Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: nonsense on 20 Feb 2007 10:10 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <52406$45da6760$cdd084bb$25290(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>Rich Grise wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:01:11 +0000, Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>d.086(a)hotmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Could you please terminate this thread. It's off topic and crossposted >>>>>>>>to sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.electronics.design, sci.med The >>>>>>>>discussion below is only about electronics design. Please start a new >>>>>>>>thread in your own news group and give it a Subject heading >>>>>>>>appropriate to the topic under discussion. Please no more 'Jihad needs >>>>>>>>scientists'. It's offensive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That's nice. >>>>>> >>>>>>By posting that you did exactly the thing he was asking you not to do. I >>>>>>really don't see why you did it after all he should get his way about what >>>>>>happens on the usenet shouldn't he? >>>>> >>>>>Oh gee, did I do something wrong? >>>> >>>>Yes, you should be ashamed of your self for continuing to post into this >>>>thread when you were asked by that very important person not to. Such >>>>people need to have their every whim catered too. If not they may may pout >>>>and that would be very bad, I think you would agree. >>>> >>> >>>My newsreader has an "Ignore thread" menu option, but apparently it goes >>>by actual threading, and not subject line. >>> >>>Good-Bye. >>>Rich >> >>It seems the pouters are circling. I think I need more time >>to contemplate what you're promoting here, Ken. This is such >>a serious issue I don't want any possibility of getting it >>wrong. > > > Yes, it is certainly worthy of some serious thought. End of life issues > are always complex and full of moral questions. Many people will argue > about when the death of a thread occurs. This can be very hard if the > thread has trollers and spam in it. When a thread dies of spam, posting > activity continues long after the actual death. Trollers tend to stop > very quickly when they sense that no-one will respond to their tripe. > Most of those who have a religeous point of view, I assume, think of the > thread as merely going to silicon heaven and resting there. I suspect that most Jihadists can sympathize with silicon heaven once such a destiny is pointed out to them. They have to wonder what eventually happens to all that sand. Then there's an entire Anna Nicole fandom which has its own views on the matter. You know, there have to be some wild parties in silicon heaven. It almost makes a fellow regret he's carbon based, but I guess that might be classified as racial envy. That's something not PC, so it must be avoided at all costs. Hope d.086 forgives me for mentioning it. > Some would > argue that with out the input of new postings, the thread is thrown into > the deep abiss, but I assume this is a small minority. Actually it first goes to google-heaven from where resurrection is possible for at least the duration of the internet. > A small sect > called "seeplusplus programmers" just forget the thread ever existed when > they lose the pointer to it. The "lisp programmer" sect has a very > unusual view. They believe that as long as the thread has references to > its self, it will live forever.
From: Ken Smith on 20 Feb 2007 10:12 In article <ereopn$8ss_012(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ercptu$8qv$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ercame$8qk_003(a)s942.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <era4fu$tvp$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <er9e30$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>>"another window" won't do because the term window is used for a part of >>>>>>what is on the screen. >>>>> >>>>>If I understand what you are talking about, on our OS, we would have >>>>>used the term job. >>>> >>>>That doesn't cover it either. >>> >>>With our use of the terminology, it does. >> >>In that case your use of terminology is very strange and obviously wrong. > >Nope. You simply do not understand what I'm talking about. If you use the wrong words, that tends to happen. The question before us is the correct term for a thing called a "desktop". "Job" doesn't come close. >>>Our users could also use the commands ATTACH and DETACH which >>>is the equivalent of your point-clicks on the thingies you call >>>desktop. >> >>I know about attach and detach. I can run command line things and have >>the outputs from them also on a desktop. In many cases, they will have >>different windows to send their results to. > >Sure. That is possible to do with a video device. It was not >with hardcopy. Multiple jobs can also send their outputs to the same printer. Normally, they send their output to the print spooler and it then sends it to the physical printer. You don't have to do this however. You can have multiple jobs with the rights to write to /dev/lp0. Preventing them from making unreadable results isn't all that hard. You only need one interlock. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 20 Feb 2007 10:12 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:erf1cd$39q$3(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <ereol0$8ss_011(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [....] >>Tell me which newsgroup should be deleted. The poster didn't say. > > I think it was alt.the.big.whiners and alt.unable.to.ignore.threads
From: nonsense on 20 Feb 2007 10:17 Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>Another limitation is no PC systems are sold that can have multiple ttys >>connected to it. > > > You can have 4 serial ports. Possibly more. Multiport and others made cards that brought 8 RS232 serial ports to the computer. You can probably fill your slots with them, but no reason to these days when a LAN serves better and much faster. <http://www.nextwarehouse.com/mfgr/moxa_store.cfm?3538,3130,3142,4,3143,0&gclid=CMi3g96dvYoCFRTibgodqDF7uw>
From: nonsense on 20 Feb 2007 10:29
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ereo06$8ss_008(a)s883.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>In article <66a0f$45d9e1db$4fe709e$21351(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > > [.....] > >>>just to see where that one goes. It is an issue I've not >>>seen addressed. It gets even more interesting when viewed >>>through the prisms of the various physics models in use >>>today. >> >>Analog implies thresholds; does it not? > No, it doesn't. It implies a continuous function. > This isn't always true. We use thresholds to pigeonhole. The entire discussion, which didn't get they bites I had hoped it would, has to do with how we study nature more than it does with the realities within nature. |