Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #93793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-17 11:25 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 03:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 00:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 04:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 21:53 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 01:31 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 06:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 05:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:31 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:44 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:05 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 16:46 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 19:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:48 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-17 08:26 -0500
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:01 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 22:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:30 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:17 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:37 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:59 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:20 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:15 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 14:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:16 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-16 08:41 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 23:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:31 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:00 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 03:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 13:13 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:27 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 14:50 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:15 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:41 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:00 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:57 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:24 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:27 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 01:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 03:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:24 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 06:02 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.us> - 2026-10-15 23:26 -0700
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 06:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 07:41 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 06:39 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 04:22 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:19 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:52 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:47 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 23:29 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 05:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 10:07 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 09:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:26 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 10:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 11:44 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 16:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-16 17:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 18:10 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-16 18:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:52 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:39 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 15:06 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:55 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 22:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 09:12 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:01 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:22 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:29 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 01:54 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:36 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 15:47 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 18:07 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 03:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 02:49 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:20 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-17 12:17 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:16 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:18 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:47 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-17 19:47 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:25 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:45 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 20:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:50 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-17 22:51 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 04:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:43 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:13 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:14 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 02:42 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 08:53 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:06 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:36 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-16 19:35 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 09:18 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-17 06:32 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 12:12 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 13:43 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:37 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 09:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-17 13:30 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-17 20:08 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-16 23:19 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-17 02:29 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-17 01:54 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-17 08:58 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-17 11:25 +0100
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at4hq$31lan$18@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93853 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:54:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> ABS (soon: inertial ABS and other ADAS) is mandatory in pretty much all >> first world countries, and I'm sure there was a few PhDs attached to >> the project at Bosch, from R&D to market. >> > WERE a few phDs. You're right to correct my grammar. English being my third language I sometimes get sloppy... > But of course there weren't, You don't normally do a PhD unless you want > to become an academic. http://google.com/search?q=phd+bosch+site:linkedin.com > Eaxcly, And building things is what we are concerned with here. > > Code that works. Code that doesn't crash aeroplanes. Banking software > that doesnt loss the odd million here and there. Since were talking about FP, I'm sure that _less_ exposure to the basic CS curriculum would have saved the Ariane rocket, or that bank that recorded a million dollar loss, due to clumsy handling of FP numbers? Like, one would stop for a second and think upon realising not being able to prove absence of overflows? >> Halfway in between you got engineering, i.e. applied science. >> > Engineering is not applied science. Only a CS would think it was There > is very little science in engineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering: "Engineering is the practice of systematically applying natural science and mathematics to design and improve systems." https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engineering "the work of an engineer (= a person who designs or builds machines, engines, electrical systems, or large structures such as roads or bridges using scientific principles" >> But if, and I say if, you try to build a compiler, you'll appreciate >> having read the dragon book. >> > I never did. My compiler worked OK. Good, you either have reinvented the wheel on your own, or have learned about the wheel somewhere other than in a class settings. Some of us don't have _that_ much time on our hands. >> I would be pursuing a PhD in philosophy or in music, if I didn't have >> to pay rent. >> > I do study sophistry since engineering made me enough money I don't have > to pay rent Good for you! Don't sell yourself short, I assume a keen business sense must have helped, though. I bet you value that. >> Were I born posh, I would have made a fine candidate for philosophy at >> Oxbridge -- hell, Christ, I would have made a magnificient Pope! >> > I was born poor and went to Cambridge Alas, I was born poor (a thing I am proud of, since I consider wealth obscene, much like building things -- it's not a coincidence the two go hand in hand) and outside the UK, so I had to be content with attending the third oldest university in the world while working. I had to rule out papacy, though....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11atave$3bqcl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93857 |
On 16/10/2026 13:15, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:54:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> Engineering is not applied science. Only a CS would think it was There >> is very little science in engineering. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering: > > "Engineering is the practice of systematically applying natural science > and mathematics to design and improve systems." > That is of course bollocks No engineer would have written that A better definition is 'an engineer is wsomeone who can make for five bob (£0.25) what any damn fool can make for a quid (£1) > https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engineering > > "the work of an engineer (= a person who designs or builds machines, > engines, electrical systems, or large structures such as roads or bridges > using scientific principles" Again its bollocks. "the work of an engineer (= a person who designs or builds machines, engines, electrical systems, or large structures such as roads or bridges using *whatever systems work* in the context. Early engineers were carpenters,masons and blacksmiths. A windmill for grinding corn is a machine, but there is no science used in its design Perhaps the pinnacle of mediaeval engineering was the sailing ship. Levers and blocks and ropes, Crude rule of thumb structural engineering, some very basic rule of thumb hydrodynamics, learned by trial and error, Cannons bored by teams of donkeys using drill bits forged by smiths and sharpened on natural grit stones. Gunpowder made according to traditional recipes. Even navigation was not really science, merely trigonometry and a bit of measurement The other pinnacle that goes back to Roman times - and indeed much earlier, is the engineering that built roads, canals aqueducts, temples, bridges and cathedrals . The Romans didn't know why arches worked, just that they dim and what shape to build them. Cathedral builders didn't know why buttresses were necessary, they just added them until tall walls with pitched rooves from toppling over All these were men who 'built machines, engines, or large structures'. So of course they were engineers. About the first time science met engineering was when someone decided to test the theory that cannon boring drills got hot because the heat was released from the metal *when it was cut*. In a complete volte face for a theoretician, he filled the cannons with water, and found they boiled just as well when a completely blunt drill that cut nothing was used. Science maths and engineering didn't really become entangled till steam engines were in use. Such physics as existed at that time was used to calculate the best achievable limits and more efficient steam engines resulted. engineering as applied science only really started to happen late 19th century, and its still not actually as relevant as you think. the real world is not so easily modelled as the non engineers like to think it is. Which is how the fraud of modern 'climate science' was perpetrated. E.g. although a semiconductor is a quantum level device, it was discovered in terms of semiconducting effects, before quantum theory had shown how it worked. The photo electric effect was described, along with the ultraviolet catastrophe, before quantum physics provided the explanation. All of these are things that could be - and were - used without understanding why they worked, theoretically. If you look up a transistors specification today, you wont get a nice neat equation describing it, you get a set of curves that reflect various real-world aspects of many physical processes inside it - not just the quantum physics that makes it work. Engineers work with the curves, not the theory. Even people who design the transistors only use the theory to know what MIGHT work Designing a fusion reactor is *theoretically* easy. Just make the pressure high enough and the plasma hot enough. The problem of course is containing it > >>> But if, and I say if, you try to build a compiler, you'll appreciate >>> having read the dragon book. >>> >> I never did. My compiler worked OK. > > Good, you either have reinvented the wheel on your own, or have learned > about the wheel somewhere other than in a class settings. Both. No one ever taught me anything about a computer beyond a 6 week course in Fortran All the rest came from my knowledge of digital electronics, and writing assembler and C on micro processors. The only basic CS concepts I can recall ever being useful, and those only at the mist basic programming stage, were data structures and a couple of algorithms > > Some of us don't have _that_ much time on our hands. > Perhaps some of us aren't as smart as we like to think we are. I had a problem to solve, How to store instructions for a 120x60 array of lightbulbs driven by a serial protocol in a file so they could be replayed to make the pixels dance. I designed a crude language, built an interpreter to turn it into serial code, and sort of crude compiler to allow an operator to generate images and a storyboard, and compiled those into the 'language' I wrote a multi tasking add on to MSDOS to allow programs to run in background too. The client wanted secretaries to type in a word processor and receive telexes in the background too. All nasty timer interrupt scheduling and stack swapping to preserve contexts. Nothing commercial existed, so I wrote it. >>> I would be pursuing a PhD in philosophy or in music, if I didn't have >>> to pay rent. >>> >> I do study sophistry since engineering made me enough money I don't have >> to pay rent > > Good for you! > > Don't sell yourself short, I assume a keen business sense must have > helped, though. Business is just applied engineering. You build a company to make money like you build any machine. Just that the components are crap. People are very unreliable, So you build systems to provide proper feedback to keep things working. Total quality approach to business is simply negative feedback really. Something goes wring, don't blame the components (people) look at the system, fix the system, don't blame the people. If the peoiple fucked up, either they were the wring components and your selection system needs fixing, or they weren't given proper instructions so fix the training or they weren't being monitored so fix the management system The hard part is finding the right activity to engage in that has people who want the product and not so may other people providing it that there is no margin. Friend of mine made a successful little business out of learning to print on curved obects, Like knods or non flat cases. Its not hard, but hard enough most people cant get it right. > > I bet you value that. I worked for more cunts abd arseholes in my time as well as a large engineering company, that when I sighed and put my toys away and started to tackle the job of actually running a business without being either of those things I realised that they were like that because they were not very good at being managers. Management is about building systems and then deploying them defining roles and explaining them whereas most managers thinjk its about having meetings and telling people what to do. > >>> Were I born posh, I would have made a fine candidate for philosophy at >>> Oxbridge -- hell, Christ, I would have made a magnificient Pope! >>> >> I was born poor and went to Cambridge > > Alas, I was born poor (a thing I am proud of, since I consider wealth > obscene, much like building things -- it's not a coincidence the two go > hand in hand) and outside the UK, so I had to be content with attending > the third oldest university in the world while working. > I am not proud of being poor at all. It sucks. Big time. All it teaches you is pone very handy lesson. What you can do without. And at a higher personal cost, what you cannot. That frugality is always useful especially when running a business > I had to rule out papacy, though.... Not my bag. I'd like to have been a rock musician. -- "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics." Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11atdrd$31lan$25@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93868 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:05:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/10/2026 13:15, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:54:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>> Engineering is not applied science. Only a CS would think it was There >>> is very little science in engineering. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering: >> >> "Engineering is the practice of systematically applying natural science >> and mathematics to design and improve systems." >> > That is of course bollocks No engineer would have written that > > A better definition is 'an engineer is wsomeone who can make for five > bob (£0.25) what any damn fool can make for a quid (£1) > >> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engineering >> >> "the work of an engineer (= a person who designs or builds machines, >> engines, electrical systems, or large structures such as roads or >> bridges using scientific principles" > > Again its bollocks. Listen. There are two ways to have a conversation: agree on the meaning of each word beforehand, or adopt the consensus (ie the one that's found on a dictionary). We can agree that "pizza" actually means "sausage" if you want, but let's do that beforehand otherwise it's such a waste of time. >> Some of us don't have _that_ much time on our hands. > > Perhaps some of us aren't as smart as we like to think we are. Are we all sure that the kid that tinkers with computers after school is "smarter" than the kid who spends his spare time chasing girls? :-D >> I had to rule out papacy, though.... > > Not my bag. I'd like to have been a rock musician. Ah, a _rock_ musician. I can't help but wonder. Are you, in an alternate universe, claiming that "music theory is useless" given that "music people _actually like_ just uses the same 4 chords"? :-PPP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11atgrt$3bqcl$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93875 |
On 16/10/2026 15:54, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > Ah, a_rock_ musician. > > I can't help but wonder. > > Are you, in an alternate universe, claiming that "music theory is useless" > given that "music people_actually like_ just uses the same 4 chords"? Largely IME it is. People played notes, The discover that they sorta fit together in fun ways. They end up making music Music existing ten thousand years before music theory. Try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8spLnfb6dw The theorist and the Jazzman -- In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone gets full Marx.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 16:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df10ff769402fe$1617$2650862$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93882 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 16:46:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > People played notes, The discover that they sorta fit together in fun > ways. They end up making music > The key phrase is "they discover." Pythagoras discovered that harmonies, or the pleasing combination of notes, depended entirely on whole number ratios. (The idea of "frequency" was unknown back then but the lengths of plucked strings was the equivalent.) This had immediate mathematical, religious, and, of course, music theoretical repercussions. The ancient Greeks developed "tetrachords" that served as the theoretical basis for Western music for the next thousand or so years until the development of polyphony in the late Middle Ages. With polyphony, however, there arose a whole new set of problems and especially that of scale transposition: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_interval> The ultimate solution, after many centuries of theoretical struggle, was the equal tempered scale, which is now universal. Thus, aside from ignorant peasants dancing in the barnyard, Western music has *always* strongly been informed by music theory. Without theory, music or computer programming can only be practiced by blind men groping in the dark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11atsb5$3edcf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93882 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 16:46:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/10/2026 15:54, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: >> Ah, a_rock_ musician. >> >> I can't help but wonder. >> >> Are you, in an alternate universe, claiming that "music theory is >> useless" >> given that "music people_actually like_ just uses the same 4 chords"? > > Largely IME it is. Ok, while you are in your right to express the thoughts expressed in this thread so far, _this_ is largely indefensible. Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style - Compose, arrange or orchestrate in a specific style (doesn't have to be anything glamorous, you can do a chocolate commercial and be asked to stick to a Galante style, or have a director assemble a temp track and have to replicate the styles) - Transpose on the fly (say, because the singer is having a rough time with the original key) - Communicate with, and conduct, other musicians That does not happen note for note (not if you want to keep the gig!), but rather... well, you know the famous scene from Back to the Future, right? "This is a 12-bar blues in B, watch me for the changes!" That works if the other musicians are familiar with the 12-bar blues form, with the appropriate chords, scales, etc. Now imagine if Marty were thrown in the continuo section for a performance of Bach's Christmas Oratorio. And we're talking Western theory here, if you want to play with Indian musicians you'd need to deeply understand ragas and all that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 22:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11au3uo$3k12p$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93909 |
On 16/10/2026 20:01, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 16:46:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 16/10/2026 15:54, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: >>> Ah, a_rock_ musician. >>> >>> I can't help but wonder. >>> >>> Are you, in an alternate universe, claiming that "music theory is >>> useless" >>> given that "music people_actually like_ just uses the same 4 chords"? >> >> Largely IME it is. > > Ok, while you are in your right to express the thoughts expressed in this > thread so far, _this_ is largely indefensible. > > Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: > > - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style > Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read. > - Compose, arrange or orchestrate in a specific style (doesn't have to be > anything glamorous, you can do a chocolate commercial and be asked to > stick to a Galante style, or have a director assemble a temp track and > have to replicate the styles) > No,. They just havce to compose and play > - Transpose on the fly (say, because the singer is having a rough time > with the original key) > That isnt exatly hard > - Communicate with, and conduct, other musicians > not much of an issue if its only 3 others > That does not happen note for note (not if you want to keep the gig!), but > rather... well, you know the famous scene from Back to the Future, right? > > "This is a 12-bar blues in B, watch me for the changes!" > > That works if the other musicians are familiar with the 12-bar blues form, > with the appropriate chords, scales, etc. > Which they will be, or they wont be in the band at all > Now imagine if Marty were thrown in the continuo section for a performance > of Bach's Christmas Oratorio. > That is a completely different and dare I say it archaic, music form They used orchestras because electric amplification did not exist. There was a necessity to manage large numbers of plates > And we're talking Western theory here, if you want to play with Indian > musicians you'd need to deeply understand ragas and all that. > Western theory is relatively new. People have been playing music for thousands of years without it. Just as in engineering. Theory itself is a relatively new way of thinking and barely reaches back before the enlightenment -- Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age. Richard Lindzen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20261016144843.00000c40@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #93922 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:11:52 +0100 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > - Transpose on the fly (say, because the singer is having a rough > > time with the original key) > > That isnt exatly hard This is a genuinely hilarious take. "It's just moving things up or down the scale, how hard can it be!?" (glances over at a keyboard instrument where 5/12ths of the keys in the octave have a completely different profile from and are actually raised above and set back from the rest) (takes a gander at the fingering charts for woodwinds) *Honestly.* Even playing guitar with a capo takes some adjustment. > > - Communicate with, and conduct, other musicians > > not much of an issue if its only 3 others This is *also* immensely funny to anyone who's ever played with a new group for the first time. Good *gravy.* > > That does not happen note for note (not if you want to keep the > > gig!), but rather... well, you know the famous scene from Back to > > the Future, right? > > > > "This is a 12-bar blues in B, watch me for the changes!" > > > > That works if the other musicians are familiar with the 12-bar > > blues form, with the appropriate chords, scales, etc. > > Which they will be, or they wont be in the band at all ...and that knowledge, whether they got it at Juilliard, off Wikipedia, or from the old blind bluesman on the street corner, is part of what makes up music theory. Neither the fact that we were doing this stuff for ages before someone put a name to it nor the fact that not every system employed in discussing it is absolute and complete changes the fact that it's all talking about the same things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 08:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrn11d6tsj.hps.wookie@bookworm.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #93931 |
In <20261016144843.00000c40@gmail.com> John Ames: > This is *also* immensely funny to anyone who's ever played with a new > group for the first time. Good *gravy.* ... or even 4 bandmates at top of their game and global charts. Just a single episode of Peter Jacksons' "Get Back" is a good reference. Yo, TNP ... "If you want to climb out of a hole you dug, stop digging" -- Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS * Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots. Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. * I toss (404) GoogleGroup (404 http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 15:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11avv3b$8cd3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94023 |
On 17/10/2026 14:26, Harold Stevens wrote: > In <20261016144843.00000c40@gmail.com> John Ames: > >> This is *also* immensely funny to anyone who's ever played with a new >> group for the first time. Good *gravy.* > > ... or even 4 bandmates at top of their game and global charts. Just > a single episode of Peter Jacksons' "Get Back" is a good reference. > > Yo, TNP ... > > "If you want to climb out of a hole you dug, stop digging" > I'm not in a hole. But faced with the projection and Bandar Logic, there isn't much point in wasting my breath. I see that Greta Thunberg has joined the 'far right' riots in France. At leats they must be far right, because the left is always well behaved and democratic. -- It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11au7ds$3mbgf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93922 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:11:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: >> >> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style >> > Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read. Rock stars are not "working musicians", they're rock stars. We'd call them "content creators" these days. Their occupation is 1/4 rather simple music, 3/4 drugs, offensive lyrics, raw sex appeal and stage antics :-) You can't _plan_ a career as a rock star either, as many former teenagers have learned. You can however plan a career as a _musician_ which might, on occasion, include being a sideman for rock stars ...even if you're ugly and not into drugs. But also: compose jingles, accompany ballet, play in an orchestra, give lessons, play in church. And of course to play in a jazz setting you need to know your theory really, really, really well! >> - Compose, arrange or orchestrate in a specific style (doesn't have to >> be anything glamorous, you can do a chocolate commercial and be asked >> to stick to a Galante style, or have a director assemble a temp track >> and have to replicate the styles) >> > No,. They just havce to compose and play Well, you won't get many advertising gigs with that mindset! >> - Transpose on the fly (say, because the singer is having a rough time >> with the original key) >> > That isnt exatly hard Eh, try with some really annoying keys, multiple key changes and maybe some double sharps thrown in. But even if it's A minor to C minor, it's still theory. >> - Communicate with, and conduct, other musicians >> > not much of an issue if its only 3 others Yes, I can also build a plane if it's really small and made of paper. I was talking about professional proficiency that allows one to make a _career_ out of it. That usually goes beyond the quartet setting, unless you want your choice of gigs (read: income) to be drastically reducted. And they still speak in terms of scales and cadences in quartets, you know. > Which they will be, or they wont be in the band at all So you agree they need to know the theory and the idiom they're working with to be in the band. >> Now imagine if Marty were thrown in the continuo section for a >> performance of Bach's Christmas Oratorio. >> > That is a completely different and dare I say it archaic, music form Maybe, but it's performed way more often than 20th and 21st century "modern" music -- good luck with approaching "modern" stuff like Stockhausen without a solid schooling anyway! > They used orchestras because electric amplification did not exist. Ah, that's why? And now, of course, it's all musique concrete, with no new works for orchestra being written. Particularly, no works for orchestras that include electronic instruments... >> And we're talking Western theory here, if you want to play with Indian >> musicians you'd need to deeply understand ragas and all that. >> >> > Western theory is relatively new. People have been playing music for > thousands of years without it. > > Just as in engineering. Theory itself is a relatively new way of > thinking and barely reaches back before the enlightenment Of course! Ancient Greece didn't have music theory! Palestrina and Binchois were born in the 18th century! We don't have 4000 years old treatises from China, do we? Do yourself a favour and keep listening to rock "music".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 08:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ad33761$0$2492$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #93939 |
Le 16-10-2026, Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:11:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > >>> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: >>> >>> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style >>> >> Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read. > > Rock stars are not "working musicians", they're rock stars. Whatever you call them, he is confusing things here. I don't believe that many jazz musicians can't sight read but The Natural Philosopher head is disconnected from the real world so I won't argue about that. If you take the Beatles, one of the biggest band known for two things: first their songs were loved by a lot of people and second they were unable to read a partition. And that's were his confusion resides. They knew very well what they were doing. Some of the interviews they gave proved that if they were unable to put theoretical names on what they did, they were well aware of the effects had on the ears. So, even if they learned by themselves, they knew some musical theory: it wasn't useless because without it they wouldn't have stand out. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11avinv$3m0b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93986 |
On 17/10/2026 09:52, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 16-10-2026, Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> a écrit : >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:11:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> >>>> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: >>>> >>>> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style >>>> >>> Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read. >> >> Rock stars are not "working musicians", they're rock stars. > > Whatever you call them, he is confusing things here. I don't believe > that many jazz musicians can't sight read but The Natural Philosopher > head is disconnected from the real world so I won't argue about that. > > If you take the Beatles, one of the biggest band known for two things: > first their songs were loved by a lot of people and second they were > unable to read a partition. > > And that's were his confusion resides. They knew very well what they > were doing. Some of the interviews they gave proved that if they were > unable to put theoretical names on what they did, they were well aware > of the effects had on the ears. So, even if they learned by themselves, > they knew some musical theory: it wasn't useless because without it they > wouldn't have stand out. > Well that is a giant weasel. You have essentially said 'anyone who is a successful musicians *by definition* must know music theory'. But 'music theory' as we know it today has only existed a couple of hundred years. -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 22:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn1dqmx8a1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #93986 |
On 2026-10-17 10:52, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 16-10-2026, Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> a écrit : >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:11:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> >>>> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: >>>> >>>> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style >>>> >>> Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read. >> >> Rock stars are not "working musicians", they're rock stars. > > Whatever you call them, he is confusing things here. I don't believe > that many jazz musicians can't sight read but The Natural Philosopher > head is disconnected from the real world so I won't argue about that. > > If you take the Beatles, one of the biggest band known for two things: > first their songs were loved by a lot of people and second they were > unable to read a partition. > > And that's were his confusion resides. They knew very well what they > were doing. Some of the interviews they gave proved that if they were > unable to put theoretical names on what they did, they were well aware > of the effects had on the ears. So, even if they learned by themselves, > they knew some musical theory: it wasn't useless because without it they > wouldn't have stand out. I know music theoreticists studied the Beatles and could relate them to many previous musicians the world over. The maths applied to them. The theory matched what they did. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 02:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njipb0Fei39U21@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #94077 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 22:17:27 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I know music theoreticists studied the Beatles and could relate them to > many previous musicians the world over. The maths applied to them. The > theory matched what they did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQDEK8FBIek "All them fancy chords don't mean a thing if it ain't got that beat" John Lee Hooker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 04:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MpGcnSQZ_--sGUn3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #94077 |
On 10/17/26 16:17, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-10-17 10:52, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> Le 16-10-2026, Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:11:52 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: >>>>> >>>>> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style >>>>> >>>> Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read. >>> >>> Rock stars are not "working musicians", they're rock stars. >> >> Whatever you call them, he is confusing things here. I don't believe >> that many jazz musicians can't sight read but The Natural Philosopher >> head is disconnected from the real world so I won't argue about that. >> >> If you take the Beatles, one of the biggest band known for two things: >> first their songs were loved by a lot of people and second they were >> unable to read a partition. >> >> And that's were his confusion resides. They knew very well what they >> were doing. Some of the interviews they gave proved that if they were >> unable to put theoretical names on what they did, they were well aware >> of the effects had on the ears. So, even if they learned by themselves, >> they knew some musical theory: it wasn't useless because without it they >> wouldn't have stand out. > > I know music theoreticists studied the Beatles and could relate them to > many previous musicians the world over. The maths applied to them. The > theory matched what they did. Umm ... have seen SOME of that. 99.99% BULLSHIT. "Beatles" were an emergent property of a PARTICULAR space/time/historical environment. Could not have emerged before, or after, or EVER after.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 09:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ad493c1$0$10324$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #94077 |
Le 17-10-2026, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit : > On 2026-10-17 10:52, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> >> If you take the Beatles, one of the biggest band known for two things: >> first their songs were loved by a lot of people and second they were >> unable to read a partition. >> >> And that's were his confusion resides. They knew very well what they >> were doing. Some of the interviews they gave proved that if they were >> unable to put theoretical names on what they did, they were well aware >> of the effects had on the ears. So, even if they learned by themselves, >> they knew some musical theory: it wasn't useless because without it they >> wouldn't have stand out. > > I know music theoreticists studied the Beatles and could relate them to > many previous musicians the world over. The maths applied to them. The > theory matched what they did. I didn't knew it, but I'm not surprised. One can't become one of the most famous band in the world with random creation. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 22:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YpxAS.37511$1l6.6761@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #93922 |
On 2026-10-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 16/10/2026 20:01, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > >> Any working musician needs to do the following on a daily basis: >> >> - Sight read or memorize an unfamiliar piece in an unfamiliar style > > Wrong. Many working rock or jazz musicians cannot sight read. That's why he said "or memorize". As the old joke goes: Q: How do you stop a classical musician from playing? A: Take away his sheet music. Q: How do you stop a bluegrasser from playing? A: Put sheet music in front of him. I play both classical and bluegrass (although not professionally); I have the best of both worlds. >> - Transpose on the fly (say, because the singer is having a rough time >> with the original key) > > That isnt exatly hard That depends on the key, and whether your instrument can accept a capo. Some female vocalists pick the damnedest keys, which is why I describe B (which is a bit of a bitch to play in) as the "vocalist's key". Use your capo if you have one, suck it up if you don't. >> Now imagine if Marty were thrown in the continuo section for a performance >> of Bach's Christmas Oratorio. > > That is a completely different and dare I say it archaic, music form > > They used orchestras because electric amplification did not exist. There > was a necessity to manage large numbers of plates Yes, but some people still play it. A working _classical_ musician knows how. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njg9glFit4rU33@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #93942 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:19:36 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > That depends on the key, and whether your instrument can accept a capo. > Some female vocalists pick the damnedest keys, which is why I describe B > (which is a bit of a bitch to play in) as the "vocalist's key". > Use your capo if you have one, suck it up if you don't. I play, among other things, Irish flutes/whistles. The standard D simple- system flutes have both C and C# so you can play in D or G. If you want B you'd better scare up a new flute. There is a duet by Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash. Cash asks what key they're going to play in and Nelson names some weird key like B flat major. Cash mutters 'That figures.' For better or worse I can't sing and I don't play with groups so it's all the same to me. I've got a capo but no reason to use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5cPAS.187028$iS_f.33869@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #93965 |
On 2026-10-17, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:19:36 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> That depends on the key, and whether your instrument can accept a capo. >> Some female vocalists pick the damnedest keys, which is why I describe B >> (which is a bit of a bitch to play in) as the "vocalist's key". >> Use your capo if you have one, suck it up if you don't. > > I play, among other things, Irish flutes/whistles. The standard D simple- > system flutes have both C and C# so you can play in D or G. If you want B > you'd better scare up a new flute. > > There is a duet by Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash. Cash asks what key > they're going to play in and Nelson names some weird key like B flat > major. Cash mutters 'That figures.' "Neighborhood of B" -- O Brother Where Art Thou? I heard a story about Chet Atkins that had him saying something like "Mention E-flat and you'll see capos coming out everywhere." > For better or worse I can't sing and I don't play with groups so it's all > the same to me. I've got a capo but no reason to use it. With mandolin or fiddle I have enough fingers to manage just about any key - but I won't be doing all those drones like I can in A or D. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | In this world there are \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | two kinds of people: X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | 1. Those who can extrapolate / \ if you read it the right way. | from incomplete data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web