Re: Politeness
Having been watching from the sidelines, it's amazing how easy it is for me to decide whose voice is respectable and mature, and whose is childish and petulant, in this discussion. -- Warren Adams-Ockrassa | nightwares.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politeness
Ooh, you're so precious when you squinch up your wittwe itty-bitty face and make your wittwe itty-bitty fists! I could num you right up! I could just eat you all up from your cute wittwe toes to your cute wittwe nose! Yes I could! Yes I could! Num num num num num! But you're being a naughty-naughty, trying to take it off-list, little honey boo-boo. No no no. On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:20 -0800, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa war...@nightwares.com wrote: Aww, aren't you adorable? Here, honey, here's a wowwipop. Aww, aren't you good at passive aggressive insults? Here, suck on this. -- Warren Adams-Ockrassa ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politeness
I read it as more of a tantrum. But hey, potatoh, potahto. On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:42:37 -0800, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: I read this as a personal attack, which is not permitted in this group. Nick On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 1:57 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa war...@nightwares.com wrote: Having been watching from the sidelines, it's amazing how easy it is for me to decide whose voice is respectable and mature, and whose is childish and petulant, in this discussion. If only it were also easy for you to post something of value, instead of your opinion which is worthless. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com - ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com -- Warren ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politeness
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 15:22:08 -0800, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa war...@nightwares.com wrote: But you're being a naughty-naughty, trying to take it off-list, little honey boo-boo. No no no. What did I write to you that I did not post to the list? This. Check the headers. X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Envelope-From: jwilliams4...@gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) by mail2c40.carrierzone.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id qAPMIL5e001019 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:18:23 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id v19so7943974obq.9 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=+vwmJsmf0QOTo4XBb5M4nvWWVeiu2nDDftAQhLpLQPw=; b=Oi6YgNjk6X16RPAoWC5kU0o/cIT/j2ocbXDg1P4c4shNjI35j19Eu4O0X8UYfGCgxK axtOKldyu5myaBlc7lGgLrGtOM0x3HYz7+eZZd6+KZFMQbfemTvdmDw6pIGPREnOx+6U Pzd9olFyVHgPumSQ1UPiVqibEXT42taJIjFzuf3EgjBoqksYjSVQihPXjns3prl5NfHF ReRgMsZhtzimHVKunDYXy/M34vyLYr0+XdiVQUotcG8EqHkOGMmbpF73ru67NUq8/Agj KZDhG8wXgeE2Wz7uqRsJmfYHqcsUxgA0gOXToSaxATGrnrrzzL7DOLZHH5gFPiTkuDPf 0IBw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.98.19 with SMTP id ee19mr7670870obb.90.1353881900967; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.87.102 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 20121125151357.ba2wzk3sgo488...@mail.nightwares.com References: 1353811625.44944.yahoomailclas...@web110008.mail.gq1.yahoo.com 20121125122109.srbnsnpnsossk...@mail.nightwares.com 20121125151357.ba2wzk3sgo488...@mail.nightwares.com Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 14:18:20 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Politeness From: John Williams To: war...@nightwares.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.0 cv=LeaLHEji c=1 sm=1 a=nDghuxUhq_wA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=pGLkceIS:8 a=lClPhcSuEO0A:10 a=Zi8kF34D:8 a=_5XHeeiD_9X60fgI7TYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=ZNTfuEKbaA8A:10 a=UGZ7QfJHoL6Lh6oHu0VgvA==:117 X-WHL: SLR On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Warren Adams-Ockrassa wrote: Aww, aren't you adorable? Here, honey, here's a wowwipop. Aww, aren't you good at passive aggressive insults? Here, suck on this. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Troll on the list needs to learn manners...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 23:12:03 -0500, Damon Agretto damon.agre...@gmail.com wrote: My question for the list is: if John comes across as a troll, why are people responding to him? By doing so, you give him exactly what he wants. By getting a rise out of others, he makes you dance to his tune. If you really think he has nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation, don't reply to his goads! ..he says, even though it's an indirect means of poking the troll. ;) -- Warren ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
I recall Carl Sagan despairing that Reagan believed it. The amount of money and resources that went into live tests would suggest there was faith at the top, regardless of what those 'lower' in the chain of command might have thought. At the time SW was being promoted, it gave all the appearance of earnestness. • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com • On Nov 11, 2012, at 20:52, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how they might have started off serious, then decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff. I have some up-close and personal experience with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in most peoples' minds still; when I tell my version, most people are still surprised. Shows the power of the bully pulpit, sure was interesting to see it first-hand. Nick On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing. I think he believed. I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me. But, that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major corporations had no idea how computers worked. Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30 minutes behind. Well, I also read that parts of it simply failedreporting 0 votes from a long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular. But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability. Or modular. Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters. Obama's software workedand I think its because it was field tested for monthsit was intended to track voters for months, not just on election day. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Obama II
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:17:25 -0200, ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO albm...@centroin.com.br wrote: So... What about Obama's reelection? Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The extreme 'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority, however little they want to admit the fact, and however voluble their protests to the contrary might be. Rick Perry is an example of the kind of candidate they would have preferred. The Republican mainstream probably knew better; if they felt the same way as the extremists Perry would have floated a lot longer than he did. Of all the other candidates, Ron Paul seemed the most sensible, but he had two things going against him: 1. He had a history of permitting extremely racist sentiments to be promulgated under his imprimatur; and 2. He was far, far more intelligent than any of the other candidates and, indeed, a fair margin of the electorate. Americans shy away from intelligence. So no, Romney was the best pick of the available options, as far as the Republicans saw him, I think. He wasn't *too* smart, wasn't *too* radically 'right', wasn't *too* moderate/centrist. He also wasn't too consistent, as his constantly changing campaign evidenced (he was reversing himself a couple of times a month by the end). No one deliberately floats a candidate they think will lose - what would the profit be in that? And if the Democrats had been stealth voting to undermine the Republicans, they would've picked someone clearly batshit loony, like Perry. Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance? Well, all but about 225,000 voters, yes. That's how narrow the popular vote margin was, last time I checked, between Obama and Romney. Dan was right about the debate performance, as well. Romney came out swinging and clobbered Obama in the first debate. The second and third were solid comebacks, though the third debate - being about foreign policy - was not watched by many Americans. (Our foreign policy is 'kill em all and let god sort em out'.) Biden did pretty well against Ryan in the VP debates, as well, calling him out repeatedly whenever he went outside the bounds of what most of us call 'reality'. Obama did the same thing with the second debate, calling Romney out when he lied, letting himself talk himself into corners, and so on. Nonetheless, Romney's approval went way, way up after the first debate, and it really did seem to energize him and his supporters. The electoral map doesn't show just how close the popular vote really was - and it was close. -- Warren Adams-Ockrassa ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: VentureBeat article
Just jumping in to puckishly point out all the quasi-homoerotic awe at so many impressive columns. • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com • On Nov 8, 2012, at 15:13, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Thanks, Dan. I saw Friedman's column when it came out - very impressive. We'll be hearing a lot from Gautam's work, I expect. I hope so. Your column was also impressive. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: VentureBeat article
On Nov 8, 2012, at 17:06, Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: Just stop staring at my column. I'm a married man. Oh, I'm sure you are...! • Warren • off console • w azkrmc.com • h nightwares.com • ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Existence has arrived...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:33:33 -0700 (PDT), David Brin db...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Heh! Both covers are great though the lensatic one is so cool. Doesn't work as well on Kindle though. -- Warren Adams-Ockrassa | nightwares.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
