Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160014 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-20 23:29 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-02-24 15:24 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 23:29 -0500
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 22:48 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 19:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-21 09:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-18 18:04 -0400
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:59 -0500
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:34 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 21:03 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:53 -0500
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:27 +1100
Re: Qbasic JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-21 12:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:17 +1100
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:03 +1100
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:39 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 06:18 -0600
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 06:53 -0700
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 08:45 -0600
Re: Qbasic mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-25 15:56 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-25 18:19 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-25 16:07 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-25 16:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-25 16:01 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-25 18:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-26 15:42 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-26 10:15 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 11:20 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-27 10:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-27 13:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-26 19:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-26 20:49 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 14:33 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-26 21:46 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 06:44 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-27 11:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 10:51 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-28 12:58 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 16:34 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-28 17:47 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:40 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 09:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:46 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 14:31 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:23 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 18:13 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-28 20:14 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-28 21:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-29 09:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 07:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 08:21 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-29 17:43 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-29 17:35 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-29 14:19 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 17:19 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-01 06:02 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-02 10:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-01 13:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-01 14:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 01:33 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-02 14:19 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-02 10:23 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-03 08:28 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 16:21 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-03 16:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-03 16:23 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 03:58 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-02 15:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-03 13:39 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-03 15:57 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-04 09:58 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-04 11:11 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-04 16:22 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-05 03:05 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 19:31 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-04 19:25 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-05 11:14 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 09:50 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-05 17:41 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 22:08 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-06 09:46 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-06 09:59 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-06 18:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:25 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-06 17:26 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 12:32 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 18:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-07 14:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-07 11:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-07 11:57 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-07 16:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-08 08:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 11:40 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-13 10:14 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:34 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 17:25 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:14 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare pechter@mongo.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-03-07 02:49 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 15:47 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-06 19:54 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-05 12:02 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 14:53 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-05 23:42 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-05 21:57 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-06 00:26 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 17:29 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-06 02:52 -0400
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-06 11:16 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 07:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-06 17:37 -0400
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:12 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 19:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:39 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:59 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-07 14:12 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 03:11 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-08 13:16 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:07 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-08 14:58 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-09 00:32 +0000
Re: Basic - lies about Medicare "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:58 +1100
Re: Basic - lies about Medicare mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-09 11:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-09 11:25 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-08 15:01 -0800
Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 07:18 -0700
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-08 15:06 -0400
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-09 13:41 +0000
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 06:48 -0700
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:44 +1100
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-10 13:24 +0000
Re: Water: was Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-10 14:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 05:09 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-03-08 11:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-06 09:54 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:57 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:35 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 11:51 +1100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-07 14:24 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-07 10:38 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-04 12:57 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 12:08 -0700
Re: computer security hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-04 14:36 -0800
Re: computer security Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 19:31 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-05 13:57 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-05 15:37 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-06 00:35 +0100
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:34 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-17 14:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-02 10:37 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-27 00:28 -0500
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 06:44 -0700
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-28 14:03 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-28 10:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-29 14:52 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-29 09:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-29 14:33 -0600
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-27 08:32 +0000
Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-27 11:21 -0500
Re: Qbasic pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-25 15:31 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-25 10:22 -0600
Re: Qbasic pechter@chuckie.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-02-25 17:28 +0000
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-25 08:11 -0800
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:40 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-23 12:29 -0600
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-24 13:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-24 15:24 -0600
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 00:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbgifd$3cp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #160597 |
On 3/5/2016 11:57 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at > say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed > much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the > container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". > > (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I > think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was > it just marketing?) For me, it's that there is no need for liquid to dissolve, so no clots of undissolved detergent in the finished laundry. > In my humble opinion, the change of technology for computer users is > too fast. Lay users are forced to spend a lot of time learning new > operating systems and applications; by the time they're done, something > new has come out and they have to start all over again. This is a big problem. I can't decide if it's that the vendors are trying to shout "NEW AND IMPROVED", or that the new design staff have to show they're doing something, anything, to continue to receive paychecks. > Let's take MS-Word. I learned Ver 6 years ago. It is an extremely > powerful product, doing everything and anything I could possible want > in word processing, and even desktop publishing. (I'll note at this > point that a number of famous authors manage to write classics using > a plain typewriter). But anyway, M/S goes and makes a big change, > macros won't work, stuff is all moved around. So I go and learn it, > but it's not as convenient for me to use. Oh well. They go out and > make another major change, really shifting everything around. It's > really hard to find stuff in the menus--stuff that used to be right > up front is now hidden in secondary menus that are hard to find. Which is why I won't go beyond Word 2003. But LibreOffice continues the UI you're used to, even if MS doesn't. >> But what self-respecting luser would want to be seen running last >> week's software? Leading edge is bleeding edge, where you get cut. Trailing edge is safe, no surprises that haven't been thoroughly worked out by others, and usually cheap. > I think I want my Teletype back. A nice 33, with the built in modem and > control buttons. > Can't help you there. But I've got a surplus Silent 700 :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 01:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <nbikj3113ig@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160599 |
On 2016-03-06, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 3/5/2016 11:57 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> In my humble opinion, the change of technology for computer users is >> too fast. Lay users are forced to spend a lot of time learning new >> operating systems and applications; by the time they're done, something >> new has come out and they have to start all over again. > > This is a big problem. I can't decide if it's that the vendors are > trying to shout "NEW AND IMPROVED", or that the new design staff have > to show they're doing something, anything, to continue to receive > paychecks. I think it's because they're looking for repeat sales, i.e. sell you (essentially) the same thing again. Remember, vendors only want you to be happy with their product until next year's model comes out. >> I think I want my Teletype back. A nice 33, with the built in modem and >> control buttons. > > Can't help you there. But I've got a surplus Silent 700 :) I don't have a TTY33, but I do have a 35RO... -- /~\ 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 | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 17:29 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk212iFe6fqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160597 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:38f9fbde-1217-4cb3-8d26-bd10eb342d87@googlegroups.com... > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. > > Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not > necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we > were taught that business grew because they made things better > than their competitors.) > > On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at > say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed > much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the > container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". > > (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. Basically because it dissolves better and so doesn't leave as much scum from undissolved detergent. > I think the liquid costs more to make No it does not. > and ship than powder. Not by enough to matter. The sort of transport used for the movement of that sort of thing doesn't charge by weight, the trucks take what is required to the stores and the amount of fuel used doesn't vary enough to matter. > Was it just marketing?) Nope, I changed to liquid detergent because I wash in cold water and find that I get scum from undissolved soap on just the dark blue T shirts I wear all the time. The clear liquid detergent fixes that problem. >> Fred Brooks, in his book "The Mythical Man-Month", talks about the >> "second system effect". That's when developers try to stuff in every >> feature they missed in the first version (or thought about after >> release). The result, if not controlled, can be disaster. > > Thanks for the reference. > > Brooks is still around, up in years, but AFAIK, still kicking. > > >> Funny how "disruptive technology" has become a hot new buzzword. > > That I didn't know. But it's about time. > > Actually, there isn't anything wrong with new technology in itself. > The tricky part is how it's rolled and what is expected of it. > > As mentioned, the old Bell System always tried new technology in a > test area first to see how it functioned in service; then they would > roll it out nationwide. Some new stuff didn't work at first, such > as electronic ringers, or the earliest pushbutton phones (using plucked > reeds). When dial came along, they sent out people from door to door > to teach folks out to use their new dial phone. They also had displays > and even films (which can be seen online now). When direct long distance > dialing came out, which merely added an area code, they again put out > a big instructional effort. > > In my humble opinion, the change of technology for computer users is > too fast. Lay users are forced to spend a lot of time learning new > operating systems and applications; by the time they're done, something > new has come out and they have to start all over again. That isn't how it works with smartphones. > Let's take MS-Word. I learned Ver 6 years ago. It is an extremely > powerful product, doing everything and anything I could possible want > in word processing, and even desktop publishing. (I'll note at this > point that a number of famous authors manage to write classics using > a plain typewriter). But anyway, M/S goes and makes a big change, > macros won't work, stuff is all moved around. So I go and learn it, > but it's not as convenient for me to use. Oh well. They go out and > make another major change, really shifting everything around. It's > really hard to find stuff in the menus--stuff that used to be right > up front is now hidden in secondary menus that are hard to find. > > I must admit one time I had to get a letter out and just didn't have > time to screw around with word. I used Notepad like a typewriter > and pounded it out. You can do that with Word too. > I use the old Word-6 at home, but when I get a new machine that > probably won't even work anymore. But that's good for M/S, since > I'll have to buy a new copy of Office when I get the new machine. No you don't. I still run Office 2003 on Win7 and Vista and Win10. >> But what self-respecting luser would want to be seen running last >> week's software? > > Indeed, some people do tease me for using an old web browser. I've > basically switched to Firefox, though that is far from reliable. > > > >> Ease of use is often a matter of perception. I've seen people spending >> all sorts of time pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking their >> way through a fancy GUI where a few simple keystrokes would get the job >> done much more quickly. And all the while they'll exclaim how easy to >> use the new system is. All too often, fancy GUIs are just video games. > > I think I want my Teletype back. A nice 33, with the built in modem and > control buttons. You wouldn't when it stops working.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 02:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <87wppg9jym.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #160597 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > In my humble opinion, the change of technology for computer users is > too fast. Lay users are forced to spend a lot of time learning new > operating systems and applications; by the time they're done, something > new has come out and they have to start all over again. "Life-long Learning" is supposed to be about learning *new* stuff. It's not supposed to be about learning the *same* stuff over and over again! > Let's take MS-Word. I learned Ver 6 years ago. It is an extremely > powerful product, doing everything and anything I could possible want > in word processing, and even desktop publishing. (I'll note at this > point that a number of famous authors manage to write classics using > a plain typewriter). But anyway, M/S goes and makes a big change, > macros won't work, stuff is all moved around. So I go and learn it, > but it's not as convenient for me to use. Oh well. They go out and > make another major change, really shifting everything around. It's > really hard to find stuff in the menus--stuff that used to be right > up front is now hidden in secondary menus that are hard to find. Exactly. People learn over a lifetime. Some obsolescence or invalidation of what you've learned is unavoidable as major new technology becomes available or science admits an error. I'm a moderately technical guy with a background in hard science as well as chops in a difficult craft. And I cling to the trailing edge of technology wherever it's possible. I get better and better at what I know how to do because I keep learning new stuff. When I finally feel compelled to "upgrade" -- a new browser or a new version of Emacs or a new car with many electronic/digital widgets or a chainsaw with new and complicated starting procedure -- I grumble a lot and may even revise my notion of "compelled". Time spent making some tech I know and understand work in a new environment is better spent than time figuring out how to disable or work-around unwanted new "features" or interface changes. > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> But what self-respecting luser would want to be seen running last >> week's software? Cough, cough... See supra. ;-) > Indeed, some people do tease me for using an old web browser. I've > basically switched to Firefox, though that is far from reliable. Still using Netscape 4.76 for ca. 80% or so of web stuff, down from 90+% when Wikipedia went all-HTTPS. I'm about to test Vivaldi because I don't think I want a version of Firefox newer than 3.x and an at least partial upgrade will eventually be unavoidable. >> Ease of use is often a matter of perception. I've seen people spending >> all sorts of time pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking their >> way through a fancy GUI where a few simple keystrokes would get the job >> done much more quickly. And all the while they'll exclaim how easy to >> use the new system is. All too often, fancy GUIs are just video games. A windowing system is a great leap forward and I embraced X as soon as I had access to it. And a GUI seems very good for graphics editing, CAD and other similar. But my slogan for the subject in general is: The command line is like language. The GUI is like shopping. Which metaphor do you want to spend your time with? -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 11:16 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <0c40ba63-9a49-41c4-9469-c4c640e50602@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160601 |
> "Life-long Learning" is supposed to be about learning *new* stuff. > It's not supposed to be about learning the *same* stuff over and over > again! Where did "life long learning" come from? > People learn over a lifetime. Some obsolescence or invalidation of > what you've learned is unavoidable as major new technology becomes > available or science admits an error. The operative word is "some". Yes, "some" learning is indeed necessary to reflect advancements in technology and science. My quarrel is with the pace of technology, which, in my opinion, is artificially driven to be too fast, in order to fatten the profits of vendors. There is of course new technology that is transparent to us users. I drive my automobile pretty much the same way I did 50 years ago. However, under the hood it is vastly improved. Computers are vastly improved, too. But the industry has exploited those improvements with bloat. In many ways, my throughput on my fancy turbocharged four-barrel carb Pentium is slower than my 286. Certainly, my Usenet access is much slower. > I'm a moderately technical guy with a background in hard science as > well as chops in a difficult craft. And I cling to the trailing edge > of technology wherever it's possible. I get better and better at what > I know how to do because I keep learning new stuff. When I finally > feel compelled to "upgrade" -- a new browser or a new version of Emacs > or a new car with many electronic/digital widgets or a chainsaw with > new and complicated starting procedure -- I grumble a lot and may even > revise my notion of "compelled". Time spent making some tech I know > and understand work in a new environment is better spent than time > figuring out how to disable or work-around unwanted new "features" or > interface changes. Agreed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 07:30 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk3ib0Fquj5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160614 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:0c40ba63-9a49-41c4-9469-c4c640e50602@googlegroups.com... > >> "Life-long Learning" is supposed to be about learning *new* stuff. >> It's not supposed to be about learning the *same* stuff over and over >> again! > > Where did "life long learning" come from? > > > >> People learn over a lifetime. Some obsolescence or invalidation of >> what you've learned is unavoidable as major new technology becomes >> available or science admits an error. > > The operative word is "some". Yes, "some" learning is indeed necessary > to reflect advancements in technology and science. > > My quarrel is with the pace of technology, which, in my opinion, is > artificially driven to be too fast, in order to fatten the profits > of vendors. > > There is of course new technology that is transparent to us users. > I drive my automobile pretty much the same way I did 50 years ago. > However, under the hood it is vastly improved. > > Computers are vastly improved, too. But the industry has exploited > those improvements with bloat. In many ways, my throughput on my > fancy turbocharged four-barrel carb Pentium is slower than my 286. > Certainly, my Usenet access is much slower. Like hell it is with dialup/broadband and with the cellphone system. >> I'm a moderately technical guy with a background in hard science as >> well as chops in a difficult craft. And I cling to the trailing edge >> of technology wherever it's possible. I get better and better at what >> I know how to do because I keep learning new stuff. When I finally >> feel compelled to "upgrade" -- a new browser or a new version of Emacs >> or a new car with many electronic/digital widgets or a chainsaw with >> new and complicated starting procedure -- I grumble a lot and may even >> revise my notion of "compelled". Time spent making some tech I know >> and understand work in a new environment is better spent than time >> figuring out how to disable or work-around unwanted new "features" or >> interface changes. > > Agreed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 17:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <87si039tjj.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #160614 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> "Life-long Learning" is supposed to be about learning *new* stuff.
>> It's not supposed to be about learning the *same* stuff over and over
>> again!
>
> Where did "life long learning" come from?
A popular slogan/colloquialism/meme. [1] It has itself arborized and
exfolieated into many venues, not all of them uncontaminated by
notions incongenial to real learning, viz. "human resources"
management, marketing and the like.
If you meet and work with a wide variety of people, you'll recognize a
whole class for whom school, even university, was an onerous experience
but who, once out of school, feel like they now know all that they
need to know about anything, possibly excepting the details of their
job/trade/profession. At the least, "lifelong learning" is intended
to counter this crippling viewpoint. At best, it's intended to
encourage mind-, skill- and intellect-expanding pursuits of the sort
that post-secondary learning is supposed to be and encourage Maslovian
"self-actualization".
>> People learn over a lifetime. Some obsolescence or invalidation of
>> what you've learned is unavoidable as major new technology becomes
>> available or science admits an error.
>
> The operative word is "some". Yes, "some" learning is indeed necessary
> to reflect advancements in technology and science.
>
> My quarrel is with the pace of technology, which, in my opinion, is
> artificially driven to be too fast, in order to fatten the profits
> of vendors.
I could not agree more.
The basic unit for the time-scale of learning is the human lifespan.
The acquisition of wisdom (When was the last time you saw a job
description seeking "wisdom" in the applicant?) occurs gradually over
that scale, which is why wisdom is traditionally the domain of
elders. Learning demands driven by marketing (or any other exogenous
force orthogonal to the learner's own life) are disruptive or
destructive.
> There is of course new technology that is transparent to us users.
> I drive my automobile pretty much the same way I did 50 years ago.
> However, under the hood it is vastly improved.
I was a "foreign car" mechanic [2] 50 years ago so that's very evident
to me. The downside is that I can no longer maintain my own car
because the complexity attendant on those improvements -- especially
the black-box computerized stuff -- can't be penetrated without a full
cookbook of specs, if at all. I'm even less sanguine about cars just
a year or three newer than mine that call home, accept remote
direction, offer gratuitous and unsought advice. My next "new" car
may be a fully restored 70s Land Rover with a carburetor, no air bags,
no electronics, about the same price as a new low-end Toyota.
> Computers are vastly improved, too. But the industry has exploited
> those improvements with bloat. In many ways, my throughput on my
> fancy turbocharged four-barrel carb Pentium is slower than my 286.
Having worked my way up, gradually, to a Pentium 4 and GNU/Linux/X,
nothing I want to do needs more power. But then, I eschew some frivia
that might load it up. See next paragraph.
>> I'm a moderately technical guy with a background in hard science as
>> well as chops in a difficult craft. And I cling to the trailing edge
>> of technology wherever it's possible. I get better and better at what
>> I know how to do because I keep learning new stuff. When I finally
>> feel compelled to "upgrade" -- a new browser or a new version of Emacs
>> or a new car with many electronic/digital widgets or a chainsaw with
>> new and complicated starting procedure -- I grumble a lot and may even
>> revise my notion of "compelled". Time spent making some tech I know
>> and understand work in a new environment is better spent than time
>> figuring out how to disable or work-around unwanted new "features" or
>> interface changes.
>
> Agreed.
D'accord.
[1] Full backgrounder on Wikipaedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning
Perhaps a more familiar phrase in Canada where a government
program uses it as a slogan.
[2] Back when "foreign" car meant something.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 10:12 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk3rr3Ftb5qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160622 |
"Mike Spencer" <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote in message news:87si039tjj.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere... > > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >>> "Life-long Learning" is supposed to be about learning *new* stuff. >>> It's not supposed to be about learning the *same* stuff over and over >>> again! >> >> Where did "life long learning" come from? > > A popular slogan/colloquialism/meme. [1] It has itself arborized and > exfolieated into many venues, not all of them uncontaminated by > notions incongenial to real learning, viz. "human resources" > management, marketing and the like. > > If you meet and work with a wide variety of people, you'll recognize a > whole class for whom school, even university, was an onerous experience > but who, once out of school, feel like they now know all that they > need to know about anything, possibly excepting the details of their > job/trade/profession. At the least, "lifelong learning" is intended > to counter this crippling viewpoint. At best, it's intended to > encourage mind-, skill- and intellect-expanding pursuits of the sort > that post-secondary learning is supposed to be and encourage Maslovian > "self-actualization". > >>> People learn over a lifetime. Some obsolescence or invalidation of >>> what you've learned is unavoidable as major new technology becomes >>> available or science admits an error. >> >> The operative word is "some". Yes, "some" learning is indeed necessary >> to reflect advancements in technology and science. >> >> My quarrel is with the pace of technology, which, in my opinion, is >> artificially driven to be too fast, in order to fatten the profits >> of vendors. > > I could not agree more. > > The basic unit for the time-scale of learning is the human lifespan. > The acquisition of wisdom (When was the last time you saw a job > description seeking "wisdom" in the applicant?) occurs gradually over > that scale, which is why wisdom is traditionally the domain of > elders. Learning demands driven by marketing (or any other exogenous > force orthogonal to the learner's own life) are disruptive or > destructive. > >> There is of course new technology that is transparent to us users. >> I drive my automobile pretty much the same way I did 50 years ago. >> However, under the hood it is vastly improved. > > I was a "foreign car" mechanic [2] 50 years ago so that's very evident > to me. The downside is that I can no longer maintain my own car > because the complexity attendant on those improvements -- especially > the black-box computerized stuff -- can't be penetrated without a full > cookbook of specs, if at all. It's actually the exact opposite of that with an OBD2 diagnostic block that will tell you what sensor has failed and needs to be replaced etc. > I'm even less sanguine about cars just > a year or three newer than mine that call home, accept remote > direction, offer gratuitous and unsought advice. My next "new" car > may be a fully restored 70s Land Rover with a carburetor, no air bags, > no electronics, about the same price as a new low-end Toyota. Mad, having driven one for quite a while when they were new. >> Computers are vastly improved, too. But the industry has exploited >> those improvements with bloat. In many ways, my throughput on my >> fancy turbocharged four-barrel carb Pentium is slower than my 286. > > Having worked my way up, gradually, to a Pentium 4 and GNU/Linux/X, > nothing I want to do needs more power. But then, I eschew some frivia > that might load it up. See next paragraph. > >>> I'm a moderately technical guy with a background in hard science as >>> well as chops in a difficult craft. And I cling to the trailing edge >>> of technology wherever it's possible. I get better and better at what >>> I know how to do because I keep learning new stuff. When I finally >>> feel compelled to "upgrade" -- a new browser or a new version of Emacs >>> or a new car with many electronic/digital widgets or a chainsaw with >>> new and complicated starting procedure -- I grumble a lot and may even >>> revise my notion of "compelled". Time spent making some tech I know >>> and understand work in a new environment is better spent than time >>> figuring out how to disable or work-around unwanted new "features" or >>> interface changes. >> >> Agreed. > > D'accord. > > > [1] Full backgrounder on Wikipaedia: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifelong_learning > > Perhaps a more familiar phrase in Canada where a government > program uses it as a slogan. > > [2] Back when "foreign" car meant something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 19:52 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <59npdbl6v8td0ilhoc9u0o0qe6nqshf0g8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #160622 |
On 06 Mar 2016 17:37:52 -0400, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >>> "Life-long Learning" is supposed to be about learning *new* stuff. >>> It's not supposed to be about learning the *same* stuff over and over >>> again! >> >> Where did "life long learning" come from? > >A popular slogan/colloquialism/meme. [1] It has itself arborized and >exfolieated into many venues, not all of them uncontaminated by >notions incongenial to real learning, viz. "human resources" >management, marketing and the like. It also means, when your emloyer no longer uses a particular operating system/model of computer, yu learn the new one being installed so you can support it. Otherwise, they hitre someone willing to learn new things. That got me hired at my last job before retirement. I was the only interviewee who stated 'new stuff, no problem, I'll learn it'. Several of the interviewees declared the employer would have to install what they knew ni the way of compuyers and software if their 'expertise' was to be utulized to its fullest. I got the job, ghey didn't. I had to add wireless to my skills. Didn't have it before the job. >If you meet and work with a wide variety of people, you'll recognize a >whole class for whom school, even university, was an onerous experience >but who, once out of school, feel like they now know all that they >need to know about anything, possibly excepting the details of their >job/trade/profession. At the least, "lifelong learning" is intended >to counter this crippling viewpoint. At best, it's intended to >encourage mind-, skill- and intellect-expanding pursuits of the sort >that post-secondary learning is supposed to be and encourage Maslovian >"self-actualization". Or simply add more knowledge to someone's mind who does want to have an obsolescent set of skills. But I do agree that some technology is moving too fast. Like AI robots and the new 'spiffy' the invisibility cloak. Neither is needed. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 13:39 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk47v5F1h1uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160636 |
"JimP" <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote in message news:59npdbl6v8td0ilhoc9u0o0qe6nqshf0g8@4ax.com... > On 06 Mar 2016 17:37:52 -0400, Mike Spencer > <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote: > >> >>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >>>> "Life-long Learning" is supposed to be about learning *new* stuff. >>>> It's not supposed to be about learning the *same* stuff over and over >>>> again! >>> >>> Where did "life long learning" come from? >> >>A popular slogan/colloquialism/meme. [1] It has itself arborized and >>exfolieated into many venues, not all of them uncontaminated by >>notions incongenial to real learning, viz. "human resources" >>management, marketing and the like. > > It also means, when your emloyer no longer uses a particular operating > system/model of computer, yu learn the new one being installed so you > can support it. Otherwise, they hitre someone willing to learn new > things. > > That got me hired at my last job before retirement. I was the only > interviewee who stated 'new stuff, no problem, I'll learn it'. > > Several of the interviewees declared the employer would have to > install what they knew ni the way of compuyers and software if their > 'expertise' was to be utulized to its fullest. I got the job, ghey > didn't. > > I had to add wireless to my skills. Didn't have it before the job. > >>If you meet and work with a wide variety of people, you'll recognize a >>whole class for whom school, even university, was an onerous experience >>but who, once out of school, feel like they now know all that they >>need to know about anything, possibly excepting the details of their >>job/trade/profession. At the least, "lifelong learning" is intended >>to counter this crippling viewpoint. At best, it's intended to >>encourage mind-, skill- and intellect-expanding pursuits of the sort >>that post-secondary learning is supposed to be and encourage Maslovian >>"self-actualization". > > Or simply add more knowledge to someone's mind who does want to have > an obsolescent set of skills. > > But I do agree that some technology is moving too fast. Like AI robots > and the new 'spiffy' the invisibility cloak. Neither is needed. Bullshit they aren't with self driving cars alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 14:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160597 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. > > Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not > necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we > were taught that business grew because they made things better > than their competitors.) > > On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at > say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed > much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the > container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". > > (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I > think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was > it just marketing?) <snip> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 01:59 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk2uuiFlo8hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160603 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >> >> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >> were taught that business grew because they made things better >> than their competitors.) >> >> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >> >> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >> it just marketing?) > > <snip> > > You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer > which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever had anything to do with that used a powder detergent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 14:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160610 |
Sangmo wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> >>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>> >>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>> than their competitors.) >>> >>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>> >>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>> it just marketing?) >> >> <snip> >> >> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. > > That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever > had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sangmo" <ju410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 03:11 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk5nhtFd9ekU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160648 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... > Sangmo wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> >>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>> >>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>> than their competitors.) >>>> >>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>> >>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>> it just marketing?) >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >> >> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. > > Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. > When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. > It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease > to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge > clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to > wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was used because I have never seen anything like that with any washing machines. Presumably someone with silly ideas about what to put in the washing machine detergent wise. And I'm the only one that has used liquid detergent, because of the problem I have with the dark blue T shirts I wear all the time and because I wash in cold water, also something no one else ever did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 13:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <PM00052D8930DFEFAE@aca20289.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #160652 |
Sangmo wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >> Sangmo wrote: >>> >>> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>> >>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>> >>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>> it just marketing?) >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>> >>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >> >> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. > > No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. > >> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. > > Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was > used because I have never seen anything like that with any > washing machines. Then you have better water than I do. The water here is filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living in Massachusetts is the water. <snip> /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 08:07 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <e3ntdb17c300eorh80skh9fi7ujfq8nmun@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #160697 |
On 8 Mar 2016 13:16:50 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Sangmo wrote: >> >> >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052D7610998F2D@aca44602.ipt.aol.com... >>> Sangmo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM00052D61A3645979@aca4072c.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> At a sales conference I was once forced to attend, the marketroids >>>>>>> proudly trumpeted the term "product differentiation". When you >>>>>>> read between the lines, this is exactly what they were talking about: >>>>>>> making their product different, even if it meant screwing it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sad. They're focused on making a product 'different', but not >>>>>> necessarily _better_ than the competition. (When I was a kid, we >>>>>> were taught that business grew because they made things better >>>>>> than their competitors.) >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, I must admit I do feel sorry for marketers at >>>>>> say a laundry detergent company. Laundry detergents haven't changed >>>>>> much, but they have to constantly come up with new graphics for the >>>>>> container, and new ways to say "NEW AND IMPROVED". >>>>>> >>>>>> (I don't understand why they switched from powder to liquid. I >>>>>> think the liquid costs more to make and ship than powder. Was >>>>>> it just marketing?) >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> You, obviously, have never had to clean a clothes washer >>>>> which had accumulated 1/4" of soap mixed with dirt and oil. >>>> >>>> That never happened to any clothes washer that I ever >>>> had anything to do with that used a powder detergent. >>> >>> Mine either but I washed with vinegar once in a while. >> >> No one I know ever did and never got the gunk you are talking about. >> >>> When I moved into this house, the washer had 1/4" of gunk. >>> It took a dozen washes with vinegar and some elbow grease >>> to remove it all. during the 6th wash, there was a huge >>> clunking sound. Turns out the thingie which was used to >>> wash stockings became loose; it had been held on with gunk. >> >> Must have been some very uncommon shit detergent was >> used because I have never seen anything like that with any >> washing machines. > >Then you have better water than I do. The water here is >filthy; one of the things I still miss most about living >in Massachusetts is the water. > ><snip> > >/BAH I've heard Alabama conservatives on tv get upset with the Clean Air and Water Act. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 14:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <51171ce5-79b1-464e-9a05-b3ab1bcbeeac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160698 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:07:43 AM UTC-5, JimP wrote: > I've heard Alabama conservatives on tv get upset with the Clean Air > and Water Act. The sad thing is, their opposition has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the law. It's purely an ideological thing--anything and everything 'liberal' to them is evil and must be eradicated. The bullsh** blared from talk radio is responsible for much of this. I'm surprised--and a little disappointed--that no one is calling talk radio to task for this. A big N.J. station did lose a libel suit after their snarky hosts trashed a local TV celebrity. Now, winning a libel suit against a public figure is very difficult due to free speech protections. But the statements of the radio station were so outrageous that the line was crossed (malice, reckless disregard of the truth, etc.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 00:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Qbasic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <JMednZ6RVtAm80LLnZ2dnUU78dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160715 |
On 08/03/2016 22:58, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:07:43 AM UTC-5, JimP wrote: > >> I've heard Alabama conservatives on tv get upset with the Clean Air >> and Water Act. > > The sad thing is, their opposition has nothing to do with the merits > or demerits of the law. It's purely an ideological thing--anything > and everything 'liberal' to them is evil and must be eradicated. > > The bullsh** blared from talk radio is responsible for much of this. > I'm surprised--and a little disappointed--that no one is calling talk > radio to task for this. > > A big N.J. station did lose a libel suit after their snarky hosts > trashed a local TV celebrity. Now, winning a libel suit against a > public figure is very difficult due to free speech protections. But > the statements of the radio station were so outrageous that the line > was crossed (malice, reckless disregard of the truth, etc.) > The Bible must contain passages about clean water and food. It certainly bans killing people. State employees are simply doing the job of the Rabbi.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 11:58 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Basic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <dk9aq4Fblr1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160718 |
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:JMednZ6RVtAm80LLnZ2dnUU78dPNnZ2d@giganews.com... > On 08/03/2016 22:58, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:07:43 AM UTC-5, JimP wrote: >> >>> I've heard Alabama conservatives on tv get upset with the Clean Air >>> and Water Act. >> >> The sad thing is, their opposition has nothing to do with the merits >> or demerits of the law. It's purely an ideological thing--anything >> and everything 'liberal' to them is evil and must be eradicated. >> >> The bullsh** blared from talk radio is responsible for much of this. >> I'm surprised--and a little disappointed--that no one is calling talk >> radio to task for this. >> >> A big N.J. station did lose a libel suit after their snarky hosts >> trashed a local TV celebrity. Now, winning a libel suit against a >> public figure is very difficult due to free speech protections. But >> the statements of the radio station were so outrageous that the line was >> crossed (malice, reckless disregard of the truth, etc.) > The Bible must contain passages about clean water Can't think of anywhere much that does. > and food. It doesn’t have a lot to say about that either and what it does is mostly just the jews etc that those rabid bible bashers hate almost as much as they do moslems. > It certainly bans killing people. But rabid bible bashers have always been very selective about the bits of it they take any notice of. > State employees are simply doing the job of the Rabbi. The rabid bible bashers aren't into rabbis either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 11:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Basic - lies about Medicare |
| Message-ID | <slrnne026e.192.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #160719 |
On 2016-03-09, Sam Crean <sg55443@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:JMednZ6RVtAm80LLnZ2dnUU78dPNnZ2d@giganews.com... >> On 08/03/2016 22:58, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:07:43 AM UTC-5, JimP wrote: >>> >>>> I've heard Alabama conservatives on tv get upset with the Clean Air >>>> and Water Act. >>> >>> The sad thing is, their opposition has nothing to do with the merits >>> or demerits of the law. It's purely an ideological thing--anything >>> and everything 'liberal' to them is evil and must be eradicated. >>> >>> The bullsh** blared from talk radio is responsible for much of this. >>> I'm surprised--and a little disappointed--that no one is calling talk >>> radio to task for this. >>> >>> A big N.J. station did lose a libel suit after their snarky hosts >>> trashed a local TV celebrity. Now, winning a libel suit against a >>> public figure is very difficult due to free speech protections. But >>> the statements of the radio station were so outrageous that the line was >>> crossed (malice, reckless disregard of the truth, etc.) > >> The Bible must contain passages about clean water > > Can't think of anywhere much that does. > >> and food. > > It doesn?t have a lot to say about that either and what > it does is mostly just the jews etc that those rabid > bible bashers hate almost as much as they do moslems. > >> It certainly bans killing people. > > But rabid bible bashers have always been very > selective about the bits of it they take any notice of. > >> State employees are simply doing the job of the Rabbi. > > The rabid bible bashers aren't into rabbis either. > Also to above, most water in the Middle East is of very poor quality, with lots of salt. I would advise anyone going that way to rely on Evian, or similiar. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web