Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9911 > unrolled thread

mod calculation

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  mod calculation Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-11-13 08:20 -0800
    Re: mod calculation Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-13 08:56 -0800
      Re: mod calculation Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-11-13 09:26 -0800
        Re: mod calculation Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-11-13 13:08 -0800
          Re: mod calculation Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-11-13 13:12 -0800
            Re: mod calculation Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-13 13:49 -0800
    Re: mod calculation Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-13 09:02 -0800
      Re: mod calculation Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-11-13 09:09 -0800
        Re: mod calculation Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-11-13 20:20 +0000
        Re: mod calculation Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-14 09:55 -0800
          Re: mod calculation Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-15 13:05 -0800
            Re: mod calculation Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-15 14:17 -0800
              Re: mod calculation Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-17 07:23 -0800
                Re: mod calculation Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2011-11-17 07:51 -0800
                Re: mod calculation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-17 09:35 -0800
                Re: mod calculation Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-17 10:10 -0800
                  Re: mod calculation Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-11-17 19:09 +0000
                    Re: mod calculation Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-17 14:17 -0800
                    Re: mod calculation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-19 21:11 -0500
                  Re: mod calculation Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-18 20:35 -0800
                    Re: mod calculation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-19 21:13 -0500
                    Re: mod calculation Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-19 23:47 -0800
                  Re: mod calculation Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-18 20:54 -0800
                    Re: mod calculation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 08:34 -0800
                      Re: mod calculation Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-11-19 21:16 +0000
                        Re: mod calculation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 16:11 -0800
                          Re: mod calculation Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-19 21:13 -0500
                          Re: mod calculation Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-11-20 08:45 +0000
                            Re: mod calculation Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 08:12 -0800
                              Re: mod calculation Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-11-20 19:42 +0000
                                Re: mod calculation spk <jhic@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-20 23:18 -0400
                                  Re: mod calculation thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-11-21 02:11 -0500
                      Re: mod calculation Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-19 13:40 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#10079

On 11/18/2011 11:35 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:10:28 -0800, Gene Wirchenko<genew@ocis.net>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>      Get over the block.  And that is what he ought to do.
>
> Easier said that done. Have you ever been to workshops where people
> work on such problems? Just because something is easy for you does not
> mean it is easy for others.
>
> If you are not an alcoholic you might say, "Well you idiot. Just stop
> drinking. What could be easier than that?"

Easy or difficult - the chance of changing if not trying to
change is small.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10088

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:35:44 -0800, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:10:28 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
>wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>     Get over the block.  And that is what he ought to do.
>
>Easier said that done. Have you ever been to workshops where people
>work on such problems? Just because something is easy for you does not
>mean it is easy for others.

     Just because something may be difficult to do does not mean that
it is not a or the solution.

>If you are not an alcoholic you might say, "Well you idiot. Just stop
>drinking. What could be easier than that?"

     I said nothing about ease of doing.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10063

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:10:28 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>     Get over the block.  And that is what he ought to do.

People usually don't recognise their phobias as something they should
get over.  People afraid of spiders and snakes see their phobias as a
sensible reaction to a danger.

It was quite late in life when I realised I had to get rid of my
phobia of needles.  It took about three days of intensive EMDR work.
It was so strange not being afraid of needles. 

In my case, profs were simply scary people, unless approached in the
presence of a large number of people.  I had an unconscious need of
witnesses to discourage the prof from attacking me. It didn't occur to
me at the time that my extreme reluctance to be in a room alone with a
prof was in any way unusual.  I probably imagined other people felt
the same way, but were braver than I was. I did not think about it.
That  was just the way the universe was.

In general, I feel uncomfortable around other people unless there is a
large audience. You might say I have reverse stage fright.

I think this comes from the fact my Mom behaved herself in the
presence of outside witnesses.

These are not rational thoughts. You can't argue yourself out of them,
any more than you can argue yourself out of feeling horny.
The most powerful tool I have discovered for neutralising them is
EMDR.
see http://mindprod.com/livinglove/methods/emdr.html
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
I can't come to bed just yet. Somebody is wrong on the Internet. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10067

Roedy Green wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>     Get over the block.  And that is what he ought to do.
> 
> People usually don't recognise their phobias as something they should
> get over.  People afraid of spiders and snakes see their phobias as a
> sensible reaction to a danger.
> 
> It was quite late in life when I realised I had to get rid of my
> phobia of needles.  It took about three days of intensive EMDR work.
> It was so strange not being afraid of needles. 
> 
> In my case, profs were simply scary people, unless approached in the
> presence of a large number of people.  I had an unconscious need of
> witnesses to discourage the prof from attacking me. It didn't occur to
> me at the time that my extreme reluctance to be in a room alone with a
> prof was in any way unusual.  I probably imagined other people felt
> the same way, but were braver than I was. I did not think about it.
> That  was just the way the universe was.
> 
> In general, I feel uncomfortable around other people unless there is a
> large audience. You might say I have reverse stage fright.
> 
> I think this comes from the fact my Mom behaved herself in the
> presence of outside witnesses.
> 
> These are not rational thoughts. You can't argue yourself out of them,
> any more than you can argue yourself out of feeling horny.
> The most powerful tool I have discovered for neutralising them is
> EMDR.
> see http://mindprod.com/livinglove/methods/emdr.html

That is fascinating information, Roedy, thank you.

That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise, is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness as a Java programmer, as in the OP's case.  Programming isn't just about the code, the language, the logic, the models and the idioms.  It's also about the practitioner and being mentally and physically capable of the act of programming.

So actually, your post is quite on topic.  Your suggestion speaks to the maintenance and enhancement of the most universal, misunderstood and essential tool in the (Java) programmer's toolkit: their own mind.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10070

Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post
> I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw
> another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise,
> is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness
> as a Java programmer,

So far I agree.

> as in the OP's case.

But what reliable source do you have for that claim?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10077

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post
>> I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw
>> another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise,
>> is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness
>> as a Java programmer,
> 
> So far I agree.
> 
>> as in the OP's case.
> 
> But what reliable source do you have for that claim?

None.  None whatsoever.  I should have said, "... as Roedy postulated for the OP's case."

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10080

On 11/19/2011 7:11 PM, Lew wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post
>>> I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw
>>> another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise,
>>> is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness
>>> as a Java programmer,
>>
>> So far I agree.
>>
>>> as in the OP's case.
>>
>> But what reliable source do you have for that claim?
>
> None.  None whatsoever.  I should have said, "... as Roedy postulated for the OP's case."

that seems to be a relevant distinction.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10089

Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post
>>> I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw
>>> another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise,
>>> is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness
>>> as a Java programmer,
>> So far I agree.
>>> as in the OP's case.
>> But what reliable source do you have for that claim?
> None.  None whatsoever.  I should have said, "... as Roedy postulated for the OP's case."

Even more accurate: "... as Roedy merely suggested a possible reason behind
OP's case."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10101

On Sunday, November 20, 2011 12:45:10 AM UTC-8, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew <lewb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> >> Lew wrote:
> >>> That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post
> >>> I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw
> >>> another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise,
> >>> is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness
> >>> as a Java programmer,
> >> So far I agree.
> >>> as in the OP's case.
> >> But what reliable source do you have for that claim?
> > None.  None whatsoever.  I should have said, "... as Roedy postulated for the OP's case."
> 
> Even more accurate: "... as Roedy merely suggested a possible reason behind
> OP's case."

That's actually just exactly as accurate, since you simply substituted the definition of "postulated".

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10111

Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 20, 2011 12:45:10 AM UTC-8, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Lew <lewb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>> That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post
>>>>> I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw
>>>>> another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise,
>>>>> is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness
>>>>> as a Java programmer,
>>>> So far I agree.
>>>>> as in the OP's case.
>>>> But what reliable source do you have for that claim?
>>> None.  None whatsoever.  I should have said, "... as Roedy postulated for the OP's case."
>> Even more accurate: "... as Roedy merely suggested a possible reason behind
>> OP's case."
> That's actually just exactly as accurate, since you simply substituted the definition of "postulated".

Is it? It wasn't to me. Anyway, I don't think there's enough interest 
here in the newsgroup to further discuss it publicly. You're invited
to mail me, if you're all for arriving at a final consensus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10134

Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>, wrote:
>Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 20, 2011 12:45:10 AM UTC-8, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> Lew <lewb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>>> That is perhaps the most interesting and potentially useful off-topic post
>>>>>> I've seen here, so much so that it became honorarily on topic.  I'll draw
>>>>>> another thread to the topic in that to be a programmer, Java or otherwise,
>>>>>> is a human activity.  Pyschological impediments reduce one's effectiveness
>>>>>> as a Java programmer,
>>>>> So far I agree.
>>>>>> as in the OP's case.
>>>>> But what reliable source do you have for that claim?
>>>> None.  None whatsoever.  I should have said, "... as Roedy postulated for the OP's case."
>>> Even more accurate: "... as Roedy merely suggested a possible reason behind
>>> OP's case."
>> That's actually just exactly as accurate, since you simply substituted the definition of "postulated".
>
>Is it? It wasn't to me. Anyway, I don't think there's enough interest 
>here in the newsgroup to further discuss it publicly. You're invited
>to mail me, if you're all for arriving at a final consensus.

re: "interest"? Totally, more relevant since the demonstration by "Novice"
(Paul Derbyshire).
Do tell should "Lew" mail you. Interested observers have an interest in
that persona's activity...strictly looking at only the psychological
impediments  -  of course.

-- 
tome boleto ciao

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10140

On 20/11/2011 10:18 PM, "spk", an obvious murphy sock, wrote:
NaN> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer

NaN> re: "interest"?

What does your ambiguous question of Leitgeb have to do with Java, murphy?

NaN> Totally, more relevant since the demonstration by "Novice"
NaN> (Paul Derbysh!re).

Who is "Paul Derbysh!re", murphy? There is nobody in this newsgroup 
using that alias.

NaN> Do tell should "Lew" mail you.

What does your directive to Leitgeb have to do with Java, murphy?

NaN> Interested observers have an interest in that persona's
NaN> activity...strictly looking at only the psychological
NaN> impediments  -  of course.

Who is "that persona", murphy? There is nobody in this newsgroup using 
that alias. Rather ironic, too, that you'd speak of "psychological 
impediments, murphy, considering your own considerable freight of such.

    "I had 'volunteered (years back) to support those who do endeavor
     to provide free Free Usenet access, support those who offered
     subscription based Free Usenet access, nothing more than
     cooperation expected in return for what has been many
     thousands of hours of work. I note most of those I joined with
     are either deceased, severely disabled, or plain ole' MIA..
     now it is my Time. ...

     You just read my last. ...

     For those who think they see me in future times I can only wish
     you severe Tinnitus in your dreams. For those who know me
     well (eMail, whatever) and see me, know I will be smiling also.
     It is to you I say "adieu mein frenz and adios .. grazie' [hugs]
     for all the Good Times! May you and yours always bear well
     with all Life brings you".

     /0ut"
       --murphy

http://www.uffnet.com/kookkamp/goodbye.htm

And some people wonder why I call them Famous Last Words.

P.S. You forgot to include a copy of your trademarked Lits o' Haet, 
murphy. Still suffering from memory problems, murphy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10071

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:34:12 -0800 (PST), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>So actually, your post is quite on topic.  Your suggestion speaks to the ma=
>intenance and enhancement of the most universal, misunderstood and essentia=
>l tool in the (Java) programmer's toolkit: their own mind.

I figured that the human mind is a biocomputer and as such it must
have algorithms, programs and such, the analogs of what we silicon
programmers use.

I am pretty sure we humans are going be embarrassed when we find out
nearly everything special about humans can be explained by a handful
of cheap bioprogramming tricks. It can't be that big a deal since all
the higher functions evolved so quickly.  All the hard work was
getting to the insect level.

I remember when I first heard about artificial neural nets and their
way of composing and using algorithms without any understanding of how
they work. That sounds very human.

I hung out with Dr. John Lilly and Ken Keyes Jr. who approached the
notion is quite different ways. Terence McKenna is another. "Culture
is your OS".  Tony Robbins teaches some practical techniques,
including "scrambling" which was key for me. Then there are the NLP
people and even the rebirthers.

The practical problem is how do you CHANGE your programming when you
realise it is defective, usually because some sort of trauma set it
off on a goofy track.  This is the question I tackle at
http://mindprod.com/livinglove/methods.html
It is so much harder than changing silicon programming.  We have
evolved a extreme attachment to any instructions we received as
children, no matter how bizarre or improbable. Darwin can tell you
why.

I used to lead workshops where I would help people change their
programming.  It was quite amazing seeing a woman get over terror of
rape in just a few minutes, or long standing resentments evaporate.
One of things I am most happy with was an Israeli dentist with a rabid
hatred of Palestinians letting go of it in a couple of weeks during a
workshop I lead in England.

Most of the interesting work on understanding how the brain works has
been done on vision where we have a quite good understanding how
various creatures extract the useful feature information from the
flood of low level information.

My big aha moment was realising that my subjective waking experience
IS  a dream, but one that takes in a lot of outside data to influence
it.  This idea is so flaky and frightening to people that I rarely
mention my writings on the matter, but make people dig to find them,
and in the process get a feeling for who I am, before they find the
irrefutable evidence I am stark raving bonkers and hence dismiss what
I have to say without considering it.
 
Milton Erickson was hypnotist with amazing ability to change people's
programming. I laughed and laughed reading about some of the
unconventional things he did.

Then of course their is brainwashing/boot camp/cults/religious
conversion where the subject get melted down and reshaped with
programming selected by someone else.

I set about in 1976 to do a major overhaul of my own programming. 
It has been quite successful though the progress was glacial.  I am no
longer suicidal or frustrated.  Many of the things other people do
that I used to find infuriating are now often entertaining.  I have
very few needs.  I don't feel deprived at all. That my ex suddenly
left and refused to talk to me or explain why he flipped from 100%
positive to 100% negative overnight used to drive me nuts.  It
obsessed me for decades. Now I wonder what all the fuss was about. I
can even read a book while throwing up. And of course needles for the
various blood tests needed to manage HIV are not in the least
traumatic.

We have two kinds of programming. Emotion-backed programming is very
resistant to change.  Whereas factual programming, e.g. your friend's
email address is trivial to change.

The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that emotion backed
programming can be clearly wrong, dysfunctional, nuts even, but that
is not sufficient for someone to discard it, no matter how much they
want to.  They need techniques and a LOT of patience.

-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
I can't come to bed just yet. Somebody is wrong on the Internet. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web