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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160064

Re: The True Aficionado?

Show all headers | View raw

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:28b18e55-174d-47eb-903b-45bafef3bafb@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 9:19:48 AM UTC-7, hgww wrote:
>> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> news:35595a0c-afed-4e10-8eee-2d3d78d3ac4d@googlegroups.com...
>> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:33:57 AM UTC-7, gareth wrote:
>
>> >> The True Aficionad is interested in the computer itself as a wonderful
>> >> machine and not in any uses to which it might be put.
>
>> >> Discuss
>
>> > While some degree of interest in the computer for itself is
>> > not unreasonable, this approach is fundamentally unhealthy.
>
>> That's a pretty dubious claim.
>
>> > The computer is, at bottom, a tool, and thus like
>> > all tools, exists so that its uses may be served.
>
>> Modern reality is that plenty of tools are more
>> than JUST tools, whether that is your computers,
>> your cars, your house, the food you eat etc.
>
> It's true that when a computer is a device you use on a daily basis as 
> part of
> your regular life - to surf the web, check E-mail, and so on - it makes 
> sense
> to want it to be... comfortable.

And rather more than just comfortable too, it makes sense
for it to be much more than that. Same with your house too.

> But I argue the other side of the case because I myself _am_ affected by 
> the
> "true aficionado" inclination, and thus I know I want to keep it under 
> control.

But you haven't been able to come up with a good reason why
it makes sense to do that or why that is fundamentally unhealthy.

In fact it is easy to make a case that it is fundamentally good
for your mental health for it to be much more than JUST a tool.

> Thus, on my web site,
>
> at
> http://www.quadibloc.com/arch/perint.htm
>
> I go on at great length about how various schemes might allow
> a computer to efficiently switch from treating memory as composed
> of 8-bit bytes to treating it as composed of 6-bit characters, the
> better to support emulation of some classic computers;

What is fundamentally unhealthy about that ?

> at
> http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/kyb03.htm
>
> I discuss the evolution of the IBM PC keyboard, in the
> context of how reachable the backspace key, the enter
> key, and both shift keys were where I found them most
> conveniently reachable as a touch-typist - _and_ in that
> section, I also admire some large and complicated keyboards, at

And that is what good engineering is about, why
some approaches work better than others do.

> http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/kyb01.htm
>
> And then, to make a computer seem "computery"... what could
> be more impressive than a front panel full of blinking lights?

Something that can understand complex questions
like siri can do, or work out what you want rather
than what you actually asked like google can do
at times very effectively indeed so most of what
you want end up in the first few hits on google.

> http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/panint.htm
>
> On this page,
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/arch/ar0506.htm

> I conclude with a spirited defense of big-endian
> computing as against little-endian computing;

Again, that is what real engineering is about, questions like that.

Nothing fundamentally unhealthy about that IMO.

You get the same thing with even the most basic carpentry tools etc.

> another preference of mine, for Pascal strings over C strings
> as the basis for file formats is addressed on this page...
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/comp/druint.htm

> Anyways, it should not be considered unreasonable for me to warn others
> at travelling as far down a path that can lead to madness as I have!

It doesn't lead to madness, it just attracts those who have
tendencies towards that sort of rather obsessive behaviour.

Same with quite a bit of art too. 

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:33 +0000
  Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-19 20:42 -0800
    Re: The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:11 +0000
      Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 05:06 -0800
        Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
          Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 15:11 -0800
            Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
              Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 13:43 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-23 06:06 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:40 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-23 09:50 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-24 13:40 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 03:14 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:30 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 03:51 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 16:18 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:52 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-04 13:22 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-04 16:33 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-04 15:47 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-05 01:04 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:40 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-06 23:18 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-04 17:18 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-04 22:09 -0500
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-05 14:36 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 02:03 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-06 17:28 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:54 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:39 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:24 -0700
                Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-05 18:43 +0100
                Re: The True Aficionado? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:34 -0800
                Re: The True Aficionado? Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-07 16:24 -0600
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:45 +1100
                Re: The True Aficionado? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-03 16:01 -0600
  Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 20:59 -0800
    Re: The True Aficionado? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-02-20 23:14 -0800
    Re: The True Aficionado? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:33 +0100
    Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:19 +1100
      Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 08:56 -0800
        Re: The True Aficionado? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:22 -0600
          Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:50 +1100
            Re: The True Aficionado? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 22:49 -0800
              Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 19:32 +1100
              Re: The True Aficionado? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 09:23 +0000
                Re: The True Aficionado? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
              Re: The True Aficionado? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-22 11:30 +0000
        Re: The True Aficionado? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:38 +1100

csiph-web