Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 18 Mar 2007 12:17 In article <1174221298.287074.230690(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> In article <1173976773.203668.217...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >> >> Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential. >> >> I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following >> statement carefully: >> >> This statement is incorrect. >> >> Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it >> must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and >> higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I >> think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion. > >Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are >dumb enough to let it. > >The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer >science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR >file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know >where to look it up). You are agreeing with my point. I think you now are starting to see what has really happened with BAH's agrument. She has made an incorrect statement and was left with the choice of admitting the error or ignoring the path to the solution. She simply won't step outside the problem. [...] >The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self >consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm >(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way >her head explodes. Well we do know that she is a republican. [....] >> I'm sure BAH will object that you didn't write it onto tape with the >> checksum at the start. Unfortunatly, she can't get to WWW stuff. > >Isn't some IOCCC stuff online for FTP ? BAH connects to the world through a soda straw. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 18 Mar 2007 12:19 In article <etjdf4$8qk_002(a)s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <1174221298.287074.230690(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> In article <1173976773.203668.217...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential. >>> >>> I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following >>> statement carefully: >>> >>> This statement is incorrect. >>> >>> Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it >>> must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and >>> higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I >>> think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion. >> >>Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are >>dumb enough to let it. >> >>The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer >>science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR >>file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know >>where to look it up). >> >>"This statement is TRUE" >> >>Is true and then there is no recursion. Problem solved. >> >>The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self >>consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm >>(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way >>her head explodes. > >The people who are doing the work making those tapes are not >programmers. Although they appear to have been more sophisticated >than most participants of this thread; nevertheless, they could >not be expected to edit magtapes as part of the packaging >procedures. The people handling the tapes is not who we thought we were arguing with. We had assumed a programmer wrote the script to cause the tape to get written correctly. The person would mount the tape and from there, it is all software. If your procedure had these people doing more than that, you left lots of holes for trouble to get in. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: MassiveProng on 18 Mar 2007 12:39 On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >That is not a recursive problem at all. You seem unclear on what >recursive means. She sure is good at doing it though. Recursive nonsense.
From: nonsense on 18 Mar 2007 14:03 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <etjdf4$8qk_002(a)s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>In article <1174221298.287074.230690(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <1173976773.203668.217...(a)l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, >>>> >>>>Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential. >>>> >>>>I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following >>>>statement carefully: >>>> >>>>This statement is incorrect. >>>> >>>>Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it >>>>must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and >>>>higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I >>>>think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion. >>> >>>Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are >>>dumb enough to let it. >>> >>>The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer >>>science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR >>>file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know >>>where to look it up). >>> >>>"This statement is TRUE" >>> >>>Is true and then there is no recursion. Problem solved. >>> >>>The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self >>>consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm >>>(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way >>>her head explodes. >> >>The people who are doing the work making those tapes are not >>programmers. Although they appear to have been more sophisticated >>than most participants of this thread; nevertheless, they could >>not be expected to edit magtapes as part of the packaging >>procedures. > > > The people handling the tapes is not who we thought we were arguing with. > We had assumed a programmer wrote the script to cause the tape to get > written correctly. The person would mount the tape and from there, it is > all software. If your procedure had these people doing more than that, > you left lots of holes for trouble to get in. Not knowing all the players and all the gambits is always a problem. It is far easier for the folks who were part and party at the time. On this basis alone you're in a classic never win situation. You can say how you would do things, but you cannot say how they should have, because obviously they made their own decisions based on scenarios which, at this late date, you cannot accurately reproduce.
From: krw on 18 Mar 2007 14:04
In article <epqqv2t6s4ttag7qov051p5gj2nltp89lp(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says... > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > > >That is not a recursive problem at all. You seem unclear on what > >recursive means. > > > She sure is good at doing it though. Recursive nonsense. > Like your "guns won't fire in space", gunpowder needs oxygen (yes folks, that's todays Dimbulbism)? Dimbulb, you're the last one on the planet that should be throwing bricks! -- Keith |