Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159663 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 13:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-02-22 07:38 +1100 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 56 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
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
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 16:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <xZ6dncSolvEVYkDLnZ2dnUU7-b3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160568 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > > I have told the story of the RP07 going terrorist? > > The RP07 had the heads enter the platters in a different direction > from most other drives. Mostly, head crashes just drag the heads along > the oxide. The RP07 had a failure mode where the heads buried > instantly deep into the platter when they crashed. This made > significant havoc to the surroundings when the momentum of the > rotating platters were more or less instantly transferred to the > cabinet. > > This happened one day at my old college. The cabinet was part of > a DEC2065 and was right next to one of the 6 strong steel supports > that held up the 9-story building. It was at the 2nd floor. > > This day emacs froze and around 1 second later there was a *really* > loud bang in the building. Instant bomb alarm and full evacuation. > We all thought someone had bombed the computer facility, right below > the deans office. > Is this the same drive as the RM07, made by Burroughs? We had one on our VAX 11/780. Glad we never had one of these super-catastrophic events with ours! We did have a lot of trouble with ours, it must have been a very early unit. One major mod required replacement of the HDA, and they put an absolute filter on the air coming OUT of the HDA, so that full stroke inward seeks could not draw dirty air in through the voice coil. But, we still had firmware trouble with it. They fixed some of it, but it would still occasionally mangle a track descriptor record. The next time the drive needed to transfer a sector off that track, the drive would completely freeze. The only way to clear it was to open the back of the drive and power it off by the circuit breaker. Eventually, they came up with a fix that eliminated damaging the TDRs. Then, the DEC CE came in and ran a program that would rewrite all the TDRs. He promised that it would not affect user data at all. He was MOSTLY correct, but it initialized the master file system header! I spent a tense morning writing a program to find the spare header and copy it to the master header while converting the various pointers and checksums. I tried it first on a floppy and then ran it on the RM07. Great relief when it worked. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-04 03:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djr81lFm4ebU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160514 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052D2521DCF4E4@aca40c8f.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052D115027C687@aca43c61.ipt.aol.com... >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM00052C976DF0A4D2@aca2d6f2.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> hgww wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:PM00052C8429A98276@aca2d65f.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>>> hgww wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:PM00052C5C2FA4288E@aca40f57.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>>>>> mentificium@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Btw (by the way) I hope to provide an orignal >>>>>>>>>> "prior art" AI that leads to a kind of >>>>>>>>>> "pre-Cambrian explosion" of AI life-forms. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> By calling the Perl AI "Ghost", I hint at >>>>>>>>>> the idea of "The Ghost in the Machine" and >>>>>>>>>> at "The Soul of a New Machine" by T. Kidder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can tell you that the soul of a machine is a conglomerate >>>>>>>>> of the developers and other workers who did the work >>>>>>>>> to produce the hard/software. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not really true of those who do the donkey >>>>>>>> work like say wire wrapping the backplane with >>>>>>>> stuff of your generation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's especially true in this case. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. Those are no different to the machines that replaced them >>>>>> later. >>>>>> >>>>> I don't think you would recognize a machine soul. >>>> >>>> There is no such animal and even if there was, >>>> those human robots are no part of it anyway. >>> >>> Every machine had its own "personality". >> >> They still do. BUT that has nothing to do with >> stuff like the machines used to make the machine. >> And so when we had humans who were JUST doing >> what machines did later, the wire wrapping, THOSE >> people contributed nothing to the personality. > > Of course they did. Every wire-wrapped machine had it > quirks. Fixing hardware bugs could cause more quirks. That is a completely separate question to whether that machine had any part in the personality of the machine it was doing the wire wrapping of. I can see where you have gone wrong now, you assumed I was talking about the personality of the wire wrapping machine. I wasn’t. I was making the point that the wire wrapping machine does not contribute to the personality of the machine it is making. >>> I have never figured out how to describe this other >>> than using human attributes. Merging two machines >>> together created a different personality. >> >> Using a machine to do part of the manufacture of >> a machine like with wire wrapping does not create >> a different machine and doing it with robot humans >> doesn’t either. > > When I talked about merging two machines, I meant going > from a single-CPU system to a dual-CPU or triple-CPU system. That isnt merging two machines, that is changing the design of one machine. >>> When they were split into two systems, >>> they reverted back to their old personality. >> >> Not when one of them is used for manufacture. >> >>> Each customer's machine was also different. >> >> That mangles the real story too, particularly >> when the customer has lots of the one machine. > Not really. Yes, really. > Each machine had its own user population. No they do no, most obviously with server farms. > Those users did different things at different times. Utterly mangled all over again with server farms. >>> Some of that had to do with the kind of >>> care of the center and usage of the users. >> >>> When one was sent to work on site, one of the first >>> things a person did was learn about that personality. >> >> BULLSHIT. In spades with modern smartphones. > > I'm NOT talking about todays machines. You claim has to be valid for all machines. > They have the personalities of a slug > after it's been run over by a steam roller. Even sillier than you usually manage with smartphones alone. They do in fact have much more personality because some of them are much more limited resource wise. >> And that is all completely irrelevant to your original >> silly claim that the machine used in the manufacture >> of the machine is part of the personality of the >> machine that it is used in the manufacture of. > Boy, when you go off the deep end of misreading what I wrote, You are the one that did that when you assumed I was talking about the personality of the wire wrapping machine. I wasn’t. > you create a Grand Canyon. More of your wild exaggeration, even sillier than the claim above about the personality of smartphones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nbac2e$n9k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160514 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052D2521DCF4E4@aca40c8f.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> >> And that is all completely irrelevant to your original >> silly claim that the machine used in the manufacture >> of the machine is part of the personality of the >> machine that it is used in the manufacture of. >> > Boy, when you go off the deep end of misreading what I wrote, > you create a Grand Canyon. > BAH, this is to be expected when you exchanges messages with Speedo!!! Speedo is a classic case for why the Kill File was invented. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 20:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35595a0c-afed-4e10-8eee-2d3d78d3ac4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159663 |
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. The computer is, at bottom, a tool, and thus like all tools, exists so that its uses may be served. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mentificium@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 23:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07cd6e77-8b48-4654-ae37-fc4ef1be28d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160018 |
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 8:59:28 PM UTC-8, Quadibloc wrote: > 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. The computer is, at bottom, a tool, and > thus like all tools, exists so that its uses may be served. > > John Savard Yes, but when artificial Minds migrate first into the computer and then as the Perl "Ghost in the machine" from webserver to webserver, the computer will have the same "raison d'etre" as we humans have: survival; happiness; reproduction; (salvation?), etc. http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt has been updated today. Arthur T. Murray
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 16:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ku1ppc-rec.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160018 |
In article <35595a0c-afed-4e10-8eee-2d3d78d3ac4d@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >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. The computer is, at bottom, a tool, and >thus like all tools, exists so that its uses may be served. Amen! And tools are valued at their utility vs cost. When it comes to operating systems the cost is pretty low for a lot of them (not zero, mind you; but low). That does not mean they are ideal for the task at hand. Especially QNX and Android are among the more expensive ones I have deployed in my projects. Even windows, although rarely, and only as a user front end. Handled by someone else. I do not exclude windows from consideration per se, but the infection rate and the update regime, plus the bulk licensing regimes are pretty much showstoppers; all of them. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 03:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diu6d1F83t0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160018 |
"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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 08:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <28b18e55-174d-47eb-903b-45bafef3bafb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160046 |
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. 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. 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; 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 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? 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; 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! John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 12:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nacv4l$eq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160054 |
On 2/21/2016 10:56 AM, Quadibloc wrote: > 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. > > 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. > > 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; > > 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 > > 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? > > 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; > > 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! > But it's a _nice_ sort of madness! Of course, those who hang out on a.f.c. are probably too far gone for warnings to have much effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 07:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dium82FcaskU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160058 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message news:nacv4l$eq7$1@dont-email.me... > On 2/21/2016 10:56 AM, Quadibloc wrote: > >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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; >> >> 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 >> >> 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? >> >> 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; >> >> 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! >> > But it's a _nice_ sort of madness! > > Of course, those who hang out on a.f.c. are probably too far gone for > warnings to have much effect. I'm not convinced that it has anything to do with too far gone myself. After all, you do have to spend your time doing something, what is fundamentally unhealthy about doing what interests you ? IMO it is actually fundamentally very healthy indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 22:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c9b66896-a774-41d0-bfc0-569c71c49886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160067 |
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:50:12 PM UTC-7, hgww wrote: > After all, you do have to spend your time doing something, > what is fundamentally unhealthy about doing what interests > you ? IMO it is actually fundamentally very healthy indeed. I think my concern is that one needs to keep a sense of perspective. The utility of something as practical as a computer would seem to obviously take precedence over its aesthetics. Especially when one is speaking of aesthetics that aren't related to ergonomics, to ease and comfort in use, but to more esoteric sentiments of cognoscienti. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 19:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <divvdsFlo2nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160086 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote > hgww wrote >> After all, you do have to spend your time doing something, >> what is fundamentally unhealthy about doing what interests >> you ? IMO it is actually fundamentally very healthy indeed. > I think my concern is that one needs to keep a sense of perspective. I've never been convinced that you do with what interests you. Why should you waste any of your time doing what doesn't interest you ? > The utility of something as practical as a computer would > seem to obviously take precedence over its aesthetics. Sure, but it also makes a lot of sense to have both with the most important tools like computers, houses, cars, DIY tools etc and trivially easy to have both with most of them now. Specially with stuff you use every day or most days. And even with stuff you only use occasionally, because they are much more enjoyable to use when you have both. > Especially when one is speaking of aesthetics that > aren't related to ergonomics, to ease and comfort in > use, but to more esoteric sentiments of cognoscienti. It isn't about the cognoscenti, its about what turns you on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160222092355.4a6fb51b0beb0664164590e5@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #160086 |
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:49:32 -0800 (PST) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:50:12 PM UTC-7, hgww wrote: > > > After all, you do have to spend your time doing something, > > what is fundamentally unhealthy about doing what interests > > you ? IMO it is actually fundamentally very healthy indeed. > > I think my concern is that one needs to keep a sense of perspective. > > The utility of something as practical as a computer would seem to > obviously take precedence over its aesthetics. Especially when one is In the eyes of some aesthetics takse precedence over everything for anything they can see. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naffs702ttr@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160090 |
On 2016-02-22, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:49:32 -0800 (PST) > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >> On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 1:50:12 PM UTC-7, hgww wrote: >> >>> After all, you do have to spend your time doing something, >>> what is fundamentally unhealthy about doing what interests >>> you ? IMO it is actually fundamentally very healthy indeed. >> >> I think my concern is that one needs to keep a sense of perspective. >> >> The utility of something as practical as a computer would seem to >> obviously take precedence over its aesthetics. Especially when one is > > In the eyes of some aesthetics takse precedence over everything for > anything they can see. Which explains the existence of some truly dreadful GUIs. (Many people have a lousy aesthetic sense.) -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 11:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naerc9$pda$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160086 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:c9b66896-a774-41d0-bfc0-569c71c49886@googlegroups.com... > The utility of something as practical as a computer would seem to > obviously > take precedence over its aesthetics. Only if you are a user and not an aficionado who is excited by the machines themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 07:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diulicFc5asU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160054 |
"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.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web