On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:21:48 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/6/2015 10:47 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/6/2015 7:11 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Instead, its wide-eyed "look at this neat feature I added!" ("Mommy,
I made a poops!")

Yeow, you really have a thing for FOSS writers that's pretty hostile.
Some
of the best software I have ever seen came from 17 year old FOSS
developers.

No, I'm disappointed in the efforts of my peers.

Talk to a "professional" software writer about the quality of
the code that he produces (number of bugs, lack of documentation,
stilted user interfaces, etc.) and he'll quickly blame it on
his boss/work environment:
- boss never gives us TIME to test things properly
- the bozos in Marketing that come up with these requirements are idiots
- the Sales folks who designed the interfaces listened to too many users
and didn't impose any consistency on their suggestions
- the documentation folks are all English-lit majors and completely
clueless as to technology
etc.

I.e., the *implication* is that, left to his/her own devices, you'd get
a MUCH better product! It's all the OTHER bozos on the bus that are
compromising HIS/HER product!

Then, when they are in an environment (FOSS) where there *are* no other
bozos *imposing* their will on their efforts, they produce the same crappy,
untested, undocumented, poorly defined code! And, when you call them
to task about it, they shrug and say, "No one was PAYING me for it,
so why should I do those things (that I don't WANT to do)?"

It's like looking at a house that a "professional" painter recently
finished painting and commenting on how sloppily he cut in the
trim around the windows, the fact that there is paint on the
glass, paint on the ground, the mismatch of colors on two adjacent
walls, etc. And, when questioning him, he replies "homeowner wanted
it done 'on the cheap' so I didn't bother with all the prep work,
cleanup, color matching, etc."

OK. But, then, when you visit him at his folks' house (or his own)
you notice the same slip-shod workmanship! But, now his "excuse" is
"I did the job for free; why should I bother with those annoying details
that take so much time to do properly?"

I.e., you've got an opportunity to *shine*; to create something
with no "arbitrary" constraints beyond what your own abilities
impose. And, instead of rising to that occasion, you *sink* to
your typical level of performance.

I like the idea of producing quality work/products. It makes more sense
to do it better the first time, I think.
It's the old, old question. "Why is there always enough time and
money to do it twice, but never enough to do it right?"

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 21:35:18 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 10/6/2015 9:21 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/6/2015 10:47 AM, Don Y wrote:

I.e., you've got an opportunity to *shine*; to create something
with no "arbitrary" constraints beyond what your own abilities
impose. And, instead of rising to that occasion, you *sink* to
your typical level of performance.

I like the idea of producing quality work/products. It makes more sense
to do it better the first time, I think.

Consumers ahve "trained" the industry to provide them with
untested, low quality products -- because they don't demand/expect
better.

If your customers aren't demanding better, what incentive do you
have to *do* better?
Be forced to live with/use your own product. That might give some
incentive.

On 10/7/2015 3:14 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:21:48 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/6/2015 10:47 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/6/2015 7:11 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Instead, its wide-eyed "look at this neat feature I added!" ("Mommy,
I made a poops!")

Yeow, you really have a thing for FOSS writers that's pretty hostile.
Some
of the best software I have ever seen came from 17 year old FOSS
developers.

No, I'm disappointed in the efforts of my peers.

Talk to a "professional" software writer about the quality of
the code that he produces (number of bugs, lack of documentation,
stilted user interfaces, etc.) and he'll quickly blame it on
his boss/work environment:
- boss never gives us TIME to test things properly
- the bozos in Marketing that come up with these requirements are idiots
- the Sales folks who designed the interfaces listened to too many users
and didn't impose any consistency on their suggestions
- the documentation folks are all English-lit majors and completely
clueless as to technology
etc.

I.e., the *implication* is that, left to his/her own devices, you'd get
a MUCH better product! It's all the OTHER bozos on the bus that are
compromising HIS/HER product!

Then, when they are in an environment (FOSS) where there *are* no other
bozos *imposing* their will on their efforts, they produce the same crappy,
untested, undocumented, poorly defined code! And, when you call them
to task about it, they shrug and say, "No one was PAYING me for it,
so why should I do those things (that I don't WANT to do)?"

It's like looking at a house that a "professional" painter recently
finished painting and commenting on how sloppily he cut in the
trim around the windows, the fact that there is paint on the
glass, paint on the ground, the mismatch of colors on two adjacent
walls, etc. And, when questioning him, he replies "homeowner wanted
it done 'on the cheap' so I didn't bother with all the prep work,
cleanup, color matching, etc."

OK. But, then, when you visit him at his folks' house (or his own)
you notice the same slip-shod workmanship! But, now his "excuse" is
"I did the job for free; why should I bother with those annoying details
that take so much time to do properly?"

I.e., you've got an opportunity to *shine*; to create something
with no "arbitrary" constraints beyond what your own abilities
impose. And, instead of rising to that occasion, you *sink* to
your typical level of performance.

I like the idea of producing quality work/products. It makes more sense
to do it better the first time, I think.
It's the old, old question. "Why is there always enough time and
money to do it twice, but never enough to do it right?"


Exactly! I like to design various things, and usually create a
prototype first to work out the kinks before I create something for a
client. Solving design problems is fun and seeing the solution in the
finished product is really satisfying especially when the feedback is
what I was expecting from a good design.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:48:42 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

bob_villa wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:45:12 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 10/6/2015 7:01 AM, bob_villa wrote:
This has become a techie chatroom...you're a want-to-be here and nothing
will rub-off on you! You're too ****ing old (much like myself).

I don't believe anyone is "too ****ing old" to learn new things.
I *do* believe that many people close their minds to new experiences
when they needn't.

No one said anything about not learning new things...you might as well "cash in your chips" (non semi-conductors) if you have that kind of attitude. I wouldn't delude myself into thinking I have the patience to learn coding at my ripe age.

There are some who should be a politician/salesman not engineer.
Good engineers are not typical chatter box, just good engineers.
Usually they are in deep thinking. He is not on high horse. Aces
are far in between.

Empty cart makes loudest noise. We used to have a guy with big mouth.
Nothing but trouble-maker babbling too much. Finally one day, a big
corp. customer politely asked us not to bring him in our monthly meetings.
Eventually he got terminated not producing any thing in his work.


The ones you find out are just a useless bag of excrement - and you
accept them for that - then find out you are still being cheated
because the bag says 10 lbs, and their's only 5 lb there?

On 10/7/2015 1:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 2:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
I'm not sure that's a really fair example. Who's going to be changing
the clock display while you're preparing cookies? OTOH, I understand
your point.

What if it was a longer duration period? Or if someone else has control
over that? There's nothing that *prevents* someone from walking into the
kitchen and changing the time on my timepiece!

That's true. But, even if they changed the actual time on the clock,
wouldn't the duration be the same?

If I am using a *timer*, then the duration remains unchanged.
However, if I have converted the relative time to an absolute time
(by noticing that I put the cookies in the oven at 3:37 so I
should take them out at 3:47), then any changes to that timepiece
alter the *relative* time that was my original goal!

We treat absolute times and relative durations as interchangeable things.
And, most of the time, they *are* -- if we have control over the
timepieces that are used to measure each of these.

I recall the first time I was exposed to the concept of "telescope as
time machine" -- instead of as a means of "gazing afar". It was so
incredibly obvious AFTER it had been pointed out. Yet, in most
folks' minds, it's still a device to look over long distances!

I've never heard of that particular concept, but it makes sense to me.

The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing* something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

On 10/7/2015 1:06 PM, Muggles wrote:

The goal isn't to make cookies but, rather, to make "eating experiences"!

I love the idea of creating an "eating experience", too, so I'm a slow
eater because I like to actually taste every bite vs. inhaling the fool.

I, unfortunately, am the latter type: I "eat to live" (instead of live to
eat) so treat it largely as a chore -- to get out of the way as quickly as
possible.

But, that doesn't mean that I expect others to have the same "disdain"
for food that I have. Instead, I try to exploit their eating patterns
and give them pleasant surprises.

I put various liqueurs in certain baked goods -- knowing that most of
this will "burn off" in the oven. But, by carefully controlling the bake,
I can arrange for a *hint* to remain. Folks that wolf things down
never perceive those subtleties. And, folks that are more attentive
find themselves frustrated -- when they *sense* a hint of "something"
but its gone before they can identify what it was.

For them, the experience is much more memorable.

[The "oreo" analogy is really appropriate! Not many folks "cherish"
a memory of sitting down with a bag of oreos...]

On 10/7/2015 1:14 PM, wrote:

I like the idea of producing quality work/products. It makes more sense
to do it better the first time, I think.
It's the old, old question. "Why is there always enough time and
money to do it twice, but never enough to do it right?"

EXACTLY! In my case, I have no desire to WASTE the portion of my life
required for ONE of those attempts! I can't ask to have that time
"refunded" to me because someone was too lazy or stupid to figure out
how it *should* have been done.

If I asked you to dig a big hole in my yard (and *paid* you for it),
how happy would you be if, once finished, I had you fill it in
and dig it elsewhere? *If* you are paid for this, the first time
you might just shrug thinking "hey, if he's got the money..."

But, you certainly wouldn't want to make a career out of that sort of
thing. Where's the satisfaction in that??

On 10/7/2015 1:15 PM, wrote:

If your customers aren't demanding better, what incentive do you
have to *do* better?
Be forced to live with/use your own product. That might give some
incentive.

But, people aren't. I've often ranted that folks like the MS weenies
should find themselves on an operating table, sometime, and overhear
the surgeon -- just as they are drifting off under the anesthesia -- say
something like: "Wait! I've got a blue screen. We'll have to reboot..."

On 10/7/2015 5:38 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 2:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
I'm not sure that's a really fair example. Who's going to be changing
the clock display while you're preparing cookies? OTOH, I understand
your point.

What if it was a longer duration period? Or if someone else has control
over that? There's nothing that *prevents* someone from walking into
the
kitchen and changing the time on my timepiece!

That's true. But, even if they changed the actual time on the clock,
wouldn't the duration be the same?

If I am using a *timer*, then the duration remains unchanged.
However, if I have converted the relative time to an absolute time
(by noticing that I put the cookies in the oven at 3:37 so I
should take them out at 3:47), then any changes to that timepiece
alter the *relative* time that was my original goal!

We treat absolute times and relative durations as interchangeable things.
And, most of the time, they *are* -- if we have control over the
timepieces that are used to measure each of these.

I like my cookies chewy. That would alter both the relative and
absolute times, right?

I recall the first time I was exposed to the concept of "telescope as
time machine" -- instead of as a means of "gazing afar". It was so
incredibly obvious AFTER it had been pointed out. Yet, in most
folks' minds, it's still a device to look over long distances!

I've never heard of that particular concept, but it makes sense to me.

The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing* something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

How do you know?

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 5:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:06 PM, Muggles wrote:

The goal isn't to make cookies but, rather, to make "eating
experiences"!

I love the idea of creating an "eating experience", too, so I'm a slow
eater because I like to actually taste every bite vs. inhaling the fool.

I, unfortunately, am the latter type: I "eat to live" (instead of live to
eat) so treat it largely as a chore -- to get out of the way as quickly as
possible.

But, that doesn't mean that I expect others to have the same "disdain"
for food that I have. Instead, I try to exploit their eating patterns
and give them pleasant surprises.

I put various liqueurs in certain baked goods -- knowing that most of
this will "burn off" in the oven. But, by carefully controlling the bake,
I can arrange for a *hint* to remain. Folks that wolf things down
never perceive those subtleties. And, folks that are more attentive
find themselves frustrated -- when they *sense* a hint of "something"
but its gone before they can identify what it was.

For them, the experience is much more memorable.

[The "oreo" analogy is really appropriate! Not many folks "cherish"
a memory of sitting down with a bag of oreos...]


When I make scalloped potatoes I use real butter and sweet milk along
with fresh chopped onions. The difference in the taste just by adding
real butter for me is the difference between enjoying the dish and
giving it to someone else who doesn't give a flip. If it doesn't taste
good there's no point in eating it for me, anyway.

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 3:50 PM, Muggles wrote:
The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing* something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

How do you know?

Because science teaches us that light takes time to span distances.
If the object being viewed is sufficiently distant, then we can guesstimate
how "stale" the image is.

Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 5:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:06 PM, Muggles wrote:

The goal isn't to make cookies but, rather, to make "eating
experiences"!

I love the idea of creating an "eating experience", too, so I'm a slow
eater because I like to actually taste every bite vs. inhaling the fool.

I, unfortunately, am the latter type: I "eat to live" (instead of live to
eat) so treat it largely as a chore -- to get out of the way as quickly as
possible.

But, that doesn't mean that I expect others to have the same "disdain"
for food that I have. Instead, I try to exploit their eating patterns
and give them pleasant surprises.

I put various liqueurs in certain baked goods -- knowing that most of
this will "burn off" in the oven. But, by carefully controlling the bake,
I can arrange for a *hint* to remain. Folks that wolf things down
never perceive those subtleties. And, folks that are more attentive
find themselves frustrated -- when they *sense* a hint of "something"=
but its gone before they can identify what it was.

For them, the experience is much more memorable.

[The "oreo" analogy is really appropriate! Not many folks "cherish"
a memory of sitting down with a bag of oreos...]


When I make scalloped potatoes I use real butter and sweet milk along
with fresh chopped onions. The difference in the taste just by adding
real butter for me is the difference between enjoying the dish and
giving it to someone else who doesn't give a flip. If it doesn't taste
good there's no point in eating it for me, anyway.

Potatoes = mucous causing acid causing food, Rememeber how to figure out
+ and - lead using potato? Milk = acid causing mucous causing, Onion =
good. I eat to live. One close friend of mine who used to enjoy good
food always who knew all the good eating place in town died from stomach
cancer almost 20 years ago.

On 10/07/2015 11:36 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 9:48 AM, Muggles wrote:

If your customers aren't demanding better, what incentive do you
have to *do* better?

I guess I demand more of myself.

If everyone did that, the world would be a *different* place!

(whether better or worse, I can't say)

One of the disappointments in my education was when I took a statistics
course aimed at engineers. Much of it was along the line of how few
pieces do we have to sample to ensure that only X% of the total
production is defective.

On 10/07/2015 02:14 PM, wrote:
It's the old, old question. "Why is there always enough time and
money to do it twice, but never enough to do it right?"

http://www.sixside.com/fast_good_cheap.asp

The other perennial engineering decision...

On 10/07/2015 02:18 PM, Muggles wrote:
Exactly! I like to design various things, and usually create a
prototype first to work out the kinks before I create something for a
client. Solving design problems is fun and seeing the solution in the
finished product is really satisfying especially when the feedback is
what I was expecting from a good design.

The current buzzword in the software field is 'agile' but I've been
doing it for years. Create a prototype that isn't fully functional but
represents you're interpretation of what the client asked for. Show it
to them and listen to what they really wanted. Rinse, and repeat.

It's depressing the number of people that don't want to take part in the
process, prefer you to read their minds, and then bitch about what they
get.

On 10/07/2015 04:47 PM, Don Y wrote:
If I asked you to dig a big hole in my yard (and *paid* you for it),
how happy would you be if, once finished, I had you fill it in
and dig it elsewhere? *If* you are paid for this, the first time
you might just shrug thinking "hey, if he's got the money..."

But, you certainly wouldn't want to make a career out of that sort of
thing. Where's the satisfaction in that??

That's why I've worked on one and only one DoD project. You really need
the atitude of "Hey, the paychecks keep cashing."

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 19:50:36 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 10/07/2015 02:18 PM, Muggles wrote:
Exactly! I like to design various things, and usually create a
prototype first to work out the kinks before I create something for a
client. Solving design problems is fun and seeing the solution in the
finished product is really satisfying especially when the feedback is
what I was expecting from a good design.

The current buzzword in the software field is 'agile' but I've been
doing it for years. Create a prototype that isn't fully functional but
represents you're interpretation of what the client asked for. Show it
to them and listen to what they really wanted. Rinse, and repeat.

It's depressing the number of people that don't want to take part in the
process, prefer you to read their minds, and then bitch about what they
get.
Didn't you know you are supposed to be a mind reader???

On 10/7/2015 6:50 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 02:18 PM, Muggles wrote:
Exactly! I like to design various things, and usually create a
prototype first to work out the kinks before I create something for a
client. Solving design problems is fun and seeing the solution in the
finished product is really satisfying especially when the feedback is
what I was expecting from a good design.

The current buzzword in the software field is 'agile' but I've been doing it
for years. Create a prototype that isn't fully functional but represents you're
interpretation of what the client asked for. Show it to them and listen to what
they really wanted. Rinse, and repeat.

It's depressing the number of people that don't want to take part in the
process, prefer you to read their minds, and then bitch about what they get.

I won't play that game. Call me when you *know* what you want.
It's not my role in life to show you things that you *might* want...
had you but spent the time to THINK about your needs.

I try to understand my client's needs along with *his* market.
Then, propose *my* solution. In the process, I am able to defend
every one of my design decisions because I've *thought* about the
problem -- instead of listening to the client's "first approximation"
of the problem (which will change when he sees the consequences
of that approximation).

Chances are, a client won't be able to come up with a better solution
(of course, he can take MY solution and let someone else "iterate"
it -- but it won't be *me*! : )

If you want to play "no, let's see what the couch looks like against
*that* wall", get someone else. You can't afford to pay me to wander
through a universe of POTENTIAL solutions (and, I'm not keen on
spending my life doing that!)

But, folks know this up front. Trust me -- or find someone who is
willing to just cash your paychecks until you run out of patience or
money or ideas...

On 10/7/2015 6:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 04:47 PM, Don Y wrote:
If I asked you to dig a big hole in my yard (and *paid* you for it),
how happy would you be if, once finished, I had you fill it in
and dig it elsewhere? *If* you are paid for this, the first time
you might just shrug thinking "hey, if he's got the money..."

But, you certainly wouldn't want to make a career out of that sort of
thing. Where's the satisfaction in that??

That's why I've worked on one and only one DoD project. You really need the
atitude of "Hey, the paychecks keep cashing."

I've never directlyworked on a DoD project -- though did work for a firm
that subcontracted to a subcontrator who worked on a DoD project.
For the most part, it was pretty uninspired. Throw lots of money at
the project and you can make damn near *anything* work...

On 10/7/2015 3:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

[The "oreo" analogy is really appropriate! Not many folks "cherish"
a memory of sitting down with a bag of oreos...]

When I make scalloped potatoes I use real butter and sweet milk along
with fresh chopped onions. The difference in the taste just by adding
real butter for me is the difference between enjoying the dish and
giving it to someone else who doesn't give a flip. If it doesn't taste
good there's no point in eating it for me, anyway.

Most of my meals (for myself) are "checkoff items" -- how quickly and
effortlessly can I get the right mix of nutrients into my body without
making an "event" out of it. I tend to only spend effort on things that
I make for others -- as *they* tend to enjoy these things so I can
justify the time spent.

E.g., I'll make three batches of biscotti this week for various folks
to enjoy. About 6 hours of my time, total. But, I suspect it will
translate into just as many hours of those folks *eating* them
(they tend to be eaten patiently, "over coffee")

There are only a few dishes that I truly enjoy. But, even those tend
to get "wolfed down" instead of "savored". OTOH, I will enjoy the
*memory* of the meal long after it's settled in my GI tract!

On 10/7/2015 6:43 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 11:36 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 9:48 AM, Muggles wrote:

If your customers aren't demanding better, what incentive do you
have to *do* better?

I guess I demand more of myself.

If everyone did that, the world would be a *different* place!

(whether better or worse, I can't say)

One of the disappointments in my education was when I took a statistics course
aimed at engineers. Much of it was along the line of how few pieces do we have
to sample to ensure that only X% of the total production is defective.

cf Deming. We tend to be taught to test for defects as opposed to
design quality *in*.

On 10/7/2015 6:03 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 3:50 PM, Muggles wrote:
The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing*
something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

How do you know?

Because science teaches us that light takes time to span distances.
If the object being viewed is sufficiently distant, then we can guesstimate
how "stale" the image is.

Ok What if images traveled faster than we thought?

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 6:56 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 5:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:06 PM, Muggles wrote:

The goal isn't to make cookies but, rather, to make "eating
experiences"!

I love the idea of creating an "eating experience", too, so I'm a slow
eater because I like to actually taste every bite vs. inhaling the
fool.

I, unfortunately, am the latter type: I "eat to live" (instead of
live to
eat) so treat it largely as a chore -- to get out of the way as
quickly as
possible.

But, that doesn't mean that I expect others to have the same "disdain"
for food that I have. Instead, I try to exploit their eating patterns
and give them pleasant surprises.

I put various liqueurs in certain baked goods -- knowing that most of
this will "burn off" in the oven. But, by carefully controlling the
bake,
I can arrange for a *hint* to remain. Folks that wolf things down
never perceive those subtleties. And, folks that are more attentive
find themselves frustrated -- when they *sense* a hint of "something"=
but its gone before they can identify what it was.

For them, the experience is much more memorable.

[The "oreo" analogy is really appropriate! Not many folks "cherish"
a memory of sitting down with a bag of oreos...]


When I make scalloped potatoes I use real butter and sweet milk along
with fresh chopped onions. The difference in the taste just by adding
real butter for me is the difference between enjoying the dish and
giving it to someone else who doesn't give a flip. If it doesn't taste
good there's no point in eating it for me, anyway.

Potatoes = mucous causing acid causing food, Rememeber how to figure out
+ and - lead using potato? Milk = acid causing mucous causing, Onion =
good. I eat to live. One close friend of mine who used to enjoy good
food always who knew all the good eating place in town died from stomach
cancer almost 20 years ago.

I rarely make my scalloped potatoes, but if it's a special occasion I
make them and go all out to do it.
--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 8:50 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 02:18 PM, Muggles wrote:
Exactly! I like to design various things, and usually create a
prototype first to work out the kinks before I create something for a
client. Solving design problems is fun and seeing the solution in the
finished product is really satisfying especially when the feedback is
what I was expecting from a good design.

The current buzzword in the software field is 'agile' but I've been
doing it for years. Create a prototype that isn't fully functional but
represents you're interpretation of what the client asked for. Show it
to them and listen to what they really wanted. Rinse, and repeat.

It's depressing the number of people that don't want to take part in the
process, prefer you to read their minds, and then bitch about what they
get.

I hear that!

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 9:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 3:55 PM, Muggles wrote:

[The "oreo" analogy is really appropriate! Not many folks "cherish"
a memory of sitting down with a bag of oreos...]

When I make scalloped potatoes I use real butter and sweet milk along
with fresh chopped onions. The difference in the taste just by adding
real butter for me is the difference between enjoying the dish and
giving it to someone else who doesn't give a flip. If it doesn't taste
good there's no point in eating it for me, anyway.

Most of my meals (for myself) are "checkoff items" -- how quickly and
effortlessly can I get the right mix of nutrients into my body without
making an "event" out of it. I tend to only spend effort on things that
I make for others -- as *they* tend to enjoy these things so I can
justify the time spent.

E.g., I'll make three batches of biscotti this week for various folks
to enjoy. About 6 hours of my time, total. But, I suspect it will
translate into just as many hours of those folks *eating* them
(they tend to be eaten patiently, "over coffee")

There are only a few dishes that I truly enjoy. But, even those tend
to get "wolfed down" instead of "savored". OTOH, I will enjoy the
*memory* of the meal long after it's settled in my GI tract!



I guess there are times that I'm just hungry and don't take my time
enjoying the food, but if I eat too fast it usually gives me indigestion
which I tend to regret! So, eating slower usually removes that problem.

You must be skin and bones if you really don't like to eat much at all.

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 8:55 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 6:03 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 3:50 PM, Muggles wrote:
The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing*
something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

How do you know?

Because science teaches us that light takes time to span distances.
If the object being viewed is sufficiently distant, then we can guesstimate
how "stale" the image is.

Ok What if images traveled faster than we thought?

There's no way to even prove they travel as fast as we THINK they
do. So, you can come up with an arbitrary set of rules for your
universe and be equally unsure of any conclusions you draw.

Time to resume my SOAP marathon...

On 10/7/2015 9:05 PM, Muggles wrote:
There are only a few dishes that I truly enjoy. But, even those tend
to get "wolfed down" instead of "savored". OTOH, I will enjoy the
*memory* of the meal long after it's settled in my GI tract!

I guess there are times that I'm just hungry and don't take my time
enjoying the food, but if I eat too fast it usually gives me indigestion
which I tend to regret! So, eating slower usually removes that problem.

You must be skin and bones if you really don't like to eat much at all.

I get the "adequate" amount of calories to maintain a healthy weight.
I just don't get them in a slow, savored meal. It's not uncommon for
me to eat a 10-12 oz steak. Or a sizeable bowl of pasta. Or, a *couple*
of grinders made from a Bolognese sauce on a bun. Sunday lunch is
always a pseudo-oriental pork dish -- I end up eating 1/2 pound of pork
tenderloin in that meal.

OTOH, I think all I've had to eat, so far, today has been a 4 oz piece
of lemon soaked cod fillet. I may make some rice later this evening...

On 10/7/2015 11:12 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 8:55 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 6:03 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 3:50 PM, Muggles wrote:
The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing*
something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

How do you know?

Because science teaches us that light takes time to span distances.
If the object being viewed is sufficiently distant, then we can
guesstimate
how "stale" the image is.

Ok What if images traveled faster than we thought?

There's no way to even prove they travel as fast as we THINK they
do. So, you can come up with an arbitrary set of rules for your
universe and be equally unsure of any conclusions you draw.

Time to resume my SOAP marathon...

I've seen that word SOAP used in a couple of posts, but not sure what it
is unless you're into watching day time soap operas.

--
Maggie

On 10/07/2015 07:56 PM, wrote:
Didn't you know you are supposed to be a mind reader???

Sure. We have a special Psychics'R'Us division.

On 10/7/2015 11:17 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 9:05 PM, Muggles wrote:
There are only a few dishes that I truly enjoy. But, even those tend
to get "wolfed down" instead of "savored". OTOH, I will enjoy the
*memory* of the meal long after it's settled in my GI tract!

I guess there are times that I'm just hungry and don't take my time
enjoying the food, but if I eat too fast it usually gives me indigestion
which I tend to regret! So, eating slower usually removes that problem.

You must be skin and bones if you really don't like to eat much at all.

I get the "adequate" amount of calories to maintain a healthy weight.
I just don't get them in a slow, savored meal. It's not uncommon for
me to eat a 10-12 oz steak. Or a sizeable bowl of pasta. Or, a *couple*
of grinders made from a Bolognese sauce on a bun. Sunday lunch is
always a pseudo-oriental pork dish -- I end up eating 1/2 pound of pork
tenderloin in that meal.

ok Now I'm hungry.

OTOH, I think all I've had to eat, so far, today has been a 4 oz piece
of lemon soaked cod fillet. I may make some rice later this evening...


yep ... definitely hungry. I need a snack! lol

--
Maggie

On 10/07/2015 08:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
Most of my meals (for myself) are "checkoff items" -- how quickly and
effortlessly can I get the right mix of nutrients into my body without
making an "event" out of it.

Sounds like a customer for Soylent 2.0.

On 10/7/2015 9:22 PM, Muggles wrote:

Time to resume my SOAP marathon...

I've seen that word SOAP used in a couple of posts, but not sure what it
is unless you're into watching day time soap operas.

SOAP was a spoof on soap operas in approximately the same timeframe
that "Dallas" was popular. I find the series immensely funny and
watch it every year or so (to give me a chance to forget some of
the details between viewings).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_%28TV_series%29

IIRC, it was the starting point for folks like Richard Mulligan,
Billy Crystal, Katherine Helmond, Robert Guillaume, etc. It
pokes fun at soap operas by its sheer outrageousness!

There are so many amusing scenes (for me) that I look forward
to stumbling upon them, again, with each re-watching. Many of
the punch-lines quickly evoke laughs when offered up out of context
as they are so easily reminiscent of the actual scenes in the show.

"It doesn't work when you're wet!"
"Peeeeterrrrr"
"(knock knock) Come in!"
"Oh! You wear that BELTED!"
"... how they know there's tomato plants up here? eh?"

Two weeks later, did we ever hear what kind of car the senior bought?

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 12:11:30 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 2:04 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:23:22 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 10/6/2015 1:52 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Whoopee!! I just received my new knee brace and I was able to stand for a while and take some steps. Later I'll do some more walking. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Happy Monster


It's about time you got that new knee brace!!

--
Maggie

It was supposedly delivered Sunday but the mail carrier left a note instead and I didn't get the package until Tuesday afternoon. The brace I got last month was one size too small for my right knee but fits my left knee so I was able to put on both braces Tuesday afternoon and stand up a lot easier. Later today, I'll be up again but I must take it slow because I'm very weak from laying in bed for so long. Dammit it's frustrating but I don't give up and if I can convince the orthopedic surgeon that the circulation in my legs is good, I may be able to get knee joint replacement surgery. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Gimpy Monster


Great news! It'll take a few weeks, probably, to get your legs back.
When I had that problem I started drinking Boost with protein and it
actually speeded up that process, I think.
--
Maggie

Along with the medications I'm getting, I'm also given a medicine cup full of a syrupy protein supplement which is supposed to promote the healing of damaged muscle and tissue. I was moved out of the TCU to another wing of the facility yesterday and I'm kind of worn out and in a lot of pain from the exertion of moving. The new room is larger but there was no phone or TV. My roommates sister and nephew brought one of his TV's from home but I don't care about TV because I have my computer but no phone concerns me because I have no cell service in this wing and could barely get a signal in the TCU. My goal today is to get up in my walker and shuffle as far as I can. It won't be easy but I refuse to give up. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Gimpy Monster

On 10/7/2015 9:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/07/2015 08:43 PM, Don Y wrote:
Most of my meals (for myself) are "checkoff items" -- how quickly and
effortlessly can I get the right mix of nutrients into my body without
making an "event" out of it.

Sounds like a customer for Soylent 2.0.

It take a lot of discipline for me NOT to get into the junk food
rut -- simply because it is so convenient (zero prep time). If
it was as simple as a "tablet"...

On 10/8/2015 5:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Two weeks later, did we ever hear what kind of car the senior bought?


Went insane from thread drift, and is now
heavily medicated.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:18:33 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 3:14 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:21:48 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/6/2015 10:47 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/6/2015 7:11 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Instead, its wide-eyed "look at this neat feature I added!" ("Mommy,
I made a poops!")

Yeow, you really have a thing for FOSS writers that's pretty hostile..
Some
of the best software I have ever seen came from 17 year old FOSS
developers.

No, I'm disappointed in the efforts of my peers.

Talk to a "professional" software writer about the quality of
the code that he produces (number of bugs, lack of documentation,
stilted user interfaces, etc.) and he'll quickly blame it on
his boss/work environment:
- boss never gives us TIME to test things properly
- the bozos in Marketing that come up with these requirements are idiots
- the Sales folks who designed the interfaces listened to too many users
and didn't impose any consistency on their suggestions
- the documentation folks are all English-lit majors and completely
clueless as to technology
etc.

I.e., the *implication* is that, left to his/her own devices, you'd get
a MUCH better product! It's all the OTHER bozos on the bus that are
compromising HIS/HER product!

Then, when they are in an environment (FOSS) where there *are* no other
bozos *imposing* their will on their efforts, they produce the same crappy,
untested, undocumented, poorly defined code! And, when you call them
to task about it, they shrug and say, "No one was PAYING me for it,
so why should I do those things (that I don't WANT to do)?"

It's like looking at a house that a "professional" painter recently
finished painting and commenting on how sloppily he cut in the
trim around the windows, the fact that there is paint on the
glass, paint on the ground, the mismatch of colors on two adjacent
walls, etc. And, when questioning him, he replies "homeowner wanted
it done 'on the cheap' so I didn't bother with all the prep work,
cleanup, color matching, etc."

OK. But, then, when you visit him at his folks' house (or his own)
you notice the same slip-shod workmanship! But, now his "excuse" is
"I did the job for free; why should I bother with those annoying details
that take so much time to do properly?"

I.e., you've got an opportunity to *shine*; to create something
with no "arbitrary" constraints beyond what your own abilities
impose. And, instead of rising to that occasion, you *sink* to
your typical level of performance.

I like the idea of producing quality work/products. It makes more sense
to do it better the first time, I think.
It's the old, old question. "Why is there always enough time and
money to do it twice, but never enough to do it right?"


Exactly! I like to design various things, and usually create a
prototype first to work out the kinks before I create something for a
client. Solving design problems is fun and seeing the solution in the
finished product is really satisfying especially when the feedback is
what I was expecting from a good design.
--
Maggie

"That's too expensive. You shouldn't make it so good, it won't be used that much and we are going to produce a lot of them."......later on,"Hey! Why the frak did this thing come apart while I was using it?! What's the matter with you, I thought you knew what you were doing?!" BTDT ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Design Monster

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:38:35 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 2:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
I'm not sure that's a really fair example. Who's going to be changing
the clock display while you're preparing cookies? OTOH, I understand
your point.

What if it was a longer duration period? Or if someone else has control
over that? There's nothing that *prevents* someone from walking into the
kitchen and changing the time on my timepiece!

That's true. But, even if they changed the actual time on the clock,
wouldn't the duration be the same?

If I am using a *timer*, then the duration remains unchanged.
However, if I have converted the relative time to an absolute time
(by noticing that I put the cookies in the oven at 3:37 so I
should take them out at 3:47), then any changes to that timepiece
alter the *relative* time that was my original goal!

We treat absolute times and relative durations as interchangeable things.
And, most of the time, they *are* -- if we have control over the
timepieces that are used to measure each of these.

I recall the first time I was exposed to the concept of "telescope as
time machine" -- instead of as a means of "gazing afar". It was so
incredibly obvious AFTER it had been pointed out. Yet, in most
folks' minds, it's still a device to look over long distances!

I've never heard of that particular concept, but it makes sense to me.

The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing* something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

So if my butt itches, it may indicate that a flea, bedbug or mosquito munched on me at some time in the past? When I squash the little ******* it's an example of what *was* (but no longer *is*). ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Former Monster

On 10/8/2015 8:20 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 3:18:33 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
Exactly! I like to design various things, and usually create a
prototype first to work out the kinks before I create something for a
client. Solving design problems is fun and seeing the solution in the
finished product is really satisfying especially when the feedback is
what I was expecting from a good design.
--
Maggie

"That's too expensive. You shouldn't make it so good, it won't be used that much and we are going to produce a lot of them."......later on,"Hey! Why the frak did this thing come apart while I was using it?! What's the matter with you, I thought you knew what you were doing?!" BTDT ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Design Monster


Years ago, my Dad told me wen he was at work, some
one came into the company artist, and asked for a
quick scketch of some thing. The artist did so, but
using all the patience and quality he did on other
art work which he knew would be in a prublication.

Dad asked why he was going slowly instead of the
quick sketch that the guy wanted.

"Years from now when they pull this out of the
drawer, no one will say boy he did that fast, but
they will say boy he did that sloppy."

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 5:38:35 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 2:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
I'm not sure that's a really fair example. Who's going to be changing
the clock display while you're preparing cookies? OTOH, I understand
your point.

What if it was a longer duration period? Or if someone else has control
over that? There's nothing that *prevents* someone from walking into the
kitchen and changing the time on my timepiece!

That's true. But, even if they changed the actual time on the clock,
wouldn't the duration be the same?

If I am using a *timer*, then the duration remains unchanged.
However, if I have converted the relative time to an absolute time
(by noticing that I put the cookies in the oven at 3:37 so I
should take them out at 3:47), then any changes to that timepiece
alter the *relative* time that was my original goal!

We treat absolute times and relative durations as interchangeable things.
And, most of the time, they *are* -- if we have control over the
timepieces that are used to measure each of these.

I recall the first time I was exposed to the concept of "telescope as
time machine" -- instead of as a means of "gazing afar". It was so
incredibly obvious AFTER it had been pointed out. Yet, in most
folks' minds, it's still a device to look over long distances!

I've never heard of that particular concept, but it makes sense to me.

The ramifications are subtle but profound: you are *seeing* something...
but, you are seeing something OUT OF THE PAST! It may have changed,
moved, ceased to exist, etc. We consider sight to be "proof" of
the world around us -- yet this is an example of the world that *was*
(but no longer *is*).

So if my butt itches, it may indicate that a flea, bedbug or mosquito munched on my butt at some time in the past? When I squash the little ******* it's an example of what *was* (but no longer *is*)? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Past Monster