xkcd today- lovely.
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Unsupported Firefox...
Next: It's here (at last)
From: Rowland McDonnell on 1 Jun 2010 21:18 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: > > > So if you could build a quantum-isolated book that had no quantum > > interactions with the rest of the universe until a person picked it up, > > I'd say you'd worked a blinder because not many people can pick up a > > book in a quantum isolated system - which generally speaking can only > > exist in a very hard vacuum, rather close to absolute zero. Generally > > speaking (again), such regions on Earth are a wee bit too small for a > > person to fit their hand. If anyone's ever managed it on anything > > bigger than a molecule (which has been done and is impressive), I've not > > heard about it. > > I can think of someone who will be along in a minute to claim he's done > it. Chuck Norris destroys quantum isolation. I destroy quantum isolation. Therefore: I am as powerful as Chuck Norris. 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 1 Jun 2010 21:18 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> > 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. > > > > Can't think of any off the top of my head. > > > > It's been a some years since I looked at anything like that. > > > > So many times, I've been pointed at the source code and/or the RFCs as > > the documentation that I am *expected* to use... > > > > Of course, if one should point out that such sources of information are > > not really a lot of use, being almost impossible to understand for > > anyone except a fully immersed geek, one gets informed that he is a > > lamer and shouldn't be trying to use the software. > > > > Either that, or you get told to write the manual yourself - which seems > > like an odd response to someone pointing out that they can't figure out > > what's what. How is a person in that sort of position supposed to write > > the bloody manual? <shrug> > > I tend to look at RFCs as being more blueprints than manuals. That is, they > don't tell you _how_ to do something but rather how something should perform > should you decide to try and write it. Blueprinting is a /very/ obsolete technology. The plans for a bit of kit are part of the standard docs in my view. My Advanced Users Guide for the BBC Micro came with a circuit diagram. So did the manual for my oscilloscope (it's my age - it's got nuvistors *AND* custom silicon (yeah! both!), and it's totally unrepairable these days.) I don't see a division here as you seemingly do. But that's not really the point: never mind what anyone thinks anything is meant for, the fact is that most computer things aren't properly documented. In most cases, there is scant publicly available documentation - for example, most Apple software is supplied without adequate user docs[1]. And that stuff is meant to be accessible to all, allegedly. <shrug> It's the new world order - information is power is money as ever, but the info-scape has changed. Commercial firms now own all the really valuable information and so really are the rulers of the planet, so of course these firms which own the information have a policy of keeping it close to their chests so as to enable them to exploit us more effectively. It's called `capitalism as usual' and does not require (as I'm sure the trolls will claim) any kind of `conspiracy' at all. Rowland. [1] I've not had time to do the tutorials for iWork components yet - but if they're any good, I'll admit that iWork has adequate documentation. No other *MODERN* Apple software that I have comes with documentation that I'd waste my time pissing on, it's that poor. It hasn't always been like this. Apple did go through a patch of supplying good docs - some time after the Apple ][ came out, to some time before MacOS X came out. -- 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: D.M. Procida on 2 Jun 2010 06:05 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > > There appear to be some universally or nearly-universally shared human > > characteristics. > > Such as? Various needs, pleasures, patterns of behaviour, aims, and so on. > I can't think of any characteristics which are uniquely human that are > shared by all humans. Neither can I, but I don't think we need to be looking for anything uniquely human shared by all humans. If there is something we should call human nature, we shouldn't be surprised to find that some animals share it some of it, for example. It's not surprising either that some humans appear not to share some bits of it. Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 2 Jun 2010 21:03 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > > <sigh> > > > > But I have addressed that point fully - more than once. > > Where? I didn't read every single post, so sorry if I missed it. Was > there an example? Could you link me to where the example is? Thanks. <sigh> Since you've read and replied to the posts in question, there clearly is no point at all in doing that because you've decided to totally ignore my substantial points. <shrug> It's not possible for me to hold a discussion with you, Woody, because you won't actually pay any attention to the detail of what I write to you. Nothing I can do about your wilful refusal to read what I write. 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 3 Jun 2010 03:59
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > One counter-example is all it takes to disprove a model, am I not right? No. You are wrong. 'Human nature' doesn't refer to all humans, just to the great majority. -- Peter |