn", or rather, "I don't like all these new fangled 
things, which we didn't need back in the day when we used to write 12 
page essays on how we would silly we thought something is."

> Finally, read your responses at least twice before posting. It stops you
> from offending people who have been on the group longer than you.
>
> John
>
Yeah.. No. What society needs, frankly, is more people willing to offend 
people, instead of always lending them automatic respect, based on what 
they are members of. I won't do that with religions, why the hell would 
I with anyone else? And, your evidence that any part of my original 
comment is wrong is.. what? That some of them are actually nice, instead 
of assholes, and *they* think their testing methods are valid? You see 
the same argument from every other group making similar claims, all the 
time, the difference, apparently, being that their "criteria" get 
leaked, and are not "secret".

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2014 2:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> Why not? Is there any reason to be unimpressed by someone having
> acquired the skill to solve certain types of puzzles? Is it pointless?
> No more so than the skill to kick a ball into a rectangular frame I
> suspect: Both, as a side effect, tend to also make you good at other
> things that /can/ be of practical value.
>
Well, at least that implies some "skill". As an aside, there was some 
post or other, which was reposted on a blog I read, which broke down 
what goes on in "American Football", in terms of time spent. This was 
the break down:

45 minutes of commercials.
83 minutes of people standing around talking (I think it was like 37 
minutes of that which was couches, and other non-players doing that).
11 minutes of actual play time.
15 minutes of replays.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/16/2014 10:21 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 16-1-2014 10:12, clipka wrote:
>
>>> and 2. Some yokel deciding that, having come up with a
>>> test, it never has to be recalibrated.
>>
>> To all my knowledge, those tests /are/ recalibrated every now and then.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
>
>
Kind of makes you wonder how many Mensa people, having been in it for 
decades, would either a) blow the old test out of the water, due to 
improvement, or b) fail spectacularly, because, in the intervening 
years, they went off and did other things, without "improving" the 
skills needed for the original test.

Mind, the latter is somewhat less likely.. It would be like expecting 
someone good at crosswords to both stop doing crosswords, and get worse 
at them, while still doing them. 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.

Post a reply to this message

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

On 19-1-2014 19:26, clipka wrote:
> 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.

excuse me gentlemen, what is a 'frak'?


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 19:33, schrieb andrel:

> excuse me gentlemen, what is a 'frak'?

It is whatever you may assume it is ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/14 02:14, Doctor John wrote:
> So, some years ago I was a member of Mensa and I would guess that a
> large majority of this forum would also qualify (top 2% of the population).
> For no apparent reason I have decided to rejoin. I left the society
> purely because I found most members to have their noses stuck firmly up
> their own fundaments.
> Am I insane? Or is it because I wish to revive the SIG called Thick As A
> Brick?
> 
> John (thinking about loud music and strong liquor)
> 

I withdraw from this thread because, unwittingly, I seem to have stirred
up a wasps nest.

No further comment

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 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.

My comment was not sarcastic.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:49:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> 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.

Patrick, writing to be understood is important.  If your words are 
misunderstood, then you are as well.  So form is as important - and in 
some cases more important - than the content itself.

Use of incorrect spelling, punctuation, and grammar - and then saying 
"who gives a damn about it!" is very telling.  You might have an 
excellent point to offer, but if it's not presented in a way that's 
understandable, then you get written off as just another crank.

It's the difference between:

Let's eat grandma.

and

Let's eat, grandma.

(Or one of a million other examples)

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 11:33 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 19-1-2014 19:26, clipka wrote:
>> 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.
>
> excuse me gentlemen, what is a 'frak'?
>

 From Battlestar Galactica (both the old, but its used way more in the 
new one), as a replacement for.. well, pretty much every case you might 
use "Fuck" for.


-- 
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 1/19/2014 11:26 AM, clipka wrote:
> 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.
>
Ok, got a bit.. over the top there myself. Like I said the John in 
another post, its.. something I have trouble breaking. A tendency to try 
to get whole spans of ideas out, all at once, because, otherwise, I 
would have to stop and spend time trying to both hold on to them all, 
and sort them into a sensible order, at the same time. I do better when 
I have the time to rethink them 4-5 times, but.. I am usually pressed 
for time, due to being "in process" to get ready for work when I check 
postings. :p

-- 
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

> 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.

You're getting your crosswords from the wrong places. In the UK at least 
most (all?) of the newspapers run crosswords (and most are available on 
their websites now), it's easy to find one as intellectual or trashy as 
you want.

Post a reply to this message

> I don't know, man. I thought a degree is pretty much a degree; nobody
> seems to care much where you got it. (Unless it was somewhere really
> famous like Oxford or Cambridge.

Look at the "Graduate Prospects" column here:

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings

Obviously enough companies *do* care - and they're apparently not just 
distinguishing between Oxbridge and "the rest".

> But that's because almost nobody goes
> there...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_enrollment

27th and 54th, seem about average size to me.

"Almost nobody" goes to somewhere like The Liverpool Institute for 
Performing Arts :-)

> By the time you reach adulthood, you have presumably given up on calling
> people names because they're "teacher's pet". Question is, how do we get
> younger children to do that...

Like I said, IME it was the ones from the bottom classes causing 
trouble. Take them out into a different school entirely, everyone's a 
winner.

Post a reply to this message

> Obviously enough companies *do* care - and they're apparently not just
> distinguishing between Oxbridge and "the rest".

As I say, IME nobody cares if you have a degree. They only care that you 
don't have 3 years' commercial experience.

>> By the time you reach adulthood, you have presumably given up on calling
>> people names because they're "teacher's pet". Question is, how do we get
>> younger children to do that...
>
> Like I said, IME it was the ones from the bottom classes causing
> trouble. Take them out into a different school entirely, everyone's a
> winner.

Maybe. I still think the problem is bigger than just tweaking school 
slightly. Like, we need to make the entire populas regard knowledge and 
skill as valuable things again, rather than something that only socially 
inept dweebs are about...

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:26:58 +0200, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:


>> By the time you reach adulthood, you have presumably given up on calling
>> people names because they're "teacher's pet". Question is, how do we get
>> younger children to do that...
>
> Like I said, IME it was the ones from the bottom classes causing  
> trouble. Take them out into a different school entirely, everyone's a  
> winner.
>

I think you're right.
For me the teasing stopped when I switched to an Art School in Grade 9.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 04:27, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 1/19/2014 11:26 AM, clipka wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Ok, got a bit.. over the top there myself. Like I said the John in
> another post, its.. something I have trouble breaking. A tendency to try
> to get whole spans of ideas out, all at once, because, otherwise, I
> would have to stop and spend time trying to both hold on to them all,
> and sort them into a sensible order, at the same time. I do better when
> I have the time to rethink them 4-5 times, but.. I am usually pressed
> for time, due to being "in process" to get ready for work when I check
> postings. :p

I was just hoping myself you'd not get offended by this particular 
paragraph of my post - it was supposed to be a humorous reflection of 
the choice of words in your posting, but after the deed I figured it 
lacked any indication to this effect. (Sorry for that.)

I might add that I had much less trouble with your choice of words than 
with your grammar and punctuation :-P, interpreting the former merely as 
the result of a loose tongue (if that's the right idiom) rather than 
attitude towards any person.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 10:02, schrieb scott:
>> 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.
>
> You're getting your crosswords from the wrong places. In the UK at least
> most (all?) of the newspapers run crosswords (and most are available on
> their websites now), it's easy to find one as intellectual or trashy as
> you want.

For Germans, I can highly recommend the "Eckstein - um die Ecke gedacht" 
series of crossword puzzles, published in the weekly newspaper "Die 
Zeit" (or, more precisely, in the "Zeit Magazin" accompanying it); 
common "crossword puzzle knowledge" will not help you there, instead 
you'll need to get all your wits together, as all the descriptions come 
with a twist.

I don't know however whether there are any English counterparts to this.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:17:34 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Maybe. I still think the problem is bigger than just tweaking school
> slightly. Like, we need to make the entire populas regard knowledge and
> skill as valuable things again, rather than something that only socially
> inept dweebs are about...

I think you're right - there needs to be a cultural shift towards 
recognising that brains are important.  Skills are also important, but 
some skills are more valuable for accomplishing things beyond just 
entertainment.

That said, I have a lot of respect for Shaquille O'Neill.  Not because 
he's a basketball star.  He holds a Ed.D. in Human Resource Development.  
He not only went to school, but he pursued a doctorate in professional 
development, which is a field that I have done a little work in (it's an 
"Adult Education" field.

Kudos for him for not just living off his NBA salary, but for wanting to 
better himself and others in the world - to the extent that he earned an 
advanced degree in it.

Maybe if others like him can show that being smart is important, the 
cultural shift will happen.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

> I don't know however whether there are any English counterparts to this.

We have cryptic crosswords!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_crossword

Most newspapers worth reading run them daily.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/01/2014 8:40 AM, scott wrote:
> Most newspapers worth reading run them daily.

Even the Sun. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> As I say, IME nobody cares if you have a degree. They only care that you
> don't have 3 years' commercial experience.

I'm talking about recruiting graduates, the fact that most jobs are not 
for graduates is irrelevant. Obviously the more experience you have the 
less consideration is given to your education, so when you have zero 
experience, education is the most important thing on your CV. I'd even 
say that which university you went to is more important than what grade 
you got.

> Maybe. I still think the problem is bigger than just tweaking school
> slightly. Like, we need to make the entire populas regard knowledge and
> skill as valuable things again, rather than something that only socially
> inept dweebs are about...

Maybe tweaking school slightly would filter up to the rest of society 
though. Maybe then we would not allow any Tom Dick or Harry who knows 
how to operate a tyre fitting machine to call themselves an Engineer. 
Whereas now we have news stories about hairdressers arguing over whether 
anyone should be allowed to be called a hairdresser or not.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.01.2014 09:40, schrieb scott:
>> I don't know however whether there are any English counterparts to this.
>
> We have cryptic crosswords!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptic_crossword
>
> Most newspapers worth reading run them daily.

You are being envied.

BTW, the "um die Ecke gedacht" uses the "advanced" (or "variety") grid 
style, which I find more aesthetically pleasing (and which probably also 
makes the puzzle easier; then again, I can imagine that the English 
language might be better suited to cryptic crosswords and therefore 
require less tightly packed grids).

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2014 2:02 AM, scott 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.
>
> You're getting your crosswords from the wrong places. In the UK at least
> most (all?) of the newspapers run crosswords (and most are available on
> their websites now), it's easy to find one as intellectual or trashy as
> you want.
>
Urr.. yeah, its called "buying ones in America". I mean, when the top 
shows on TV are "reality TV", and "paranormal", and the only magazines 
making significant amounts of money are... barely more than rag 
magazines....

-- 
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 1/20/2014 12:17 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Obviously enough companies *do* care - and they're apparently not just
>> distinguishing between Oxbridge and "the rest".
>
> As I say, IME nobody cares if you have a degree. They only care that you
> don't have 3 years' commercial experience.
>
Often, in some new tech that has only existed for 1 year. ;)

-- 
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