xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: D.M. Procida on 26 May 2010 15:58 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article > <1jj46mp.7czn451ojo427N%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > >small bands of around 150 individuals. > > How do those differ from large bands of 150 individuals? The smaller ones are more compact and easier to manage, duh. Daniele
From: zoara on 27 May 2010 09:11 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article > <1jj46mp.7czn451ojo427N%real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk>, > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > >> small bands of around 150 individuals. > > How do those differ from large bands of 150 individuals? The former were often found in the vicinity of a variety of food sources such as nuts, berries, and the odd dinosaur that was slightly confused about timescales. The latter were often found in the vicinity of McDonalds. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: Rowland McDonnell on 27 May 2010 16:11 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > >And, for that matter, what about my various other points that you chosen > >to ignore without comment and without even mentioning that you were > >rudely ignoring them? > > I only respond to the particular points where I have something I > want to say. It doesn't mean I dismiss (or agree with) the other > ones. That is your gloss. I disagree with it, as I've pointed out. I think that when you silently snip points that I have made in the context of a Usenet discussion, then you are in fact dismissing them rudely. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 27 May 2010 16:11 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > That is, specs are useless if they are not useful. > > > > Surely even you must admit that, Peter? Specs cannot be useful unless > > they are accessible - which includes: readable. > > They are useful; as specs. To specialists, who can understand them and > use them to keep their designs compliant. But they are not as useful as all that because they are meant to be hard to understand so as to prevent most people having the knowledge and therefore power than they enable. What power? The power to exploit the ignorant - that's what it boils down to, when you get right down to the bottom line. > They don't need to be > accessible except to designers- specialist engineers. They are not > intended for the general public, who don't need them in any way. But the general public does in fact have a need for a lot of them, because there are all sorts of things that they need to know which can only be discovered by reading the RFCs. > If you decide that you want to get involved with specs (why would you?) I don't see why you insist on coming out with all this inaccurate baseless pontification, which is a product only of your warped imagination and has no link with real life that I can see. > then it is up to you to acquire the expertise to understand them. Indeed; but one problem is that it's /meant/ to be terribly, terribly hard to achieve that outcome so as to exlude all bar the existing experts with the right contacts and so on. That is the problem I'm talking about, Peter: the barriers to acquiring that expertise. It's a shame that you didn't pick up on that point: you might have been able to make a useful contribution if you'd not missed this fundamental point that I was getting at. How the modern techno-field works is just like the old aristocratic ways of running a country - anyone could become the ruler, just so long as he'd been born into the right family, sent to the right school, made the right contacts, and so on. Which, practically speaking, meant that hardly anyone could become a ruler - likewise, in the modern world, hardly anyone is in a position to learn the needful deep technical stuff that's necessary for anyone who wants to have some liberty. The modern technical aristocracy is somewhat similar to the traditional sort: if you've got the right backgroud, did the right studying, had an attitude which matched the techies you met on-line well enough that they were willing to help (most just insult you for asking `stupid' questions, deride you as a `lamer', and refuse to offer advice on basic problems). That social process is nigh-on universal in technical forums these days. Do you see what I mean? The techno-aristocracy does in fact reject those who are not like them, just like the old real aristocracy did (and does). The point is that it's impossible to learn what's needful unless you are `the right type' - which is why I refer to an aristocracy. This is a big problem for modern society - but please don't comment, Peter, I know that you refuse to try to understand this sort of thing and you'll only cause an argument if you behave as normal and flatly reject my propostion due to your refusal to try to understand anything that contradicts your rather rigid and inaccurate view of the world. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Peter Ceresole on 27 May 2010 16:46
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > But all you have to do is look at a modern technical manual of any sort > and you will see signs of documentation being written in a fashion > intended to baffle. No Rowland. It may baffle you, but you're not the intended readership. As has been pointed out many times in this thread. -- Peter |