Re: unholy OS wars
Thank you Andrew for a much more reasonable tone.
You have cleared a few items up this time around and I'll respond in
time kind.
Claws sheathed.
On Sep 12, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 at 6:38, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Face it: If your making games you've forgotten more computer
technology
than regular folk will ever know exists. Assuming this isn't your
first game job.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the *attitude* a person takes
towards technology!
I'm in games because I'm interested in telling a story, games happen
to be the medium. I also write short stories. (And yes, if you're
interested I would post a spare one to the list).
Technology *itself* has no interest to me, just its uses.
Of course. Wonderful motivation.
Which has nothing to do with how the bus driver or cook would view your
work, which was my own point. Or did you even notice in your haste?
It begs the question: Why are you ashamed of having technical
knowledge?
Isn't it just another hat you can wear?
Why do you have a problem with the fact that some people who can use
technology don't view it as sacred?
What, no answer, again?!?
Anyway, I don't worship at any alter. Why do you insist I do?
I grew up in a dirt floor cabin in the woods. I live exceedingly
simple and spend little - exactly as I did when I was a more
high-flying {so to speak} entrepreneur back when we had a proper
economy. I love tools and can't imagine living without them. It
started with a pencil and paper for drawing and has evolved ever-so
much since then. I guess that makes me a snob all right, because I
don't want to live in a cave.
I do appreciate simpler living and getting things back to basics. I
work hard to remove all EM and RF from my environment as well as the
numerous chemical agents our tech tools are made from and exude
throughout their useful life. I also believe our current
socio-economic-industrial model is congenitally flawed and the cracks
show up more and more. My wife runs a surf camp for women in Mexico
where we spend a great deal of our free time loving the utterly
low-tech fishing villages - where they only recently got more than one
phone line in. I am proud to be a pioneering contributor to Burning
Man from it's inception. I fail to see in what I've written that
dismisses these values.
I simply differ on your terms.
No, you're being rude and insulting because I'm bursting your
preconceptions.
Foolish mortal. I feel no pinprick shattering anything of the sort. I
am confirming a judgment of you as an erstwhile misanthropic sucking at
the tit of the system you clearly despise. You've rarely made any
points at all in your quest to squelch my POV. Lots of heat, not a lot
of light - until lately.
Sure, function is important, but I simply argue it's best to
have both.
Okay, so you care about it. I don't. I don't claim that anyone else
should
share my views, but don't speak for me.
Great. Good for you! Ignore my points and watch the train wreck... I
really don't care if you make the half-assed goods that get left at the
waysides of time - and rather expect it thus far. You want to make an
anti-war game, then what good is your months of toil if nobody plays it
because the christopathic Left Behind game is more usable to the
marketplace? What a foolish enterprise if your truly UN-concerned
about having an impact. If this were so I'd argue your only looking
for a paycheck and you can drop the altruism.
Of course, you may be motivated to see it fail as a chip to place on
your lifelong shoulder, proof of how a cruel world doesn't deserve your
fine works. Another excuse to use caustic words in email discussions,
that sort of thing.
Your arguing it's either-or.
No, that is YOUR argument. What I said was that I don't rate how
something looks in the criteria for if I will find something useful
or not. Sure, once I've decided to get something, if I have 2 items
which do it for the same price I'll pick the prettier. But that's
litterally the last consideration on my list.
interface the iPod success proves Ease Of Use is a term with teeth.
And interface is a pure useability issue. Thing is, my minidisk
recorder is also easy to use. So why should I spend cash on something
else? (the ability to record is, for me, required).
You are dead wrong on usability.
How is usability not in the realm of function?
What good is an el cheap-o product if nobody can figure out how to use
it?
Sure, it could be better, Sure, it could be cheaper. So what? Time
will do that.
Dream on. Future devices will have DRM lockdowns which make them
considerably less useful. Heck, iPod's do for their legal tunes and
its getting more restrictive every other update or so. To me, that's
a pure restriction on function.
Your arguing that mass market consumer component electronics will not
get cheaper?
DRM = Probably. But I run all my music
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:05 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information? On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC questions now? Someone, I'm not sure who, but I think it may have been Dan Minette, wrote to the list that Gautam's friend on the 9/11 commission was disinclined to answer further questions at this time. I was the one, indeed, who wrote that. To clarify, though, Gautam's friend was a staffer for the 9/11 commission, not a member of the commission. She is now a fellow grad. student at MIT. As I said, she is a liberal Democrat at a school where even the most conservative people tend to think poorly of the Bush. However, she has become rather vexed with the conspiracy theories that have proliferated. I think she used some four letter words in response to the poll that stated that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US government was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could subscribe to crackpot theories. So, that possible avenue is now closed...sorry. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Denton Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. This is a good find, Gary. I had read about this a while ago, but didn't have website reference available. It reinforces one of the criticisms of using tentative archeological finds as the foundation for analysis of present day problems. Many times, these finds are a virtual tabula rossa, which allows an author with convictions to see his point well proven by a history that is conveniently veiled. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
Thanks Dan, I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life. As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates contacted in no way buys the official story. Every one of them cited the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the building, any building, off to one side or another. None could think of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition. Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be studied was a mystery that baffles many - as well as no regulatory body issuing upgraded reqs in light of an unprecedented tripple-whammy systemic failure occurring the same day. All believe WTC 7 is the lynchpin that can reveal what/who benefits from this canard. Thought you'd like to know. I'd like to know more about this grad-school gal who thinks she knows more than practicing architects about what should and shouldn't be able to stand. - Jonathan - On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:05 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information? On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC questions now? Someone, I'm not sure who, but I think it may have been Dan Minette, wrote to the list that Gautam's friend on the 9/11 commission was disinclined to answer further questions at this time. I was the one, indeed, who wrote that. To clarify, though, Gautam's friend was a staffer for the 9/11 commission, not a member of the commission. She is now a fellow grad. student at MIT. As I said, she is a liberal Democrat at a school where even the most conservative people tend to think poorly of the Bush. However, she has become rather vexed with the conspiracy theories that have proliferated. I think she used some four letter words in response to the poll that stated that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US government was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could subscribe to crackpot theories. So, that possible avenue is now closed...sorry. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Jonathan Gibson www.formandfunction.com/word ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Japan was also cited for its top-down approach to reforestation I really would like to see them growing trees from the top down . . . snort! :) From the central government at the time (Tokagawa IIRC), as opposed to the New Guinians bottom-up -- I did *not* make these terms up! -- and localized approach. Debbi Fun With Deliberate Misconstruing Maru ;) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. Diamond mentioned that the (native) giant palm tree was likely destroyed by rats, as seeds had been found with rat tooth marks destroying critical parts - snip http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=trueprint=yes or http://tinyurl.com/ldwbm TIA - I will read this next time I have a chunk of library computer; now it's off for the next lesson. Debbi whose Cezanne is cantering (while ridden) on command, and - more importantly! - slowing promptly on my request big DEFANGED_ole DEFANGED_smile __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
At 05:49 PM Wednesday 9/13/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Yes, our friends and neighbors live an exceptionally rich fantasy life.
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006, at 8:34PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I think she used some four letter words in
response to the poll that stated
that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US government
was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's
methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could
subscribe to crackpot theories.
Most Americans believe in prophetic dreams;
four in 10 say there were once ancient
advanced civilizations such as Atlantis. 91.8%
say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force.
Crackpot theories are *very* popular in America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm
--
William T Goodall
Sam Harris had a nice long talk w/QA at the
Long Now Foundation late last year that
describes the lunacy that afflicts far too many
of us - his quest is to educate around religious
tolerance and how much slack we give people on
this topic whereas everywhere else in our lives
we demand proof: legal contracts, structural
collapses, scientific findings, etc. I
particularly like his take on religious
moderates giving vast cover to the extremists
because they deny those motivations are really
religious and do little to stop them - because
they fear that they themselves are not
sufficiently strong in their beliefs as compared
to the zealots, and have little authority to say No.
Some notable items I recall from the talk {apx}:
apx?
- Stem Cell Research: Since any
living
cell has the capacity to be developed into a
clone/copy, then every time George Bush
scratches his nose there is holocaust of potential life being destroyed.
Only if he scratches hard enough to get through
the outer layer of dead epidermal cells which the
body constantly sheds one way or another and gets to the live cells below them.
- God, after creating all the vast cosmos,
galaxies, planets, chose the land of Palestine
for the Jews - acting in his role as an omniscient real estate broker.
He also allegedly helps people find their lost
car keys. Why shouldn't He be a real estate broker, too.
- In the wake of Katrina how absurd it would be
for a Senator on the floor of Congress to say we
really need to pray to Poseidon more because
that realm of the sea and storms is his... and he's angry.
- Try to lecture someone suffering from an acute
appendicitis rupturing about intelligent
design... I'd add the purists should be
required to waive their rights to inoculations for Bird Flu, etc.
Why?
- The arithmetic of souls: What happens when a cell
I presume from the context that you mean a
fertilized egg cell rather than just any cell.
divides into twins... two souls, right?
Why?
What happens when those cells sometimes reform
back into one living embryo: does this mean that
a soul is merged, or lost again, does it become
a super-soul?!? I agree it doesn't add up.
Only if you assume that whatever a soul is,
it is contained within a fertilized egg
cell. All we can say for sure is that if a
living human being requires some sort of spirit
or essence or katra or whatever you call it then
at some point prior to a live birth such an
entity must enter or become associated with the
unborn child. IIRC there are some religions
which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or
whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath outside the womb.
- None of the absurd Old Testament rules for
owning slaves {just don't beat them so their
eyes and teeth fall out}, killing insolent
children, slaying unbelievers you come across
{even if there in their own town} as they
worship at their own alters or even in their own homes...
Kill, kill, kill and more killing is justified -
even essential - and none of this {and more} was
never repudiated by Jesus and still hold true for the fanatics.
- He compares Islamic jihadis with Tibetan
Buddhists and asks why one is so ready to suicide-bomb and another is not.
Why?
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Why do you have a problem with the fact that some people who can use
technology don't view it as sacred?
What, no answer, again?!?
Anyway, I don't worship at any alter. Why do you insist I do?
Because it's evidently a creed for you, and you insist on making
assumptions. So that's one made back. It's as valid as yours.
I grew up in a dirt floor cabin in the woods. I live exceedingly
simple and spend little - exactly as I did when I was a more
Shrug, I'm a city boy. Wilderness is nice, but I prefer living
somewhere with infrastructure. (Tech is in no way bad or dirty as
far as I'm converned, I'm just not interested in anything but the
uses I can put it to).
the tit of the system you clearly despise. You've rarely made any
You're making an assumption again. And you're wrong. Again. I don't
despise anyone who's tolerant of other views, as you are not.
And interface is a pure useability issue. Thing is, my minidisk
recorder is also easy to use. So why should I spend cash on something
else? (the ability to record is, for me, required).
You are dead wrong on usability.
How is usability not in the realm of function?
That's precisely what I said. Useability is a pure function issue,
and is *thus* very important to me. The minidisk player fills what I
need perfectly. I'm only going to move to something else as and when
I'm offered a substantial increase in functionality, or the minidisk
recorder dies.
Dream on. Future devices will have DRM lockdowns which make them
considerably less useful. Heck, iPod's do for their legal tunes and
its getting more restrictive every other update or so. To me, that's
a pure restriction on function.
Your arguing that mass market consumer component electronics will not
get cheaper?
DRM = Probably. But I run all my music through as AIFF {call me a
snob} - until I got this small 4GB Nano and there I only use my own
ripped MP3's. Someone will work around this if it becomes too onerous
and we'll all move in that direction.
Cheaper, sure. But less useable. Apple's leading the charge to lock
down media devices with DRM. This is very much part of how I see
things: DRM is a simple and plain negative because it removes
function.
I'm shipping a story, in the form of a game. The medium is not the
message. Rogue Trooper, for example, is basically a paen on the
futility of war.
That sounds like an oxymoron of a game there.
You think selling a shoot'em-up is going to teach people not to
An utterly incorrect assumption again. It's not there to TEACH people
directly, anymore than Brin's novels do. They are, and Rogue Trooper
IS, a story. They are in a different medium, sure, but that does not
dictate the message.
Why not film a documentary?
Because that's not a story. I'm not interested in telling about real
life, I'm interested in telling a story.
called you on it and I'm glad you've stopped, but your silence is
damning and makes a mockery of your finger-wagging here. I have
Your assumptions say all I need to know about you - you're just
another internet troll.
move small dev groups to do this. Your management needs to insist on
the funds to test properly as part of the package - else the whole
investment falls over in a heap. Publishers ought to see the value of
Funny, Rogue Trooper's selling widely, especially in America and is
widely praised for its story. Expanding the market is not what
Rebellion do. This isn't a descision made on my level, it's a
descision from the very top. I'm not there. Yet.
allowing this Trojan beast into all reaches of our government and
business.
*laughs*
That's a case for Linux, *not* the Mac.
Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is better
secured than PC.
No, you're not. Because bluntly Mac's are just another OS as far as
security is concerned. It has none of the advantages of open source
code path review that Linux has in terms of security.
Keep your assumptions to yourself. Really.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is better secured than PC. No, you're not. Because bluntly Mac's are just another OS as far as security is concerned. It has none of the advantages of open source code path review that Linux has in terms of security. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html Keep your assumptions to yourself. Really. You should try that. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote: On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is better secured than PC. No, you're not. Because bluntly Mac's are just another OS as far as security is concerned. It has none of the advantages of open source code path review that Linux has in terms of security. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html core. Not the entire OS, as GNU/Linux. THAT is the critical point. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 14 Sep 2006, at 2:32AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote: On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is better secured than PC. No, you're not. Because bluntly Mac's are just another OS as far as security is concerned. It has none of the advantages of open source code path review that Linux has in terms of security. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html core. Not the entire OS, as GNU/Linux. THAT is the critical point. It's not 'none' though is it? None/some/all are different you know. OS X clearly has at least some of the open source advantages of Linux and certainly a great more than Windows. What about the proprietary ATI and Nvidia drivers on Linux? Or Flash? Or Oracle? Or Java? It's possible to run a completely 'pure' open source Linux, but how many actually are? Purity Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
In a message dated 9/13/2006 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All we can say for sure is that if a living human being requires some sort of spirit or essence or katra or whatever you call it then at some point prior to a live birth such an entity must enter or become associated with the unborn child. IIRC there are some religions which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath outside the womb. We can say this for sure? How about humans like all other animals are pure meat. What we call the soul and what early people called elan vitale or soul or mind or the little version of me who sits inside my head at a really big control board with switches and buttons (like stomach) and by the way has to have an even smaller version of me inside its head and so forth and so on all the way down to the infinitely small) is just the actions of a human brain experiencing itself. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:58, William T Goodall wrote: On 14 Sep 2006, at 2:32AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote: On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is better secured than PC. No, you're not. Because bluntly Mac's are just another OS as far as security is concerned. It has none of the advantages of open source code path review that Linux has in terms of security. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html core. Not the entire OS, as GNU/Linux. THAT is the critical point. It's not 'none' though is it? None/some/all are different you know. OS X clearly has at least some of the open source advantages of Linux and certainly a great more than Windows. Nope. But to people like, say, the US Department of Defence, the difference is quite clear. A cursory google search shows how they're using large numbers of Linux systems, especially as heavy duty data processing units and servers. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:24 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information? Thanks Dan, I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life. As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates contacted in no way buys the official story. Every one of them cited the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the building, any building, off to one side or another. OK, then why did all the graduate school studies in structural engineering that I referenced get this wrong? Or, are they all part of the conspiracy? It would be helpful if one of your buddies did comparablel engineering analysis... None could think of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition. But, of course, there wasn't such a minute footprint. Recently, I posted on Brin-L a link to pictures that showed a footprint that shows a tower having a lateral component to it's footprint covering about 2 blocks. http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm# Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be studied was a mystery that baffles many I quote from the head of the quote There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures. end quote - as well as no regulatory body issuing upgraded reqs in light of an unprecedented tripple-whammy systemic failure occurring the same day. Let me quote from the testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers, before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives. It's available at http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf BTW, the team assembled to study this looks fairly impressive. March 6, 2002 Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President, CTL Engineering Chicago, IL on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers, before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives. quote As many in the United States and the world examine the future of tall buildings it is important to look at how well these buildings performed under extreme circumstances. It must be remembered that large commercial aircraft hit the World Trade Center Towers, yet both withstood the initial impact. Additionally, as has been widely reported, almost all of the individuals in the buildings below the impact zone were able to get out of the buildings to safety. Efforts such as that being conducted by the Building Performance Study teams and studies emanating from this initial study will seek to extend the performance of structures to allow occupants ample time to reach safety. end quote All believe WTC 7 is the lynchpin that can reveal what/who benefits from this canard. All conspiracy theorists? I doubt there is such unanimity. I'd like to know more about this grad-school gal who thinks she knows more than practicing architects about what should and shouldn't be able to stand. What she probably thinks is that she had a chance to review multiple studies of the structural engineering, and had a fairly good idea of the type of analysis they did. For example, one would think that the professional body of civil engineers, who are responsible for massive building projects, has the responsibility to make a thorough investigation of this. Which they did. Their work is part of the understanding of the 9-11 commission. There were, of course, many other groups that studied the collapse. Some of the websites are: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1024/news_2-2.html http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742isa=Category http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=132Z=181sid=269 In addition, there is a list of abstracts that includes a number on the WTC collapse at: http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Collapse Personally, trusting groups like this sounds quite reasonable to me. But, I take it that you are singularly unimpressed with 20-somethings that have important staff responsibility for investigations like the 9-11 commission. I guess we might wait 20 years and then maybe you can downplay her work as a member of the White House staff. :-) Dan
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
On 14 Sep 2006, at 3:04AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/13/2006 7:26:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All we can say for sure is that if a living human being requires some sort of spirit or essence or katra or whatever you call it then at some point prior to a live birth such an entity must enter or become associated with the unborn child. IIRC there are some religions which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath outside the womb. We can say this for sure? How about humans like all other animals are pure meat. What we call the soul and what early people called elan vitale or soul or mind or the little version of me who sits inside my head at a really big control board with switches and buttons (like stomach) and by the way has to have an even smaller version of me inside its head and so forth and so on all the way down to the infinitely small) is just the actions of a human brain experiencing itself. Or perhaps all the 'souls' play musical chairs while we sleep and we wake up with a different one each day :- If pigs could fly we could bottle their farts and use them to build a time machine Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ What's the difference between OS X and Vista? Microsoft employees are excited about OS X... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Morality
On 9 Sep 2006, at 12:51PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 9 Sep 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote: For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false. So you reject quantum theory entirely? Interesting. I'm quite happy with the 'shut up and calculate' part. It's those wacky ontologies I don't have patience with. Many Cats Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 14 Sep 2006, at 3:13AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:58, William T Goodall wrote: It's not 'none' though is it? None/some/all are different you know. OS X clearly has at least some of the open source advantages of Linux and certainly a great more than Windows. Nope. But to people like, say, the US Department of Defence, the difference is quite clear. That's because many scientists and engineers prefer to use a UNIX environment and Linux has often displaced the ailing HP/Apollo/SGI systems they previously used. A cursory google search shows how they're using large numbers of Linux systems, especially as heavy duty data processing units and servers. OS X also has a significant share in this market with several supercomputing clusters in use. http://www.apple.com/science/ -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux. - Bill Joy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
William T Goodall wrote: Or perhaps all the 'souls' play musical chairs while we sleep and we wake up with a different one each day :- Wasn't that the premise of a Greg Egan short story? Not all the souls playing musical chairs, of course, but one which woke up in a different body each day... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
Ronn Blankenship wrote: IIRC there are some religions which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath outside the womb. From what was said to me during my pregnancies, I think the Hindus [or at least the non-atheist/non-agnostic Hindus] believe something like this: The soul starts 'visiting' foetus at ~ 3 months, just looking in and getting acquainted. At the end of the second trimester, there is a ceremony to mark the beginning of the third trimester. Apparently, this [the beginning of the third trimester, not the ceremony] is the time the soul comes to 'stay' inside the womb, to get used to the trappings of a body once again. The ceremony thus is called, for the want of a better translation, a 'centring' ceremony. The expectant mother is told that her prime duty from this moment on is to maintain a balance in her life, thoughts, emotions, and actions, for any imbalance would be less than beneficial to the child. I think the above is essentially right - both the times I was told this, the babies were busy kicking the bladder and I had more immediate concerns, like politely excusing myself and finding a bathroom. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin article on Salon
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2006/09/14/basic/ Why Johnny can't code BASIC used to be on every computer a child touched -- but today there's no easy way for kids to get hooked on programming. By David Brin Sep. 14, 2006 | For three years -- ever since my son Ben was in fifth grade -- he and I have engaged in a quixotic but determined quest: We've searched for a simple and straightforward way to get the introductory programming language BASIC to run on either my Mac or my PC. Why on Earth would we want to do that, in an era of glossy animation- rendering engines, game-design ogres and sophisticated avatar worlds? Because if you want to give young students a grounding in how computers actually work, there's still nothing better than a little experience at line-by-line programming. Only, quietly and without fanfare, or even any comment or notice by software pundits, we have drifted into a situation where almost none of the millions of personal computers in America offers a line- programming language simple enough for kids to pick up fast. Not even the one that was a software lingua franca on nearly all machines, only a decade or so ago. And that is not only a problem for Ben and me; it is a problem for our nation and civilization. Oh, today's desktops and laptops offer plenty of other fancy things -- a dizzying array of sophisticated services that grow more dazzling by the week. Heck, I am part of that creative spasm. Only there's a rub. Most of these later innovations were brought to us by programmers who first honed their abilities with line- programming languages like BASIC. Yes, they mostly use higher level languages now, stacking and organizing object-oriented services, or using other hifalutin processes that come prepackaged and ready to use, the way an artist uses pre-packaged paints. (Very few painters still grind their own pigments. Should they?) And yet the thought processes that today's best programmers learned at the line-coding level still serve these designers well. Renowned tech artist and digital-rendering wizard Sheldon Brown, leader of the Center for Computing in the Arts, says: In my Electronics for the Arts course, each student built their own single board computer, whose CPU contained a BASIC ROM [a chip permanently encoded with BASIC software]. We first did this with 8052's and then with a chip called the BASIC Stamp. The PC was just the terminal interface to these computers, whose programs would be burned into flash memory. These lucky art students were grinding their own computer architectures along with their code pigments -- along their way to controlling robotic sculptures and installation environments. But today, very few young people are learning those deeper patterns. Indeed, they seem to be forbidden any access to that world at all. And yet, they are tantalized! Ben has long complained that his math textbooks all featured little type-it-in-yourself programs at the end of each chapter -- alongside the problem sets -- offering the student a chance to try out some simple algorithm on a computer. Usually, it's an equation or iterative process illustrating the principle that the chapter discussed. These TRY IT IN BASIC exercises often take just a dozen or so lines of text. The aim is both to illustrate the chapter's topic (e.g. statistics) and to offer a little taste of programming. Only no student tries these exercises. Not my son or any of his classmates. Nor anybody they know. Indeed, I would be shocked if more than a few dozen students in the whole nation actually type in those lines that are still published in countless textbooks across the land. Those who want to (like Ben) simply cannot. Now, I have been complaining about this for three years. But whenever I mention the problem to some computer industry maven at a conference or social gathering, the answer is always the same: There are still BASIC programs in textbooks? At least a dozen senior Microsoft officials have given me the exact same response. After taking this to be a symptom of cluelessness in the textbook industry, they then talk about how obsolete BASIC is, and how many more things you can do with higher-level languages. Don't worry, they invariably add, the newer textbooks won't have any of those little BASIC passages in them. All of which is absolutely true. BASIC is actually quite tedious and absurd for getting done the vast array of vivid and ambitious goals that are typical of a modern programmer. Clearly, any kid who wants to accomplish much in the modern world would not use it for very long. And, of course, it is obvious that newer texts will abandon TRY IT IN BASIC as a teaching technique, if they haven't already. But all of this misses the point. Those textbook exercises were easy, effective, universal, pedagogically interesting -- and nothing even
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Dan wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Denton Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. This is a good find, Gary. I had read about this a while ago, but didn't have website reference available. It reinforces one of the criticisms of using tentative archeological finds as the foundation for analysis of present day problems. Many times, these finds are a virtual tabula rossa, which allows an author with convictions to see his point well proven by a history that is conveniently veiled. Actually I have a number of problems with the article. First, he blames the deforestation on the rats, but offers only evidence that the giant palms were endangered by the rodents. There were several other species of large trees, what became of them? Remember, when first contacted, the islanders were in small, leaky canoes. Second, the actual population of the island at its height is still in question. Diamond had a good deal more substantiation for his estimate than I saw in this article. Third the conclusion that the population collapse occurred after contact with European explorers is not well substantiated. Has he established that the cannibalism that occurred was after contact? Finally, I think that the author's objectivity is questionable. He admits that one of the reasons he took on the project was that a student of his from the island peaked his interest. It is more than likely that a native of the island would be anxious to disprove the idea that his ancestors were so irresponsible. I would be very interested in a response from Diamond on this study. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
