On 10/5/2015 9:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 10/05/2015 09:41 PM, Don Y wrote:
Why did MS C
bury Borland's offerings? etc.

Back in the day I used Borland's OWL IDE. At the time it was arguable better
than MFC. Gates had deeper pockets however. Borland did **** me off when they
bought the BRIEF programming editor and effectively buried it.

+42

I sorely miss Brief. Unfortunately, modern machines appear to be
far too fast for it to run effectively. I can recall trying to
run it on a 25MHz (!) 386 and the mere act of *touching* an
arrow key would instantly scroll past the end/edge of the
document!

Paradox was another "class above" compared to "Abcess". In
the technology world, quality rarely wins.

On 10/5/2015 9:58 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-06, Don Y wrote:
aggressively. Why did MSWord bury WordPerfect? Was it because
WP had some onerous licensing terms/technology?

My recollection is that it was because the initial releases of
Word Perfect for Windows were worse than atrocious.

Maybe for "plain jane" applications (office/productivity suites).
But, have you compared the features and quality of those "modern"
FOSS offerings with *paid* offerings from 20 years past?

FOSS does everything that I need, have not used commercial software
for many years.

How often do you draw schematics, design FPGA's, layout circuit boards,
design mechanical enclosures/injection molds, draw architectural
floorplans, publish "camera ready" documents, done any symbolic math
processing, etc.? (these being some of the things I've done in the last
12 mos).

I use FOSS tools to write software and build software systems (gdb,
gcc, eclipse, etc.). And, for some "commodity utilities" (mail,
news, www, etc.) But, beyond that, everything is COTS software.
I'd rather spend the money and have a tool that does what I *need*
and *want* than have to struggle with a tool that *aspires* to
do so "when it grows up" -- and having to "settle" for its
current state of completion.

A neighbor gave me a bicycle. I can get around town with it. It
would cost me NOTHING in terms of gas, licensing, insurance, etc.
Yet, I prefer to spend money driving a *car* -- so I can get where
I want to go without making *that* a separate chore unto itself!

frown

[Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of FOSS! Every line of code
that I'm writing, every schematic diagram, PCB layout, mold assembly,
etc. are all destined to be released unencumbered -- not even with the
obligations like the GPL imposes! I just don't think FOSS is ready for
prime time, on the whole. There's no sense of ownership/pride in it
as a "product" (PostgreSQL seems to be a notable exception)]

On 2015-10-06, Don Y wrote:
How often do you draw schematics, design FPGA's, layout circuit boards, ...

Not relevant to my use of FOSS. Remember, I said that FOSS software does
everything that *I* need, it was not a blanket statement saying FOSS was
suitable for anyone else. My own usage, aside from general desktop, would
be primarily servers of various types, network management and diagnostic
utilities, rescuing data from dead PCs or corrupt filesystems, etc.
(Basically for me FOSS is a Swiss army knife of capabilities for EDP work.)

Anyone else's mileage may vary.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/5/2015 10:27 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-06, Don Y wrote:
How often do you draw schematics, design FPGA's, layout circuit boards, ...

Not relevant to my use of FOSS. Remember, I said that FOSS software does
everything that *I* need, it was not a blanket statement saying FOSS was
suitable for anyone else.

Exactly. Returning to my bicycle analogy, that bicycle MAY be a good
solution for someone else -- someone who doesn't need to travel as far
or who doesn't care how much time is spent on "the journey", etc.

My own usage, aside from general desktop, would
be primarily servers of various types, network management and diagnostic
utilities, rescuing data from dead PCs or corrupt filesystems, etc.
(Basically for me FOSS is a Swiss army knife of capabilities for EDP work.)

On my NetBSD/FreeBSD machines, I don't even run a "desktop" -- just
a lightweight window manager (twm, uwm, etc.) over a bare root window.
No need for file managers, office suites, etc. (all of that sort of
stuff happens in the Windows world).

I rely on core services (NTP, FTP, HTTPd, POP/IMAP, NNTP, DNS, etc.)
provided by the (FOSS) OS -- I wouldn't even *try* to set up IS
under Windows.

The things on which I rely on FOSS are primarily things that I am
prepared/committed to maintain on my own -- without having to risk
being *dragged* into some newer release of a COTS product *just* to
get some particular bug fixed (I can find and fix the bugs myself;
something that COTS software won't let me do!).

Anyone else's mileage may vary.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:15:48 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 10/5/2015 9:58 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-06, Don Y wrote:
aggressively. Why did MSWord bury WordPerfect? Was it because
WP had some onerous licensing terms/technology?

My recollection is that it was because the initial releases of
Word Perfect for Windows were worse than atrocious.

Maybe for "plain jane" applications (office/productivity suites).
But, have you compared the features and quality of those "modern"
FOSS offerings with *paid* offerings from 20 years past?

FOSS does everything that I need, have not used commercial software
for many years.

How often do you draw schematics, design FPGA's, layout circuit boards,
design mechanical enclosures/injection molds, draw architectural
floorplans, publish "camera ready" documents, done any symbolic math
processing, etc.? (these being some of the things I've done in the last
12 mos).

I use FOSS tools to write software and build software systems (gdb,
gcc, eclipse, etc.). And, for some "commodity utilities" (mail,
news, www, etc.) But, beyond that, everything is COTS software.
I'd rather spend the money and have a tool that does what I *need*
and *want* than have to struggle with a tool that *aspires* to
do so "when it grows up" -- and having to "settle" for its
current state of completion.

A neighbor gave me a bicycle. I can get around town with it. It
would cost me NOTHING in terms of gas, licensing, insurance, etc.
Yet, I prefer to spend money driving a *car* -- so I can get where
I want to go without making *that* a separate chore unto itself!

frown

[Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of FOSS! Every line of code
that I'm writing, every schematic diagram, PCB layout, mold assembly,
etc. are all destined to be released unencumbered -- not even with the
obligations like the GPL imposes! I just don't think FOSS is ready for
prime time, on the whole. There's no sense of ownership/pride in it
as a "product" (PostgreSQL seems to be a notable exception)]

Wow! You got some skills there feller. I was never able to get into programming except for simple binary to make early digital control systems to operate. I wasn't able to get into learning programming and to write code before I got out of the age group where I was inhaling information. I was too busy earning enough money so I could survive. The work you do is really interesting and I wish I could do those things because there were ideas I've had that I wish I could develop into a product. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Envious Monster

On 2015-10-06, Don Y wrote:
On my NetBSD/FreeBSD machines, I don't even run a "desktop" -- just
a lightweight window manager (twm, uwm, etc.) over a bare root window.
No need for file managers, office suites, etc. (all of that sort of
stuff happens in the Windows world).

My primary use for a GUI is to run multiple xterms. I've been working
mainly with Linux in recent years but may go back to BSD ("real Unix")
since I don't care much for the idea of the new systemd init system
taking over as much as it does.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/6/2015 4:29 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2015-10-06, Don Y wrote:
On my NetBSD/FreeBSD machines, I don't even run a "desktop" -- just
a lightweight window manager (twm, uwm, etc.) over a bare root window.
No need for file managers, office suites, etc. (all of that sort of
stuff happens in the Windows world).

My primary use for a GUI is to run multiple xterms.

Exactly. I have simple .twmrc's that let me call up an Xterm, xcursor,
etc. with mouse buttons on the root window (along with windowops).
Cut and paste text from one window to another, etc. (of course,
"other window" may be a client running on an entirely different
host from first window)

I have several X terminal appliances (diskless) that I can use to
access clients running on the NetBSD/FreeBSD/Solaris/etc. hosts.
Even my Windows machines have X servers so I don't have to
physically move to a different workstation to access those
clients.

From a "text console" (i.e., X not running), I use hotkeys to
switch between virtual TTY's so I have several "screens" that
I can be working in (helpful when troubleshooting a system).
I arrange for each to have a different color scheme so I
can just remember where I was based on the color of the text/display
(instead of having to remember which VTY to select).

I had this capability in the mid 80's with an OpusV system:
could even switch to a DOS session from within UN*X alongside
UN*X consoles. On my Solaris hosts, a Chimera lets me run
DOS/Windows in a Solaris window -- e.g., Doom under Solaris/SPARC!

I've been working
mainly with Linux in recent years but may go back to BSD ("real Unix")
since I don't care much for the idea of the new systemd init system
taking over as much as it does.

Linux typifies what's wrong with FOSS (IMO) -- too much tinkering
just for the sake of tinkering. With the MIPS available on today's
*cheap* hardware, all that effort should be spent making things
more *reliable* and robust -- instead of RE-bugging systems with
features that "sound cool".

It's no different than MS's "arbitrary" changes to Windows -- each
of which adds back in some of the same old bugs/vulnerabilities
that they tried to remove from previous versions.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:19:54 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:

Wow! You got some skills there feller. I was never able to get into programming except for simple binary to make early digital control systems to operate. I wasn't able to get into learning programming and to write code before I got out of the age group where I was inhaling information. I was too busy earning enough money so I could survive. The work you do is really interesting and I wish I could do those things because there were ideas I've had that I wish I could develop into a product. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Envious Monster

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).

"Don Y" wrote in message
...
On 10/5/2015 7:14 PM, Robert Green wrote:

The fact that Excel (unprotected) buried 123 tells us something about
people's tolerance for copy-protected software that could fail them at
the
worst time possible - after a network crash. We bought licenses for
every
seat but even so, we could NOT afford to spend the inordinate amount of
time
we did trying to restore 123 from a tape backup of the HD.

No, Excel buried Lotus because MS marketed/bundled it far more
aggressively.

Lotus had a well-established lead over MS and they blew it. I remember
those times quite well. The two largest PC user groups took up the cause
against copy protection. Then companies like mine scraped it off their
servers as soon as it became obvious how much more complicated "protected"
software made the restoration process. Our user group came to blows over
whether to call for a boycott of Lotus. As you can imagine, the user groups
had plenty of SW authors who believed in copy protection as well as plenty
of end users that didn't.

Why did MSWord bury WordPerfect?

Word Perfect was slow coming up with a Windows 9X version when the market
was moving like wildfire. In the world of keep or die WP chose death. Same
with WordStar.

If you could have a "free" car but had to spend an hour running around
pushing levers, adjusting settings, mixing fuel, etc. just to get
an hour's worth of use out of it, would you? Knowing that you'll
have to do the same thing *tomorrow* for an hour's use at that time?

Well, it's not really *that* bad using freeware. People also realized
that
the marginal cost to the manufacturer of SW box # 2 is very much not the
same as tangible property.

Should software vendor set price of each copy to recover his total
costs for developing said product? Offer a deep discount to buyer #2
and let first adopters pay for all the development??

I don't know how to counter the attitudes concerning IP. But I know that's
how people think, despite all the admonitions on every DVD we watch not to
engage in piracy.

I also have some issues with supporting companies like Disney who
managed to
change the copyright laws to their liking at the expense of the very
concept
of copyrighting. Mickey's copyright *should* have ended long ago but
Disney
*bought* Senator Hollings (aka Senator Disney) and he spearheaded
changing
the copyright laws to favor Disney and not the general public.

When Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to prevent people from refilling
printer
cartridges any sympathy I might have had for the big guys evaporated.

I interviewed with a company that sold "distilled water" prepackaged
for their instrument -- at prices that rivaled what you'd pay for a
vintage wine! How is a little bottle of water justified at an outrageous
price (to help defray development costs for the "toilet paper dispenser")
but software that tries to control *its* users is considered "outrageous"?

Outrageous is selling printer cartridges that could *easily* be opened and
refilled and using the non-reverse engineering clauses of the DCMA to
"brick" the cartridge once it's run out of ink.

Would you use a "free" cellphone (exclusively) if the chances of
getting
signal were 50% at any given time?

If the chances of freeware working were only 50% I'd agree with that
analogy, but it's not. It's more difficult to use, but not by that
large a
factor.

Maybe for "plain jane" applications (office/productivity suites).
But, have you compared the features and quality of those "modern"
FOSS offerings with *paid* offerings from 20 years past? Let
alone trying to factor in the effects that hardware advances
have GIFTED to the current FOSS offerings (try running some of
these programs on 20 year old hardware for a REAL eye opener!)

But the same can be said of commercial software. SW writers would be
foolish not to incorporate the latest hardware advances in their design.

How much time would you be willing to post comments on user forums
HOPING to find a GENUINE solution to the problem you are having
trying to get your FOSS spreadsheet program to calculate your
income tax bracket before you could file your tax return?

Probably as much as I might spend finding out how to do what I need to
do
with a paid software program. I got one of the new 50 dollar Kindle
Fire
tablets and the documentation is atrocious - and I own it fair and
square.
Paying for something is no guarantee of good (or any) support.

Because the market your fishing in has been driven by bottom feeders.

Amazon's actually pretty good at supporting their products. Apparently
they've got other issues, among them writing good documentation. Another is
not really knowing their market, i.e. their cell phone offering that dropped
like a stone.

No one *wants* to pay for support -- so what vendor would devote
resources *to* support? If you *charge* for support, then users
grumble. So, you set up a web portal and HOPE users can get enough
support from their peers that they will continue to use your product;
even if that means they only use a small fraction of what is possible!

I've gotten a lot better support from FOSS authors than I have from
commercial SW vendors. If you're talking to the original coder you're going
to get the inside track. If you call some big SW house you're getting a
foreign national who's reading from a script.

I was building 3D CAD models some 20+ years ago (AutoCAD v11 w/ AME).
I can recall having a problem with the package (some $3K as an *upgrade*)
and having a fix in my hands within days.

For every example like that I can find a dozen where end users were left
hanging with a promise that "we'll look into it in the NEXT version." Hell,
MS NEVER fixed a bug in Word that disables the cut and paste keys in the
file picker dialog. It's been in every version of Word since it came out.

We'll ignore the fact that there were no FOSS 3D CAD offerings "back
then".

It's a niche market and a very complicated one to serve. I wouldn't expect
FOSS developers to jump on that sort of SW until well after the big boys had
even defined the market.

If I had a similar problem with a FOSS product *today*, it would probably
be weeks for someone to "take an interest" in my particular problem,
devote some time researching it and then days or weeks for someone
to decide it was worth *fixing*!

That's not my experience. I got to know a lot of home automation software
AND hardware designers quite well and some of them would have a fix for a
problem I found within a day or so, particularly if it was something that
might effect a lot of users. Getting to talk an actual coder at MS is far
less likely. Infinitesimally less likely.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on *my* project. What do I tell *my*
client? "The FREE software that I'm using doesn't work correctly.
I'm hoping someone will step up and offer me a solution sometime soon.

If you picked the wrong tools for the job, that's on you. But a developer
that can cut costs by using FOSS *successfully* has serious advantage over
someone who pays 10 or 100 times as much for commercial software. Irfanview
has served my photo needs for quite some time. Hexedit, Winamp, DVD-Shrink,
VLC and lots of other FOSS programs have served me quite well over the
years. But when it came time to publish a newsletter professionally, I
turned to a very expensive (but industry standard) DTP package.

How many times will you tolerate downloading and installing updates
in the *hope* that something that you are having problems with gets
fixed?

That's MS, Apple and any company that has to publish updates. They've
all
failed at one time or another.

And the same is true of FOSS software. Download a newer version of
whatever
and you discover that a whole slew of dependencies get dragged into that
effort. Not that they *need* to be but no one has spent the time to make
the upgrade as painless as possible: "just grab it all" (and worry
about the changes/bugs that you've now inheritted, later!)

So if things are the same for FOSS and COTS how does that prove anything?

How much RISK do you run that those updates don't BREAK something
else?

The rule of computing for a very long time has been; "The Upgrade Giveth
and
the Upgrade Taketh Away." It's usually a crapshoot as to what comes and
what goes.

Of course! And the FOSS community is no better than the COTS vendors.

Agreed. So why bring it up as a liability for using FOSS when COTS suffers
the same problems? It proves nothing other than software has bugs that need
fixing.

"Update often" is a *mantra* of the FOSS community. A reflection that
there is very little formal testing going on -- no one's "business"
(reputation) is at stake.

Updating means they are responding to bugs that people find. That's a good
thing. How many times have security analysts had to go public with an
exploit they found in COTS SW because the vendor appeared unwilling to patch
it?

Or, change its behavior in a way that sends you scurrying back to
those same forums asking how you NOW perform the task that you
previously
KNEW how to perform?

Again, that's Windows, Apple and even Unix when a new version or a
bugfix is
required. Why did MS change "Find" to "Search?" Perhaps we'll never
know
but changing 'happy' to 'glad' just for the sake of changing something
has
been going on for a long time - way before the PC revolution.

But the FOSS world is just as guilty.

But it's SO MUCH CHEAPER! If I can produce a program to do X with fewer
costs than my competitor, I can make more money. That's a good thing. For
me, anyway.

No one takes ownership of a (FOSS) "product" and thinks about it
from the consumer's point of view.

Disagree, quite strongly. How does a COTS "team" take any better ownership
than a guy like Irfan whose name IS his products?

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.

--
Bobby G.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:01:21 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:19:54 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:

Wow! You got some skills there feller. I was never able to get into programming except for simple binary to make early digital control systems to operate. I wasn't able to get into learning programming and to write code before I got out of the age group where I was inhaling information. I was too busy earning enough money so I could survive. The work you do is really interesting and I wish I could do those things because there were ideas I've had that I wish I could develop into a product. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Envious Monster

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).

You're never too old to learn you fool. I actually have time now if I can get back home to my computer toys. I got into hardware instead of programming. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Hardware Monster

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. I see this in many of my peers -- they get
focused on doing what they're doing... and the rest of the world
slips by. Eventually, when they lift their heads up to take
notice, the "gap" is too intimidating so they double-down on what
they *were* doing.

And, I do believe new ideas get harder to wrap your mind around
as you get older -- too much (mental) "muscle memory" to counteract.
You get used to looking at problems "a certain way" so some OTHER
way just is completely foreign to your style/pattern of thinking.

E.g., when I learned to "program", everything was procedural based.
Do this, then this then that. A program to "change a tire" largely
mimicked the way folks think about changing tires:
- pull off roadway
- check for oncoming traffic
- open car door
- exit vehicle
- open trunk
- remove spare & jack
- remove hubcap
- break threads on lug bolts
- position jack
- raise car
- loosen lug nuts
- remove tire
.... (to whatever degree of detail you want)

When "object oriented" programming came along, you started thinking
in terms of "things" and operations that they inherently supported
(on themselves) independent of context.

So, a trunk object knew how to "be opened". Likewise, a car door object
had a similar operation that could be performed on itself (open). But,
the details of that operation were obviously different from that of opening
a trunk object.

So, the steps required to open the trunk were encapsulated in the
module that described "trunks" and their associated operations.

Likewise, the steps required to open car doors were encapsulated
in the "car door" module.

This was deemed to be A Good Thing because it hid details where
they belonged (in the implementation of the particular objects)
instead of exposing them elsewhere (in the "change tire" program).

The solution hasn't really changed. But, how you think about it and how
you approach it has. Some people get (got!) too wired to the previous
procedural approach and weren't able to adopt this other way of
viewing problems. They kept wanting to think in "old terms".

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:01:21 AM UTC-5, 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).

You're never too old to learn you fool. I actually have time now if I can get back home to my computer toys. I got into hardware instead of programming. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle A-Hole Monster

I was programming in the '70/80's on the early electronic cash registers, (DTS, TEC, Casio) basic stuff. I value my health more that to attempt burning-out what's left of my synapses. You are worse off than myself in the foolhardy endeavor! ( ͜。 ͡)( ͜。)

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.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 10:27:45 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:01:21 AM UTC-5, 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).

You're never too old to learn you fool. I actually have time now if I can get back home to my computer toys. I got into hardware instead of programming. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Genius Monster

I was programming in the '70/80's on the early electronic cash registers, (DTS, TEC, Casio) basic stuff. I value my health more that to attempt burning-out what's left of my synapses. You are worse off than myself in the foolhardy endeavor! ( ͜。 ͡)( ͜。)

Well Bobby Villain, one of the things I was doing back then was repairing electronic registers and getting them to do things the factory didn't include in a particular model. It was a lot of fun. One of the last things I was doing in the past few years was installing and repairing computer based POS systems. Some of which were connected to a WAN. Yesterday I fixed another resident's laptop when a CNA brought it to me. I've been doing some telephone tech support for my housemate and his business. I get Emails and calls when he has a problem with the computers and network I installed in his home office at the house. I had to explain to him again how to upload pictures to a web portal for the tech contracting service we were doing work for. I'm just glad to have my cute little Chromebook so I don't become any more bonkers. I not just laying around drooling and if my new knee brace gets delivered, I'll be on my feet in a walker and perhaps graduate to a cane at some time. Being active is very beneficial which is what I choose to do. If you wish to vegetate, go for it. ^_^

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

On 10/6/2015 9:45 AM, 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. I see this in many of my peers -- they get
focused on doing what they're doing... and the rest of the world
slips by. Eventually, when they lift their heads up to take
notice, the "gap" is too intimidating so they double-down on what
they *were* doing.

And, I do believe new ideas get harder to wrap your mind around
as you get older -- too much (mental) "muscle memory" to counteract.
You get used to looking at problems "a certain way" so some OTHER
way just is completely foreign to your style/pattern of thinking.

E.g., when I learned to "program", everything was procedural based.
Do this, then this then that. A program to "change a tire" largely
mimicked the way folks think about changing tires:
- pull off roadway
- check for oncoming traffic
- open car door
- exit vehicle
- open trunk
- remove spare & jack
- remove hubcap
- break threads on lug bolts
- position jack
- raise car
- loosen lug nuts
- remove tire
... (to whatever degree of detail you want)

When "object oriented" programming came along, you started thinking
in terms of "things" and operations that they inherently supported
(on themselves) independent of context.

So, a trunk object knew how to "be opened". Likewise, a car door object
had a similar operation that could be performed on itself (open). But,
the details of that operation were obviously different from that of opening
a trunk object.

So, the steps required to open the trunk were encapsulated in the
module that described "trunks" and their associated operations.

Likewise, the steps required to open car doors were encapsulated
in the "car door" module.

This was deemed to be A Good Thing because it hid details where
they belonged (in the implementation of the particular objects)
instead of exposing them elsewhere (in the "change tire" program).

The solution hasn't really changed. But, how you think about it and how
you approach it has. Some people get (got!) too wired to the previous
procedural approach and weren't able to adopt this other way of
viewing problems. They kept wanting to think in "old terms".

I remember a past discussion about quantum physics in another group, and
it went along the lines of how do we measure time in deep space.
Someone brought up the idea that time had a curve to it, and with that
the discussion got VERY interesting (and fascinating for me, any way).
I noticed that some people were entrenched in particular ideas about
time, but a few people actually enjoyed discussing the possibilities and
"what-ifs" on the subject.

--
Maggie

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.

--
Maggie

On 10/6/2015 1:52 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 10:27:45 AM UTC-5, bob_villa wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9:01:21 AM UTC-5, 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).

You're never too old to learn you fool. I actually have time now if I can get back home to my computer toys. I got into hardware instead of programming. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Genius Monster

I was programming in the '70/80's on the early electronic cash registers, (DTS, TEC, Casio) basic stuff. I value my health more that to attempt burning-out what's left of my synapses. You are worse off than myself in the foolhardy endeavor! ( ͜。 ͡)( ͜。)

Well Bobby Villain, one of the things I was doing back then was repairing electronic registers and getting them to do things the factory didn't include in a particular model. It was a lot of fun. One of the last things I was doing in the past few years was installing and repairing computer based POS systems. Some of which were connected to a WAN. Yesterday I fixed another resident's laptop when a CNA brought it to me. I've been doing some telephone tech support for my housemate and his business. I get Emails and calls when he has a problem with the computers and network I installed in his home office at the house. I had to explain to him again how to upload pictures to a web portal for the tech contracting service we were doing work for. I'm just glad to have my cute little Chromebook so I don't become any more bonkers. I not just laying around drooling and if my new knee brace gets delivered, I'll be on my feet in a walker and perhaps graduate to a cane at some time. Being active
is very beneficial which is what I choose to do. If you wish to vegetate, go for it. ^_^

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

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?

On 10/6/2015 9:18 PM, Muggles wrote:
The solution hasn't really changed. But, how you think about it and how
you approach it has. Some people get (got!) too wired to the previous
procedural approach and weren't able to adopt this other way of
viewing problems. They kept wanting to think in "old terms".

I remember a past discussion about quantum physics in another group, and
it went along the lines of how do we measure time in deep space.
Someone brought up the idea that time had a curve to it, and with that
the discussion got VERY interesting (and fascinating for me, any way).
I noticed that some people were entrenched in particular ideas about
time, but a few people actually enjoyed discussing the possibilities and
"what-ifs" on the subject.

Some years ago, I posed what I thought was a (deceptively) "simple"
question regarding how we think of "local time" -- given that we
have control over our (individual) "timepieces".

E.g., my timepiece claims it is 11:25-ish. If I want to do something
at 12:00, that is ~35 minutes hence. So, I can think of it as being
tied to "12:00".

But, if I change my timepiece's notion of "now" to indicate 11:45,
what does that mean for that "12:00" event? Is it, suddenly, just
15 minutes hence? Or, is it really a 12:20 event, now?

I.e., how do you note which times (events) are "relative" (and, the
reference against which they relate) vs. "absolute"? How would the
answers to the above questions change if I'd said "If I want to do
something ~35 minutes hence" instead of "at 12:00"?

Think also of *dates* in the future. An appointment 3 days hence
is supposed to occur on 9 Oct. But, if I mark an appointment for
9 Oct and later decide my clock is off by a day, how do I know
whether that "9 Oct" appointment should be moved (to reflect
"3 days hence" vs. "on 9 Oct"?

[It's a very subtle difference but has profound consequences when you
are instructing a machine to do something at a particular "time"...
esp given that *YOU* can change that machine's notion of the *current*
time!]

And, now it's "time for SOAP!" :

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

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?


To be the best. Personal challenge.
Good coder always makes it shortest and fastest.
If program can cause hardware problem by pushing it to limit
or programmer did not know hardware is behaving. Once
users using one application start complaining
randomly their number crunch result gives error. Different
users reporting without any pattern. After spending time I could
focus where the error was coming. I could narrow down the codes
(machine instructions) from which I could generate a short script
loop. Now I could see the failing errors ~1 error/25,000 loops.
When I was chasing related logic gates on the main frame, found it was a
timing issue.
One gate's leading edge rise time was like 2 nanosecond slow. Hardware
fix was devised and field change order(FCO) was issued Because this
kinda things software guys, hardware guys never cease to work. BTW,
I was Mutician working in the field with people at CISL at MIT.

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.

Don Y wrote:
On 10/6/2015 9:18 PM, Muggles wrote:
The solution hasn't really changed. But, how you think about it and how
you approach it has. Some people get (got!) too wired to the previous
procedural approach and weren't able to adopt this other way of
viewing problems. They kept wanting to think in "old terms".

I remember a past discussion about quantum physics in another group, and
it went along the lines of how do we measure time in deep space.
Someone brought up the idea that time had a curve to it, and with that
the discussion got VERY interesting (and fascinating for me, any way).
I noticed that some people were entrenched in particular ideas about
time, but a few people actually enjoyed discussing the possibilities and
"what-ifs" on the subject.

Some years ago, I posed what I thought was a (deceptively) "simple"
question regarding how we think of "local time" -- given that we
have control over our (individual) "timepieces".

E.g., my timepiece claims it is 11:25-ish. If I want to do something
at 12:00, that is ~35 minutes hence. So, I can think of it as being
tied to "12:00".

But, if I change my timepiece's notion of "now" to indicate 11:45,
what does that mean for that "12:00" event? Is it, suddenly, just
15 minutes hence? Or, is it really a 12:20 event, now?

I.e., how do you note which times (events) are "relative" (and, the
reference against which they relate) vs. "absolute"? How would the
answers to the above questions change if I'd said "If I want to do
something ~35 minutes hence" instead of "at 12:00"?

Think also of *dates* in the future. An appointment 3 days hence
is supposed to occur on 9 Oct. But, if I mark an appointment for
9 Oct and later decide my clock is off by a day, how do I know
whether that "9 Oct" appointment should be moved (to reflect
"3 days hence" vs. "on 9 Oct"?

[It's a very subtle difference but has profound consequences when you
are instructing a machine to do something at a particular "time"...
esp given that *YOU* can change that machine's notion of the *current*
time!]

And, now it's "time for SOAP!" :

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.

On 10/7/2015 6:35 AM, 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.

That's where I disagree. I think it is exactly the things that you
"fear" you *can't* learn that should be the CHALLENGES that you take
on. If you're SURE you can learn something, then why waste the time
doing so (I am, of course, being facetious). OTOH, if there is some
doubt/trepidation that you may NOT be able to pick up that subject,
that's where the challenge lies. It changes the character of the effort
from that of a "job" to that of an "opportunity".

If you know you can -- or *can't* -- meet that goal, then it's a waste
of the limited time you have to spend on such things.

On 10/7/2015 12:15 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
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?

To be the best. Personal challenge.

But that's the point -- with FOSS, you have removed all of those
outside pressures, constraints, influences, etc. that "get in
the way" of your doing your best. So, you should be *showing*
your best work -- without resorting to excuses.

I grew up surrounded by craftsmen/tradesmen. The bricklayer
had the most *ornate* brickwork; the carpenter the most ornate
woodwork; etc. Each effectively said, "I have this skillset.
I am my own client. I don't need to 'profit' from the work
I do for myself. I can *afford* to show my best effort
(even though I may never encounter a client who can afford
to pay me to do so!)"

FOSS developers seem to take the opposite approach: I'll just
work on what interests me AS IF no one was ever going to see
how *incomplete* (because I['m not interested in the WHOLE SOLUTION)
that effort WILL be.

Good coder always makes it shortest and fastest.
If program can cause hardware problem by pushing it to limit
or programmer did not know hardware is behaving. Once
users using one application start complaining
randomly their number crunch result gives error. Different
users reporting without any pattern. After spending time I could
focus where the error was coming. I could narrow down the codes
(machine instructions) from which I could generate a short script
loop. Now I could see the failing errors ~1 error/25,000 loops.
When I was chasing related logic gates on the main frame, found it was a timing
issue.
One gate's leading edge rise time was like 2 nanosecond slow. Hardware
fix was devised and field change order(FCO) was issued Because this kinda
things software guys, hardware guys never cease to work. BTW,
I was Mutician working in the field with people at CISL at MIT.

On 10/6/2015 11:35 PM, 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?

I guess I demand more of myself.

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 1:31 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/6/2015 9:18 PM, Muggles wrote:
The solution hasn't really changed. But, how you think about it and how
you approach it has. Some people get (got!) too wired to the previous
procedural approach and weren't able to adopt this other way of
viewing problems. They kept wanting to think in "old terms".

I remember a past discussion about quantum physics in another group, and
it went along the lines of how do we measure time in deep space.
Someone brought up the idea that time had a curve to it, and with that
the discussion got VERY interesting (and fascinating for me, any way).
I noticed that some people were entrenched in particular ideas about
time, but a few people actually enjoyed discussing the possibilities and
"what-ifs" on the subject.

Some years ago, I posed what I thought was a (deceptively) "simple"
question regarding how we think of "local time" -- given that we
have control over our (individual) "timepieces".

E.g., my timepiece claims it is 11:25-ish. If I want to do something
at 12:00, that is ~35 minutes hence. So, I can think of it as being
tied to "12:00".

But, if I change my timepiece's notion of "now" to indicate 11:45,
what does that mean for that "12:00" event? Is it, suddenly, just
15 minutes hence? Or, is it really a 12:20 event, now?

I.e., how do you note which times (events) are "relative" (and, the
reference against which they relate) vs. "absolute"? How would the
answers to the above questions change if I'd said "If I want to do
something ~35 minutes hence" instead of "at 12:00"?

Think also of *dates* in the future. An appointment 3 days hence
is supposed to occur on 9 Oct. But, if I mark an appointment for
9 Oct and later decide my clock is off by a day, how do I know
whether that "9 Oct" appointment should be moved (to reflect
"3 days hence" vs. "on 9 Oct"?

[It's a very subtle difference but has profound consequences when you
are instructing a machine to do something at a particular "time"...
esp given that *YOU* can change that machine's notion of the *current*
time!]

And, now it's "time for SOAP!" :

I husband set's the clock in his bathroom 10 mins ahead. He knows it's
set ahead of what it's supposed to be, but it's his way of giving
himself a buffer so he won't be late for appointments. He says when
he's tired he just looks at the clock and uses that time to get ready
and temporarily forgets he set the clock ahead. It works for him, but
for me I'd want it set to the normal time. The thing about that is the
clocks at the place you have an appointment to be at may be set at a
different time (they may run ahead or behind), so, I've come to the
conclusion that time is actually "relative" to the environment and
people in that environment.

Is time the same in outer space, or is it different? We count time
based on particular increments related to the Earth's revolving around
the sun, so when the Sun and Earth are taken out of that equation how do
we know that time in outer space is measured the same? If the speed of
light is a means to measure time, does it travel in a straight line in
outer space or travel by a curve, OR is the speed affected by the
gravitational pull from the different objects IN space and that
gravitational pull can either either speed up or slow down the speed of
light? How can we determine the age of objects in outer space if we
don't have a valid method of measuring time?

--
Maggie

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

On 10/7/2015 7:48 AM, 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.

Engineers who don't "chatter" tend to be the sorts who produce
uninspired, brittle designs. They are so focused on THEIR idea
of a solution (and the problem it addresses) that they fail to
take in suggestions and viewpoints of others.

They tend to impose their thinking wrt the problem on the solution
and eventual user -- to the exclusion of all other approaches.

They're the sort that want you to fill in "line 1" on the form before
you fill in "line 2". E.g., provide name, address, billing information
BEFORE you can "start shopping". Or, require same before they can
tell you what shipping costs are likely to be.

Because that's how they saw their solution to the problem -- and
reflected this back into the definition of the problem (instead
of stepping back and accommodating the potential user with a solution
that is only *marginally* more "difficult" to implement).

They make BIG mistakes, not subtle ones, that end up seeing their
solutions sidelined: "Yeah, technically it works -- but no one wants
to use it."

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.

Folks who are "all talk" are usually pretty easy to spot; they lack
any *depth* in the material that they're babbling on about. Their
talk is all superficial but without technical substance.

We had a prospective employee come into a firm at which I worked.
He was boisterous, made lots of wild claims about his past work, etc.
At one point, he produced some source code listings of a product he
*claimed* to have authored. And, while I was thumbing through it,
continued his babbling. When I asked him, "What portion of this did
_____________ write?" (i.e., the *true* author, an acquaintance of mine
that I knew for a fact to be the *real* author), his jaw snapped shut.

OTOH, I've been in situations where the depth of knowledge of
the folks involved in the discussion was *terribly* obvious -- simply
because of all the "firm" details that were being offered in the
discussions. I.e., you can't "make up" details with that level of
accuracy "on the spot". And, the fact that the participants can
drill down to arbitrary levels of detail in their arguments means
they are bona fide experts on the subject, not just "pedestrians".

When we had the house (exterior) painted, we brought in several contractors
for estimates. As I'd no experience with stucco, prep, etc. I had to
do a fair bit of thinking on my feet to gauge the capabilities and
honesty of the candidates. One guy gave us an outrageously high
estimate. Yet, "talked a good game" -- slinging around all sorts
of issues that *possibly* might be important and *could* account for
the extra effort he was implying was required by his estimate.

Unable to poke an obvious hole in his "babble", I kept looking for concrete
points with which I could tie his comments down -- bind him to non-squishy
criteria that I could then objectively evaluate.

Eventually, I stumbled on an obvious one: "How many gallons of paint
do you think this job will take?" Note, I wasn't challenging how
many *coats* he was claiming would be required, etc. But, that
*firm* data point would give me a way to evaluate his labor and
materials estimates!

When he replied, "about 300", I doubled over in laughter! "Christ!
We're not painting a BATTLESHIP!!" Babbling only works when the other
party is clueless about the subject. Work with competent people and
this sort of thing is easy to spot!

On 10/7/2015 10:04 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:31 AM, Don Y wrote:

Some years ago, I posed what I thought was a (deceptively) "simple"
question regarding how we think of "local time" -- given that we
have control over our (individual) "timepieces".

E.g., my timepiece claims it is 11:25-ish. If I want to do something
at 12:00, that is ~35 minutes hence. So, I can think of it as being
tied to "12:00".

But, if I change my timepiece's notion of "now" to indicate 11:45,
what does that mean for that "12:00" event? Is it, suddenly, just
15 minutes hence? Or, is it really a 12:20 event, now?

I.e., how do you note which times (events) are "relative" (and, the
reference against which they relate) vs. "absolute"? How would the
answers to the above questions change if I'd said "If I want to do
something ~35 minutes hence" instead of "at 12:00"?

[It's a very subtle difference but has profound consequences when you
are instructing a machine to do something at a particular "time"...
esp given that *YOU* can change that machine's notion of the *current*
time!]

And, now it's "time for SOAP!" :

I husband set's the clock in his bathroom 10 mins ahead. He knows it's
set ahead of what it's supposed to be, but it's his way of giving
himself a buffer so he won't be late for appointments. He says when

Yes. But, the rame of reference that he's adopted is consistent
IN HIS MIND -- albeit "incorrect" for any other observer.

If charged with recording times of appointments and NOT allowed to
alter the setting of the local timepiece, he would probably opt
to record all of his *appointments* "ten minutes earlier" -- to
achieve a comparable effect.

Again, if *he* is the only one using that appointment book, all is
well.

But, if *I* have to fill in for him, some day, I'll find all of
those times *wrong*! And, not be sure *why* that's the case!
E.g., I showed up for his 7:50 appointment, but the other party
was 10 minutes late! And, this pattern continued throughout the
day! "Gee, he's sure working with a bunch of TARDY individuals!"

he's tired he just looks at the clock and uses that time to get ready
and temporarily forgets he set the clock ahead. It works for him, but
for me I'd want it set to the normal time. The thing about that is the
clocks at the place you have an appointment to be at may be set at a
different time (they may run ahead or behind), so, I've come to the
conclusion that time is actually "relative" to the environment and
people in that environment.

But it's actually worse than that! You not only have the time that
has been "recorded" and the time that is "currently displayed"
(both of which are "negotiable"... subject to manipulation by
the individuals involved) but you ALSO have the way the time was
originally *specified*!

E.g., if I throw some cookies in the oven for a 10 minute bake,
they must remain in the oven for 10 minutes. I can't glance at
the clock and mentally add 10 minutes to the time displayed -- *if*
someone can freely change the displayed time! (next time I look over
at the clock, it may not accurately reflect the ELAPSED time).

Similarly, if I have an appointment at 10:30A -- roughly 9 minutes
hence -- I don't want to "wait 9 minutes" because that displayed
time may, in fact, be incorrect! If it is corrected to indicate
the current time is actually 10:29, then I really only have *one*
minute to spare!

When you negotiate a time with someone else, then *their* notion
of time factors into the arrangement. And, their Role in The
Grand Scheme of Things.

I.e., set an appointment with a doctor and, chances are, their timepiece
will PROBABLY coincide with the "real" world time -- it would be
folly for them to set their timepiece 10 minutes fast/slow... or, even
to a different DATE! But, set an appointment with a friend and you
have no idea what their notion of time may be!

Is time the same in outer space, or is it different? We count time
based on particular increments related to the Earth's revolving around
the sun, so when the Sun and Earth are taken out of that equation how do
we know that time in outer space is measured the same? If the speed of

"How measured" is a local phenomenon. You can adopt any units that
are convenient for your local needs.

Time is just something that keeps everything from happening at once!
How finely you differentiate *this* once (instant) from *that* once
(other instant) depends on your needs.

light is a means to measure time, does it travel in a straight line in
outer space or travel by a curve, OR is the speed affected by the
gravitational pull from the different objects IN space and that
gravitational pull can either either speed up or slow down the speed of
light? How can we determine the age of objects in outer space if we
don't have a valid method of measuring time?

How can you know they even exist?

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)

Muggles writes:

Is time the same in outer space, or is it different?

Time is simply a measure of duration. The units by which duration
is measured are arbitrary, whether it is measured by physical phenomona
such as a full revolution of the planet (day), a full revolution of the
planet around it's sun (year/sol). Subdividing that into smaller
intervals simply requires a reference (e.g. the second, defined as

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of
the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.


We count time
based on particular increments related to the Earth's revolving around
the sun, so when the Sun and Earth are taken out of that equation how do
we know that time in outer space is measured the same?

The duration of an interval is a function of the observer. Consider
a hypothetical spacecraft travelling through space at a significant fraction
of the speed of light. An external observer might experience a duration
of fifty years for the round-trip voyage, while a passenger on the
spacecraft may only experience six years in duration for the same trip.

Everything is relative, or so the great man wrote.

Consider, now, two spacecraft heading in opposite directions at,
say, .99C; What would the speed of spacecraft B appear as to an
observer on spacecraft A?


If the speed of
light is a means to measure time, does it travel in a straight line in
outer space or travel by a curve,

Light can, of course, be bent. An optical lens (e.g. in a camera) will
bend light towards a film negative or a CMOS sensor.

On a larger scale, something called graviational lensing takes place
which can bend light around massive astronomical objects (stars, galaxies,
clusters, et alia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Light, of course, may also be slowed. Consider light through a
non-vacuum medium (e.g. water or even fiber optics).

Light-year describes not a duration, but rather a distance.

OR is the speed affected by the
gravitational pull from the different objects IN space and that
gravitational pull can either either speed up or slow down the speed of
light? How can we determine the age of objects in outer space if we
don't have a valid method of measuring time?

Determine speed (relative to observer) of remote objects (e.g. stars):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy

Determine distance to star:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/ita/06_3.shtml

Given the distance, one can determine the age w.r.t the singularity.

On 10/7/2015 12:32 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 10:04 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 1:31 AM, Don Y wrote:

Some years ago, I posed what I thought was a (deceptively) "simple"
question regarding how we think of "local time" -- given that we
have control over our (individual) "timepieces".

E.g., my timepiece claims it is 11:25-ish. If I want to do something
at 12:00, that is ~35 minutes hence. So, I can think of it as being
tied to "12:00".

But, if I change my timepiece's notion of "now" to indicate 11:45,
what does that mean for that "12:00" event? Is it, suddenly, just
15 minutes hence? Or, is it really a 12:20 event, now?

I.e., how do you note which times (events) are "relative" (and, the
reference against which they relate) vs. "absolute"? How would the
answers to the above questions change if I'd said "If I want to do
something ~35 minutes hence" instead of "at 12:00"?

[It's a very subtle difference but has profound consequences when you
are instructing a machine to do something at a particular "time"...
esp given that *YOU* can change that machine's notion of the *current*
time!]

And, now it's "time for SOAP!" :

I husband set's the clock in his bathroom 10 mins ahead. He knows it's
set ahead of what it's supposed to be, but it's his way of giving
himself a buffer so he won't be late for appointments. He says when

Yes. But, the rame of reference that he's adopted is consistent
IN HIS MIND -- albeit "incorrect" for any other observer.

If charged with recording times of appointments and NOT allowed to
alter the setting of the local timepiece, he would probably opt
to record all of his *appointments* "ten minutes earlier" -- to
achieve a comparable effect.

Again, if *he* is the only one using that appointment book, all is
well.

He used to change my clock in my bathroom, and I changed it back! lol

But, if *I* have to fill in for him, some day, I'll find all of
those times *wrong*! And, not be sure *why* that's the case!
E.g., I showed up for his 7:50 appointment, but the other party
was 10 minutes late! And, this pattern continued throughout the
day! "Gee, he's sure working with a bunch of TARDY individuals!"

Is it a common practice for you to show up for someone elses appointments?

he's tired he just looks at the clock and uses that time to get ready
and temporarily forgets he set the clock ahead. It works for him, but
for me I'd want it set to the normal time. The thing about that is the
clocks at the place you have an appointment to be at may be set at a
different time (they may run ahead or behind), so, I've come to the
conclusion that time is actually "relative" to the environment and
people in that environment.

But it's actually worse than that! You not only have the time that
has been "recorded" and the time that is "currently displayed"
(both of which are "negotiable"... subject to manipulation by
the individuals involved) but you ALSO have the way the time was
originally *specified*!

E.g., if I throw some cookies in the oven for a 10 minute bake,
they must remain in the oven for 10 minutes. I can't glance at
the clock and mentally add 10 minutes to the time displayed -- *if*
someone can freely change the displayed time! (next time I look over
at the clock, it may not accurately reflect the ELAPSED time).

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.

Similarly, if I have an appointment at 10:30A -- roughly 9 minutes
hence -- I don't want to "wait 9 minutes" because that displayed
time may, in fact, be incorrect! If it is corrected to indicate
the current time is actually 10:29, then I really only have *one*
minute to spare!

When you negotiate a time with someone else, then *their* notion
of time factors into the arrangement. And, their Role in The
Grand Scheme of Things.

Exactly.

I.e., set an appointment with a doctor and, chances are, their timepiece
will PROBABLY coincide with the "real" world time -- it would be
folly for them to set their timepiece 10 minutes fast/slow... or, even
to a different DATE! But, set an appointment with a friend and you
have no idea what their notion of time may be!

Agreed.

Is time the same in outer space, or is it different? We count time
based on particular increments related to the Earth's revolving around
the sun, so when the Sun and Earth are taken out of that equation how do
we know that time in outer space is measured the same? If the speed of

"How measured" is a local phenomenon. You can adopt any units that
are convenient for your local needs.

Time is just something that keeps everything from happening at once!
How finely you differentiate *this* once (instant) from *that* once
(other instant) depends on your needs.

Agreed.

light is a means to measure time, does it travel in a straight line in
outer space or travel by a curve, OR is the speed affected by the
gravitational pull from the different objects IN space and that
gravitational pull can either either speed up or slow down the speed of
light? How can we determine the age of objects in outer space if we
don't have a valid method of measuring time?

How can you know they even exist?

It makes for very interesting discussions especially when some people
insist on a particular viewpoint without even considering other
possibilities.

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 12:36 PM, 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)



Sometimes, (I've been told), that I demand too much of myself, too.

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 1:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:

Is time the same in outer space, or is it different?

Time is simply a measure of duration. The units by which duration
is measured are arbitrary, whether it is measured by physical phenomona
such as a full revolution of the planet (day), a full revolution of the
planet around it's sun (year/sol). Subdividing that into smaller
intervals simply requires a reference (e.g. the second, defined as

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of
the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

I understand what you're saying.

We count time
based on particular increments related to the Earth's revolving around
the sun, so when the Sun and Earth are taken out of that equation how do
we know that time in outer space is measured the same?

The duration of an interval is a function of the observer. Consider
a hypothetical spacecraft travelling through space at a significant fraction
of the speed of light. An external observer might experience a duration
of fifty years for the round-trip voyage, while a passenger on the
spacecraft may only experience six years in duration for the same trip.

Everything is relative, or so the great man wrote.

Consider, now, two spacecraft heading in opposite directions at,
say, .99C; What would the speed of spacecraft B appear as to an
observer on spacecraft A?

I'm not sure there'd be a correct answer because if everything is
relative then the answer would be based on the individuals perception of
time.

If the speed of
light is a means to measure time, does it travel in a straight line in
outer space or travel by a curve,

Light can, of course, be bent. An optical lens (e.g. in a camera) will
bend light towards a film negative or a CMOS sensor.

On a larger scale, something called graviational lensing takes place
which can bend light around massive astronomical objects (stars, galaxies,
clusters, et alia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Light, of course, may also be slowed. Consider light through a
non-vacuum medium (e.g. water or even fiber optics).

Light-year describes not a duration, but rather a distance.

OR is the speed affected by the
gravitational pull from the different objects IN space and that
gravitational pull can either either speed up or slow down the speed of
light? How can we determine the age of objects in outer space if we
don't have a valid method of measuring time?

Determine speed (relative to observer) of remote objects (e.g. stars):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy

Determine distance to star:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/ita/06_3.shtml

Given the distance, one can determine the age w.r.t the singularity.


So, the question is how accurate would the distance/speed be if there
are so many factors involved that can only be guessed at?


--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 12:31 PM, Muggles wrote:

But, if *I* have to fill in for him, some day, I'll find all of
those times *wrong*! And, not be sure *why* that's the case!
E.g., I showed up for his 7:50 appointment, but the other party
was 10 minutes late! And, this pattern continued throughout the
day! "Gee, he's sure working with a bunch of TARDY individuals!"

Is it a common practice for you to show up for someone elses appointments?

You may be committed to an appointment that someone else scheduled.
E.g., if a client schedules an appointment at 7:50, is that because
HE is always late and really wanted to ensure he'd make the 8:00
appointment? Yet, in picking 7:50 has committed everyone else to
pay for his "tardiness problem"?

he's tired he just looks at the clock and uses that time to get ready
and temporarily forgets he set the clock ahead. It works for him, but
for me I'd want it set to the normal time. The thing about that is the
clocks at the place you have an appointment to be at may be set at a
different time (they may run ahead or behind), so, I've come to the
conclusion that time is actually "relative" to the environment and
people in that environment.

But it's actually worse than that! You not only have the time that
has been "recorded" and the time that is "currently displayed"
(both of which are "negotiable"... subject to manipulation by
the individuals involved) but you ALSO have the way the time was
originally *specified*!

E.g., if I throw some cookies in the oven for a 10 minute bake,
they must remain in the oven for 10 minutes. I can't glance at
the clock and mentally add 10 minutes to the time displayed -- *if*
someone can freely change the displayed time! (next time I look over
at the clock, it may not accurately reflect the ELAPSED time).

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!

light is a means to measure time, does it travel in a straight line in
outer space or travel by a curve, OR is the speed affected by the
gravitational pull from the different objects IN space and that
gravitational pull can either either speed up or slow down the speed of
light? How can we determine the age of objects in outer space if we
don't have a valid method of measuring time?

How can you know they even exist?

It makes for very interesting discussions especially when some people
insist on a particular viewpoint without even considering other
possibilities.

There are very few "black and white" issues. Even "black" and "white"
come in shades of grey... :

By carefully examining/dissecting opinions/beliefs you can get to the
*real* issues that are differentiating among them. But, that usually
requires more effort than many folks want to invest -- easier to just
settle for "approximations" (and then GENERALIZE from that! : )

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!

On 10/7/2015 12:32 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 12:36 PM, 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)

Sometimes, (I've been told), that I demand too much of myself, too.

Sure! I frequently "redo" things that I'd previously considered
as "done" -- simply because my skill level has increased or I've
leraned a better way of evaluating my previous work.

E.g., each time I bake something, I tweek the recipe based on observations
that I made the *last* time I baked it (and wrote on the recipe "for next
time"). Instead of "settling" for something that may be "good enough",
I want to see how I can make it *better* (if I screw up, I can always
return to the Rx that I had used "the time before")

At one point, I strove for consistency in my baking. E.g., so that
every cookie tasted and looked like the one before. (I call this
the "Oreo" approach -- you can eat them until you fall over because
you have no awareness of each *new* cookie entering your mouth!)

Then, I realized that folks would zone out when eating them. They
didn't *notice* what they were putting in their mouth after the first
("Gee, this is good! I'll have -- many -- more!")

So, I started deliberately introducing variation to each batch;
varying sizes, thickness, hardness/crunch, color, etc. And, noticed
that folks found eating them to be far more engaging! As if they
were wondering what the *next* one would taste like -- instead of
silently assuming it would be identical to the one they were still
chewing.

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

On 10/7/2015 2:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 12:31 PM, Muggles wrote:

But, if *I* have to fill in for him, some day, I'll find all of
those times *wrong*! And, not be sure *why* that's the case!
E.g., I showed up for his 7:50 appointment, but the other party
was 10 minutes late! And, this pattern continued throughout the
day! "Gee, he's sure working with a bunch of TARDY individuals!"

Is it a common practice for you to show up for someone elses
appointments?

You may be committed to an appointment that someone else scheduled.
E.g., if a client schedules an appointment at 7:50, is that because
HE is always late and really wanted to ensure he'd make the 8:00
appointment? Yet, in picking 7:50 has committed everyone else to
pay for his "tardiness problem"?

ahh gotcha ...

[...]
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?

light is a means to measure time, does it travel in a straight line in
outer space or travel by a curve, OR is the speed affected by the
gravitational pull from the different objects IN space and that
gravitational pull can either either speed up or slow down the speed of
light? How can we determine the age of objects in outer space if we
don't have a valid method of measuring time?

How can you know they even exist?

It makes for very interesting discussions especially when some people
insist on a particular viewpoint without even considering other
possibilities.

There are very few "black and white" issues. Even "black" and "white"
come in shades of grey... :

yeah!

By carefully examining/dissecting opinions/beliefs you can get to the
*real* issues that are differentiating among them. But, that usually
requires more effort than many folks want to invest -- easier to just
settle for "approximations" (and then GENERALIZE from that! : )

I like analyzing all that stuff.

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.

--
Maggie

On 10/7/2015 3:00 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 10/7/2015 12:32 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 10/7/2015 12:36 PM, 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)

Sometimes, (I've been told), that I demand too much of myself, too.

Sure! I frequently "redo" things that I'd previously considered
as "done" -- simply because my skill level has increased or I've
leraned a better way of evaluating my previous work.

E.g., each time I bake something, I tweek the recipe based on observations
that I made the *last* time I baked it (and wrote on the recipe "for next
time"). Instead of "settling" for something that may be "good enough",
I want to see how I can make it *better* (if I screw up, I can always
return to the Rx that I had used "the time before")

At one point, I strove for consistency in my baking. E.g., so that
every cookie tasted and looked like the one before. (I call this
the "Oreo" approach -- you can eat them until you fall over because
you have no awareness of each *new* cookie entering your mouth!)

Then, I realized that folks would zone out when eating them. They
didn't *notice* what they were putting in their mouth after the first
("Gee, this is good! I'll have -- many -- more!")

So, I started deliberately introducing variation to each batch;
varying sizes, thickness, hardness/crunch, color, etc. And, noticed
that folks found eating them to be far more engaging! As if they
were wondering what the *next* one would taste like -- instead of
silently assuming it would be identical to the one they were still
chewing.

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.

--
Maggie