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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162111 > unrolled thread

Re: Qbasic

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-05 12:53 +0000
    Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-05 17:55 +0000
      Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-06 13:08 +0000
        Re: Qbasic Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-12 17:39 -0400
          Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-13 13:02 +0000
    Re: Qbasic mausg@mail.com - 2016-04-05 19:15 +0000

#162111 — Re: Qbasic

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <ndv4s0$uku$4@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <ndudvs$h9g$2@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>> >>
>> >> JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 22:53:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> >> > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>In article <ndsdl7$odj$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 03:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
>> >> >>> > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> There exists an absolute morality, a definition of right and
>> >> >>> >> wrong, which is intrinsic to the very structure of the
>> >> >>> >> Universe, and which existed prior to the Big Bang.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >     At this point right here you and I are going to have to
>> >> >>> > agree to differ. I do not believe there is any such thing,
>> >> >>> > AFAICS morality is a purely human invention that has no
>> >> >>> > existence outside of human interaction.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Experiments with monkeys show that they recognize right and
>> >> >>> wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Which experiments would those be?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Not sure what kind of argument you are trying to make, but the
>> >> >>> scientific one is settled fact.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I seriously doubt that.  When someone says "the science is settled"
>> >> >>he's generally trying to stifle debate.
>> >> >
>> >> > One high school science teacher I didn't get along well very much
>> >> > did have one thing to say I found useful.
>> >> >
>> >> > He said that anytime someone makes a speech or presentation about
>> >> > how everything about a particular field is found out, they should
>> >> > end it with the phrase 'as far as we know'.
>> >>
>> >> True.
>> >>
>> >> However, there are things we call "settled science".  Wherever I got
>> >> this info from it was a source that would have mentioned any
>> >> unresolved or questionable aspects.
>> >>
>> >> There weren't any mentioned.
>> >
>> > Which in itself is suspicious.
>>
>> Not really.  I'm saying that I read the article or saw the show.  It was
>> a normal scientific discussion and they probably did delve into any
>> weaknesses in their story, as they usually do.
>>
>> When I mentally store something like that, if there were any
>> _significant_ issues, I would store them too.  I don't remember any
>> weaknesses in the conclusion.  So, I adjusted my world view to:
>>
>>   humans aren't unique in recognizing right and wrong.
>>
>> > But you still haven't told us where to find the information.  Are you
>> > just trusting some guy you met in a bar or some such?
>>
>> Sorry, the mind is imperfect.  Plus I sometimes see articles that are
>> from behind pay walls.
>>
>> Here's something older that goes with the video link I posted:
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chimps-sense-of-justice-f/
>
> And if you don't see the projection in that there's no hope for you.

SciAm has gone the way that Byte did.

/BAH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#162135

On 2016-04-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

> SciAm has gone the way that Byte did.

What, they turned into Yet Another Wintel Rag?  <g,d&r>

-- 
/~\  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]

#162203

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2016-04-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> SciAm has gone the way that Byte did.
>
> What, they turned into Yet Another Wintel Rag?  <g,d&r>
>
<grin>  Pretty over fucntional makes the product dysfunctional.

/BAH

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

#162354

In article <PM00052FD0A4FC9EFA@aca432b7.ipt.aol.com>,
 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > On 2016-04-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> SciAm has gone the way that Byte did.
> >
> > What, they turned into Yet Another Wintel Rag?  <g,d&r>
> >
> <grin>  Pretty over fucntional makes the product dysfunctional.
> 
> /BAH

s/ntional/kitional/

-- 
 To terrify children with the image of hell,
 to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?  
  Christopher Hitchens

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

#162379

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <PM00052FD0A4FC9EFA@aca432b7.ipt.aol.com>,
>  jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> > On 2016-04-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> SciAm has gone the way that Byte did.
>> >
>> > What, they turned into Yet Another Wintel Rag?  <g,d&r>
>> >
>> <grin>  Pretty over fucntional makes the product dysfunctional.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> s/ntional/kitional/
>
<GRIN>  Usually.

/BAH

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

#162148

On 2016-04-05, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <ndv4s0$uku$4@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> > But you still haven't told us where to find the information.  Are you
>>> > just trusting some guy you met in a bar or some such?
>>>
>>> Sorry, the mind is imperfect.  Plus I sometimes see articles that are
>>> from behind pay walls.
>>>
>>> Here's something older that goes with the video link I posted:
>>>
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chimps-sense-of-justice-f/
>>
>> And if you don't see the projection in that there's no hope for you.
>
> SciAm has gone the way that Byte did.

I used to buy SciAm years ago (or the English equivelent), when 
passing newspaper shops, Martin Gardiner had articles at the back
Visiting relatives recently, some of them get it for the school-age
children, and reading it, I was amazed how many problem remain unsolved.

-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web