xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: Rowland McDonnell on 29 May 2010 21:06 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > As far as I can tell, all serious remarks on `human nature' are cobblers > > and are made purely to disguise lazy thinking (and the non-serious ones > > aren't serious so can be ignored for these purposes). > > What would you propose in its place? Eh? The question doesn't make sense. I'd rather get rid of the term so that people cannot easily engage in the faulty thinking which arises from thinking that `human nature' refers to anything real. > There appear to be some universally or nearly-universally shared human > characteristics. Such as? I can't think of any characteristics which are uniquely human that are shared by all humans. > I think that 'human nature' is as good a way of > describing these as any other. I don't think you're referring to anything real. 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 31 May 2010 02:23 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > In case it's not; you are not any part of the target audience for RFCs. > > > > But you are wrong. > > Out of interest, what makes you think you're the target for RFCs? Heck, > I'm a coder and work in IT and I don't consider -myself- to be the > target, generally, of RFCs. Rather a lot of the technical information I need is only available in the form of RFCs, and I get pointed at them as the source for the information I need as a matter of routine. Next stupid question? I mean, surely it was obvious what my answer was going to be? What else could have been the answer? 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 31 May 2010 02:23 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > "If you have enough book space, I don't want to talk to you." > Terry Pratchett What a rotten swine! So if I ever fit all the shelving I'm planning, Pterry will snub me? Grr. Not fair on those of us who put up *more* shelving than we apparently need at any given moment, just to give us a cat in hell's chance of tidying up. It worked last time - all the books here not in the loft now have shelf space! Rowland. (But you've not looked in my loft, or my parents' loft, or even in my old bedroom back at my parents' house, which I think still has a fair few volumes I'd not got round to shifting, on account of never having enough bloody shelf space in my own home. I don't really have enough book space, so Pterry'll chat. Good.) -- 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: jim on 31 May 2010 02:59 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> Out of interest, what makes you think you're the target for RFCs? > > Heck, >> I'm a coder and work in IT and I don't consider -myself- to be the >> target, generally, of RFCs. > > Rather a lot of the technical information I need is only available in > the form of RFCs, and I get pointed at them as the source for the > information I need as a matter of routine. > Example? Purely out of interest. Jim -- Sent from my iPad
From: D.M. Procida on 31 May 2010 09:44
Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > "OK, ADSL user, here is your router and here is the end-user guide to > the quantum physics that the experts needed to understand in order to > design the chips in your router. Be sure and read it carefully now". Is this the official manufacturer's guide, or just some incomplete and only partially-successful outcome of various attempts at reverse-engineering it by a succession of different investigators who always found that they'd never quite uncovered its secrets? Daniele -- For sale: Aperture 2, �30 |