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 | 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 271 — 23 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:54 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:56 +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 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:30 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:13 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 14:19 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:10 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 15:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:23 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:37 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:53 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:00 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:12 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 13:26 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 15:35 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 14:04 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 16:24 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:50 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:19 +0000
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 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-18 05:58 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:55 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:43 +0100
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:48 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:25 +0200
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:36 +0100
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 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:09 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:58 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 13:33 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:08 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:11 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:52 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:58 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 20:07 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:41 +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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:41 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:45 +0200
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:08 +0100
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:07 +0100
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> - 2026-10-18 21:59 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:09 +0100
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 John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:01 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 22:25 +0200
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 Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 11:31 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:40 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:09 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-18 09:57 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 20:05 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 14:38 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:38 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 16:07 -0600
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-10-18 23:44 +0200
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:36 +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 John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-18 12:14 +0200
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:15 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-18 22:03 +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 05:55 -0400
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-18 19:28 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:12 +0100
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 Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:32 +0000
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:20 +0100
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0000
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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
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
Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-18 10:59 +0000
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at2fv$33n8m$35@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93845 |
On 16/10/2026 11:56, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:26:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >>> It can at best, and it does, teach you what properties of a program are >>> provable and give you a theoretical framework for correctness. >>> >>> And you're clearly not gonna formally prove your web app, you use those >>> to prove the avionics at AirBUS or other mission critical systems. >>> >> No. you dont. > > Oh! > I must have been lied to by people connected to the project. > I apologize for spreading misinformation. > > In which case, I guess you don't formally prove avionics either. > Maybe you don't prove anything at all outside of academia. > > I don't have a problem with that. > >> Anything more complex than a finite state machine cannot be validated. > > Surely that's an interesting computer science result that you'd want to > know before attempting to allocate some budget to do just that? > > (Or before you allocate some budget to build a finite state machine that > you can later, theoretically, validate.) > >> Christ on a bike. You have no idea do you? > > Again, I am only sharing the anecdotes of people familiar with the work. > I can't 100% rule out it's Santa and his elves making the planes. > >>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>> >> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. > > Don't suppose you have a source for that? > Its all in the industry press. Everywhere. They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. That changed the aicrafts handling. So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to get re certified. This worked, until speficic setss of circumstances that clearly were not envisaged by the CS people who recoded it, appeared and crashed the planes > It would be really funny to apply "CS style theoretical solutions" to a > plane (and not in the sense of the _avionics_, or the on-board > enteirtanment, but the plane itself... after chopping off its tail). > >>>> Computers science is not what you think it is. >>> >>> Funnily, I have a degree in computer science. >> >> Indeed. And it shows > > Thank you, I'll wear the compliment with pride. Another CS flaw noted -- To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at2r8$31lan$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93850 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>>> >>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >> >> Don't suppose you have a source for that? >> > Its all in the industry press. > Everywhere. > > They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. > > That changed the aicrafts handling. > > So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate > and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to > get re certified. I'm familiar with that part. I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in. Which I don't think it did at any point. I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it). I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not less!). If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. I would, however, appreciate a correction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 13:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at5ua$33n8m$41@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93851 |
On 16/10/2026 12:46, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:40:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > >>>>> The kind of thing Boeing neglected to do lately, see: 737 MAX. >>>>> >>>> They relied on CS style theoretical solutions. >>> >>> Don't suppose you have a source for that? >>> >> Its all in the industry press. >> Everywhere. >> >> They had to tilt the engines up to get them to fit. >> >> That changed the aicrafts handling. >> >> So they patched some other software that wasn't related, to compensate >> and make it more or less feel like the old 737 so pilots did not have to >> get re certified. > > I'm familiar with that part. > I'm less familiar with the part where "CS" comes in. > Which I don't think it did at any point. > > I don't think it was a "CS person"'s decision to do it like that, given > that we're talking about planes and not compilers (happy to be proven > wrong and show that Boeing had a PhD in CS with executive power on it). > What I am saying is that the whole approach was theoretical and not practical Just as CS is, > I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed to > conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, not > less!). > > If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due to > lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers from > Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. > Hardly fits with your claim that aerospace software is designed and guaranteed perfect by CS phds of the highesr calibre :-) > I would, however, appreciate a correction. I'd appreciate a consistent stance. Apart from "when its works, its computer scientists, when it doesn't its offshore programmers" Is rather say 'when it works, engineers have designed it, when it fucks up, computer scientistss have designed it' -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at6es$31lan$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93864 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:39:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> I don't have evidence that any "CS person" got a formal spec and failed >> to conform to it either (and if they did, they'd need _more_ science, >> not less!). >> >> If anything, this looks like an utter project management failure, due >> to lack of (formal) communication and a lot of offshore programmers >> from Synechron and Tata, with about zero CS people involved. >> > Hardly fits with your claim that aerospace software is designed and > guaranteed perfect by CS phds of the highesr calibre My claim is that there EXIST aerospace application for abstract interpretation that I'm aware of firsthand. My claim is NOT that every aerospace application is handled by every aerospace company with the utmost scientific rigour in every department for every part of the project. Logic 101 would teach you to mind the direction of the implication. > I'd appreciate a consistent stance. Here you go: "If it's proven correct to a spec, it's either correct to the spec or there is an error in the proof that can be found. If there is no spec or the spec is wrong, ex falso quodlibet." Please prove inconsistency. > Is rather say 'when it works, engineers have designed it, when it fucks up, computer scientistss have designed it' Computer scientists don't "design" things, they merely prove their impossibility, which is a much noble purpose. Taht said, what _I'd_ frankly rather say is that you don't seem to be in the field, unless you moonlilght in workshops while holding a day job at IBM. Your experience is limited even for being anecdotal. Please let it go already.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 09:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11asmgi$33n8m$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93794 |
On 16/10/2026 05:00, c186282 wrote: > CS is all math/stats. Has almost nothing to > do with the real-world these days. Maybe in > the 1940s ....... Yes. I had been writing code years before I read Knuth. It was a revelation. Massively overcomplicated approach to the simplest things. CS is great for people writing compilers, designing chips, or cracking enigma codes, but the reality of writing pragmatic workmanlike maintainable and well documented code on time and on budget is software engineering, not CS CS is actually against the goals of this. It leads to over complexity and adoption of elegant, rather than functional design. E.g. "All the problems of C++ would have been avoided if we had written it in C". -- “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.” Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 08:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11asoie$31lan$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93810 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:16:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > CS is great for people writing compilers, designing chips, or cracking > enigma codes, but the reality of writing pragmatic workmanlike > maintainable and well documented code on time and on budget is software > engineering, not CS Well, duh? Also nuclear physics is not required for changing a bulb, even if that bulb is powered by a nuclear plant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11assr3$33n8m$22@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93817 |
On 16/10/2026 09:51, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:16:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > >> CS is great for people writing compilers, designing chips, or cracking >> enigma codes, but the reality of writing pragmatic workmanlike >> maintainable and well documented code on time and on budget is software >> engineering, not CS > > Well, duh? > > Also nuclear physics is not required for changing a bulb, even if that > bulb is powered by a nuclear plant. Exactly, So why do people insist on hiring nuclear engineers to change light bulbs? When they have never been taught to use a step ladder safely? We are not arguing against CS per se, just against its inappropriateness in ordinary software design and development. CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near software design and development. Its about as useless as expecting an ArtStudent™ to paint a room -- "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently. This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and all women"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at0t3$31lan$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93841 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near > software design and development. I fully 100% support the creation of a regulated profession of software engineering, much like medicine and civil engineering, which has its own curriculum, etc., and is distinct from CS, much in the same way as architecture and civil engineering is distinct from physics and arts. But in the present world, for hiring purposes, you have to choose between CS majors and... well, failed economists and physicists and Javascript bootcamp graduates with BAs in critical gender theory. And believe me, the latter are on average a much greater threat to any project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11at3ra$33n8m$37@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93848 |
On 16/10/2026 12:13, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near >> software design and development. > > I fully 100% support the creation of a regulated profession of software > engineering, much like medicine and civil engineering, which has its own > curriculum, etc., and is distinct from CS, much in the same way as > architecture and civil engineering is distinct from physics and arts. > > But in the present world, for hiring purposes, you have to choose between > CS majors and... well, failed economists and physicists and Javascript > bootcamp graduates with BAs in critical gender theory. > When hiring, I had the option between science band maths graduates who had taught themselves computing and were humble and hard working and arrogant CS graduates who thought that anyone without a CS degree didn't understand computers and were not worth paying respect to. I learnt not to employ them, Other employees came through vocational courses in 'IT' . Tey were brilliant Of course I understood computers all the way from a two transistor flip flop register all the way up to machine code on a processor. Something the CS people had no clue about > And believe me, the latter are on average a much greater threat to any > project. The only people who employ those are the 'creative' houses in charge of designing web sites that look pretty and don't work. Critical race theorist are almost as useless ans critical computer theorists Computers simply are not science. They are machines. Science is 'natural philosophy' The study of the natural world. Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless bollocks QED -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at565$31lan$20@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93855 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless > bollocks I absolutely agree, the English term "computer science" is an unfortunate choice of words which had the main purpose of sounding trendy in the 50s (much like "artificial intelligence", "operations research", "linear programming"). Most pure / theoretical computer science is actually _computing_ science, i.e. the study of computational processes and their properties, with little regard to whether computation on abstract structures is carried out by mind or machine. Does an algorithm terminate? Which properties does a tree have? What is computable? These are hardly computer-related topics and predate the first computers. However, it must be noted that Von Neumann was likely familiar with the Turing machine as an abstraction and it influenced the Von Neumann design: maybe we needed a science of computation before we could build _practical_ computing machines? On the other hand, the areas of distributed computing or databases or real time systems I'd clearly consider (theoretical) engineering, i.e. the study of man-made systems and their design. You can find either at a CS conference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11atbt1$3bqcl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93861 |
On 16/10/2026 13:26, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> Computers are not natural. Ergo 'computer science' is meaningless >> bollocks > > I absolutely agree, the English term "computer science" is an unfortunate > choice of words which had the main purpose of sounding trendy in the 50s > (much like "artificial intelligence", "operations research", "linear > programming"). > > Most pure / theoretical computer science is actually _computing_ science, > i.e. the study of computational processes and their properties, with > little regard to whether computation on abstract structures is carried out > by mind or machine. > > Does an algorithm terminate? > Which properties does a tree have? > What is computable? > > These are hardly computer-related topics and predate the first computers. > > However, it must be noted that Von Neumann was likely familiar with the > Turing machine as an abstraction and it influenced the Von Neumann design: > maybe we needed a science of computation before we could build _practical_ > computing machines? I think he exactly was. He's be a bit ignorant not to have been. Turing and Tommy flowers built the first computer. Turing was a mathematician, Flowers was an electronic engineer. Both in their own way knew what was possible, and more importantly what was not. The tragedy was that that work was classified for years and that all but two machines were broken up. Computer science was what the theoretical aspect of designing computers from scratch was called. But in practice it was electronic engineering. Once you know its a machine that does boolean shit, then its just a question of working out the basic gates you need and how to build them out of transistors and diodes (or originally vacuum tubes) and how to build basic elements like shift registers latches and adders and so on out of the gates. Archtecture iswhat CS defined. Architecture is what engineers built. > > On the other hand, the areas of distributed computing or databases or real > time systems I'd clearly consider (theoretical) engineering, i.e. the > study of man-made systems and their design. > *shrug* there's a difference between as little theory as is necessary to get it working and as little practical application is possible to not sully the inner elegance of my algorithms.. ever hear of the 7 layer model of network architecture? All very CS. All complete bollox. TCP/IP took one look at it and threw it away. TCP was designed to work... > You can find either at a CS conference. Engineers are to busy to attend conferneces -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df0af89e578ec0$2720$2693458$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93869 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:21:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > Computer science was what the theoretical aspect of designing computers > from scratch was called. But in practice it was electronic engineering. > I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to build a TERNARY computer from scratch. Binary is only one possibility for computing machines. They'd need to bring in the scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 21:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mMacnbgnUMp_U0_3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93878 |
On 10/16/26 11:07, Leroy H wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:21:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> >> Computer science was what the theoretical aspect of designing computers >> from scratch was called. But in practice it was electronic engineering. >> > > I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to > build a TERNARY computer from scratch. > > Binary is only one possibility for computing machines. > > They'd need to bring in the scientists. Nope. Not at all. We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not anything 'theoretical'. Transistors are only efficient in either fully-on or fully-off conditions, otherwise they're power-sucking 'resistors'. Tubes/valves are not STABLE enough to work at intermediate ranges for numeric work. OK for yer Pat Boone recordings though. Future electronics, and 'quantum' is one of those, may be able to stably work with 'in-between' states. Deca-state logic would be really cool, but don't expect to SEE it. Nature doesn't always cooperate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 01:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18df2e5c0929a19c$1877$2483150$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #93953 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:26:48 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >> I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to >> build a TERNARY computer from scratch. >> > > We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not > anything 'theoretical'. > The former Soviet Union produced a highly functional ternary computer: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer> Supposedly, ternary has advantages over binary, but having been schooled entirely in binary methodologies I cannot comment much on this topic. The wiki page gives a basic overview. The original point, however, remains valid. Contemporary engineers would not know where to begin with ternary. They'd need to call in the theoreticians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 01:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mMacnbQnUMoBn073nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #93954 |
On 10/16/26 21:55, Leroy H wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:26:48 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >>> >>> I would challenge your esteemed engineers, übermenschen all, to >>> build a TERNARY computer from scratch. >>> >> >> We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not >> anything 'theoretical'. >> > > The former Soviet Union produced a highly functional ternary computer: > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer> So where are they all now ??? "Highly successful" - sounds like a considerable exaggeration. Yes, you can FAKE tri-state/tetra-state, MAYBE even deca-state .... but it's not going to be efficient or compact. > Supposedly, ternary has advantages over binary, but having > been schooled entirely in binary methodologies I cannot > comment much on this topic. Well, in theory, more bits are better. But there do seem to be reasons we've been using binary for everything since forever and it's not some Vast Konspiracy. > The wiki page gives a basic overview. > > The original point, however, remains valid. Contemporary > engineers would not know where to begin with ternary. > They'd need to call in the theoreticians. Nope. Find a new career. The boring old engineers can handle it all nicely. Then the AIs will steal their careers :-) Theorists like von Neumann and Turing DID serve a purpose at the dawn of computing - provided some sane direction, approaches. After that however, CS became less and less useful in the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11avbj8$59n$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93953 |
On 17/10/2026 02:26, c186282 wrote:
> We use binary because of the HARDWARE aspects, not
> anything 'theoretical'. Transistors are only efficient
> in either fully-on or fully-off conditions, otherwise
> they're power-sucking 'resistors'. Tubes/valves are
> not STABLE enough to work at intermediate ranges for
> numeric work. OK for yer Pat Boone recordings though.
>
> Future electronics, and 'quantum' is one of those,
> may be able to stably work with 'in-between' states.
> Deca-state logic would be really cool, but don't
> expect to SEE it. Nature doesn't always cooperate.
Largely true, And boolean logic is very easy to map into simple hardware.
Analogue computers exist of course and are very very useful in niche
applications
--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
- Bertrand Russell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 12:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11at5mo$31lan$21@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93855 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:03:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > When hiring, I had the option between science band maths graduates who > had taught themselves computing and were humble and hard working and > arrogant CS graduates who thought that anyone without a CS degree didn't > understand computers and were not worth paying respect to. As a side note, it's very likely that someone who's applying for a field they're not qualified for appears more humble. You may find the economics graduates who do _not_ end crawling into computer stuff are not as humble and viceversa. I also think that, generally, whoever opts for a "science" degree does not likely pride oneself in being "hard-working". Science as an intellectual pursuit was, and often still is, the province of noblemen and the wealthy for a reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11au7a1$3m5co$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #93863 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 12:35:36 -0000 (UTC), Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > I also think that, generally, whoever opts for a "science" degree > does not likely pride oneself in being "hard-working". Larry Wall, legendary creator of Perl and patch, listed, among the virtues of a good programmer, “laziness” and “hubris”. I can certainly appreciate the “laziness” part. I appreciate it when I look at somebody’s PHP code, where the same validation sequence has been copied and pasted a dozen times for a dozen different input fields, instead of being defined in a single function which is simply called in those dozen places.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn11d4klo.kts.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #93841 |
On 2026-10-16, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > ... > > Its about as useless as expecting an ArtStudent™ to paint a room Saw that happen: During the early 1990s, the Pentium Pro processor was being designed on the 1st floor of building JF1. Some executive called that building's interior the ugliest building in the company. Over a weekend or holiday, some art students from Portland State University were brought in to prettify it. They used four or five colors to paint the pillars. Each pillar was one color. The pattern of colors looked random unless you looked at just the right angle and discovered that the colors were in diagonal stripes. The comments from those who worked there were amusing. Someone thought the colored pillars made the building look like the set of the Barney show or maybe Sesame Street. My wife happened to have a white handkerchief with small colored hears in a semi-random pattern. On a small strip of paper, I wrote "You Are Here" next to a red arrow and placed the paper somewhere on the handkerchief hung outside my cubicle. Much laughter was heard. The art students were probably pleased with their work (and what they were paid for doing it). Somebody under the executive added the beautification project as an accomplishment for the next annual performance review. The executive probably never noticed it. Those who worked in the building quit noticing the colors after a few days. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njfdi7Fit4rU26@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #93841 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:04:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > CS graduates should never in my experience get let anywhere near > software design and development. At least in the US CS is sort of a blanket description of anything computer related: https://rpi.app.box.com/s/340c6u82z66dx1k3ms627cp7kbtisqna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web