Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 08:44 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >krw wrote: > >> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >It's not a "3" it's "=3F" (the code-point for the apostrophe). I'm > >> > > >> >not sure what I did (it just happened recently). If someone has an > >> > > >> >idea how to fix it I certainly will! > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Did your system get hexed? > >> > > > > >> > > >Can you explain what you mean in normal language ? > >> > > > >> > > START: MOVEI T1,[ASCIZ/Did your system get hexed?/] > >> > > OUTSTR T1, > >> > > END START > >> > > > >> > > /BAH > >> > > >> > I never get involved in assembler aside from DSP. It's far too difficult > to > >> > maintain and far too easy to write nonsense code. > >> > >> You're right. The simple minded should stay far away from > >> assembler (or any other language for that matter). > > > >Sorry to disappoint you then. > > > >I do prefer at least medium level code though. > > Yes, you seem to have that kind of thinking style. > Haven't you ever been curious about what goes on > underneath all the layers? I know what does. In fact PL/M allows you to invoke certain instructions explicitly such as SHL, SHR, ROL and ROR for example. I do prefer to be able to write the rest of the code in something close to English though. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 08:47 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >It's not a "3" it's "=3F" (the code-point for the apostrophe). I'm > >> >> >not sure what I did (it just happened recently). If someone has an > >> >> >idea how to fix it I certainly will! > >> >> > >> >> Did your system get hexed? > >> > > >> >Can you explain what you mean in normal language ? > >> > >> START: MOVEI T1,[ASCIZ/Did your system get hexed?/] > >> OUTSTR T1, > >> END START > >> > >> /BAH > > > >I never get involved in assembler aside from DSP. It's far too difficult to > >maintain and far too easy to write nonsense code. > > And it doesn't appear that anyone got my joke. > > Assember isn't difficult to maintain and I can't imagine writing > nonsense code. Assembler is too clear-cut for obfuscation. Maintenance can mean maintenance by those who didn't write it. There's simply no way I'd have taken on maintaining large amounts of assembler. I've had no trouble though with PL/M. Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Dec 2006 03:56 In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>>> In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>> >>>>>>>Huh? >>>>> >>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without regards >>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>> >>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>separation. >>>> >>>> >>>> But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>> affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>> >>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>which isn't socialist at all. >> >>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >the >>best advance. > >No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >estraordinary things. > >> However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>under capitalism. > >Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. > > ><snip> > >/BAH Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a capitalistic society?
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Dec 2006 03:54 In article <8628a$456f8d5b$4fe72f1$1303(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:882c6$456f2c7b$4fe73f0$30792(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >snip to crux: > >> Ok. I suspect that is more pedantry than anything else. Going back to your >> earlier example, if a soldier has a heart attack and will never recover, yes >> they are discharged but the military support system still cares for them. Is >> that different? > >I think you're confused by considering what pocket provides >the benefit. > >Employers such as US military and others where the employee >is apt to be shot at (police functionaries of all sorts) have >a disability insurance scheme which is, for obvious reasons, >much more robust than the disability generally available to >people like factory and office workers whose job function >does not purposely place them in danger. > >The military in the US directly provides healthcare to >soldiers as well as their dependents. Our soldiers aren't >very well paid, so fringe benefits such as healthcare and >housing allowance, dependent supplements and such are an >important part of their employment compensation package. > Gee, health care provided to everyone without regard of their ability to pay. Where have I heard that before? >Insurance and other benefits form part and parcel of the >open market ideology where employers compete to get the >best employees they can given the high risk. The US >military is just another employer among many. > >For disabled citizen workers not otherwise insured we >have a branch of the social security scheme. Whether >that's called insurance or socialism by any individual >is pretty much up to personal preference because the >premiums aren't voluntary, they're a flat percentage >of income with an annual cap. As usual to dig into >the terms and conditions is a little complex, but >here's the starting point for what we call Social >Security Disability here in the US: > >http://www.ssa.gov/disability/ > >Note that generally the individual must have paid >enough into the system before they're considered >insured, and the disability must be substantial. > >Part and parcel of any number of private employer fringe >benefit plans also include disability insurance in one >form or another. Privately purchased disability insurance >is also widely available in this country. > >http://www.about-disability-insurance.com/ > >I don't think this issue is nearly as simple as you seem >to believe. > >If we picked up any jaywalker who was the victim of a hit >and run up off the street and automatically paid them >disability then I'd consider that socialist. So long as >there's a sevices or cash rendered exchange involved, the >disability insurance (shared risk pool) has been paid IMO. >In my state disability is significant in the auto insurance >peremiums charges because disability resulting from >automobile accident has, by law, no $ cap and no time >limitation. My insurance carrier must, for example, not only >provide the wheelchair needed in case of injury, but also >wheelchair ramps at the person's home and handicapped >facilities in his bathroom. I consider this realistic, In >other states an injured person may be forced to sue for a >large amount in order to anticipate future expenses. > >In a socialist "compassionate act" the quid pro quo doesn't >exist, one side simply gives. Where there is *any* sort of >an exchange involved, it isn't socialism no matter what >pocket the money comes from. Soldier gets disabled on first day in military; gets health care free. What was his quid pro quo?
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Dec 2006 09:12
In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>> >>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >regards >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>> >>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>separation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>>> affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>> >>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>> >>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>the >>>best advance. >> >>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>estraordinary things. >> >>> However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>under capitalism. >> >>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >> >> >><snip> >> >>/BAH > >Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >capitalistic society? Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed more often than the rich kid. A lot of people are reasonably wealthy from working on a production line and not spending all of their money on junk. That can only happen in a capitalistic-based society. Not only do these people become wealthy, they breed kids so become wealthier. Only people who are hungry go out and shoot dinner. /BAH |