On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:50:06 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:


After all, the 18th century had self-acting power tools for
the simple tedious work - they were called apprentices.

They also had water and beast of burden powered tools, like saws. You
just had to go to the major metropolises to see them.

Barry

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:43:09 -0800, "J" wrote:

On the other hand, not all the old work was up to the quality of the ancient
masters. Who knows how much crap furniture was burned or broken up?
Some of it was probably just downright ugly.


Right!

I like the saying "There are few poorly made antiques"! G

Barry

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:28:34 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Go to Dollar Tree or Big Lots and stock up on tools, now go build me a
Chippendale high boy.

What the hell sort of trans-atlantic abomination is a "Chippendale
high boy" ? Where do you find those? Iceland?

High boys, Chippendale or no, aren't found East of Massachusets.
--
Smert' spamionam

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:57:29 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

Our typical tooling only embraces the Roman style of profile.

Speak for yourself, classical-ogee boy

"Gothic and Proud"

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 01:10:35 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

Speak for yourself, classical-ogee boy

"Gothic and Proud"



Visi- or Ostro- ?



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

Andy Dingley wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:28:34 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Go to Dollar Tree or Big Lots and stock up on tools, now go build me a
Chippendale high boy.

What the hell sort of trans-atlantic abomination is a "Chippendale
high boy" ? Where do you find those? Iceland?

High boys, Chippendale or no, aren't found East of Massachusets.

Oh. OK. I know bupkis about all this Green and Stickely Chippen Farming
Bliffleblather Deco stuff, as I have just demonstrated rather adroitly.
Furniture is for people with big shops, big wood budgets, and houses with
room inside to receive the results of same. I'm in the none of the above
category, so I don't do, and haven't bothered to learn anything about
furniture.

The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
think back.

My ultimate point is that I have seen a lot of tools too crappy to use for
anything. Perhaps a good craftman would never find himself in possession
of such things in the first place, but there's always a line somewhere
between what you might like, and what you can afford. A good craftsman can
make a mediocre blurfl perform better than a poor craftman can do with a
Super Blurfl XL Plus, but the underlying assumption that tools are no
excuse, and a chisel is a chisel is a chisel just annoys the hell out of
me.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:16:11 -0500, Tom Watson
wrote:

"Gothic and Proud"


Visi- or Ostro- ?

This week it's Pugin-

Usually though it's somewhere between trad- and cyber-

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:29:59 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
think back.

Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.

Making a frame saw from scratch isn't something I'd think about
attempting, when I live in a world with cheap shops for bandsaw blade.
But when I needed a veneer saw on a Sunday afternoon, I just sat down
and filed one out of sheet. Didn't even take long to do.
--
Smert' spamionam

Andy Dingley wrote:

The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
think back.

Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.

I'm with you up to the heat treating bit, unfortunately. One of these
days...

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:26:40 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
think back.

Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.

I'm with you up to the heat treating bit, unfortunately. One of these
days...


do you have a gas stove in your kitchen?

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:44:25 GMT, wrote:



BIG SNIP


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)


That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.

If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."


and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....

There's a continium there and each of us gets to decide where we fall
on the continium.

Ain't freedom wonderful?

--RC
You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

I think it's sort of a catch 22 kinda thing...
IMHO, power tools are more effective and last longer if you know how
to do it by hand... the same as the fact/opinion that you are easier
on a car if you've worked on them and know what happens when you use
the accelerator or brake.. (unlike my wife, who thinks that they're on
& off switches *g*)
I also find that the more/better power tools that I get, and the
better I get with them, the more I seem to enjoy the fitting and
tinkering with hand tools... full circle? I hope not!!

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:43:18 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:47:17 -0800, "Brett A. Thomas"
wrote:

U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
bodies?

There was a reason the cook was one of the most important people in a
lumber camp. And why there are so many jokes about bad lumber camp
cooks.

--RC

same with the cooks on cattle drives...

I was reading about the "real" cowboys in a book (chili recipes,
actually *lol*) that said that the amount of calories burnt in a day
was awesome...
their favorite desert was beef fat with molasses on it... because
their bodies crazed the fat that they were burning up so fast..
(still better than the Eskimos, who crave fat so bad in the winter
that they eat blubber)
I think I'll take that trip to the frig now.. *g*

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:26:40 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote:

The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
think back.

Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.

I'm with you up to the heat treating bit, unfortunately. One of these
days...

Try a cheap propane torch and a couple of firebricks. Instant heat
treat for $10.

(and practice. Did I mention practice?)

--RC
You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

"Brett A. Thomas" wrote in message
...
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
bodies?

And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...

-BAT

Why do you think Abe Lincoln was always portrayed as such a skinny drink of
water? Making split rail fences qualifies. I've described on here before
about cutting firewood on the farm before my Uncle got his first chainsaw.
Felling with ax and 2 man crosscut, limbing with ax, cutting to 8' length
with crosscut, splitting into fence post or firewood size wedges with wedge
& sledgehammer, etc. Try *part* of the day in the woods like that, you were
pretty dam hungry come supper time!

Lumber camp calories. If you're ever up that way, visit the "Adirondack
Museum" in Blue Water Lake, NY. Plan on most of a day. They had a video
theater(mostly still shots) about logging in the Adirondacks and discussed
the calories. Seems they also kept their own herd(flock, gaggle, group,?) of
pigs, and fresh pork was a staple part of their diet.

Museum: Many displays of Adirondack life, as well as actual artifacts and
displays; old horse drawn snowplows & snow packers from sleigh days, very
early snowmobiles, Cedar strip canoes, early racing boats, etc. We had
driven by some yrs. before visiting, and they had a full 25-30' sailboat
under a glass dome. When we visited, it was no longer there, and they
explained that the dome trapped the moisture so bad that the boat was dry
rotting, so they had to remove it.

--
Nahmie
The law of intelligent tinkering: save all the parts.

s wrote in message . ..
On 1 Dec 2004 02:40:48 -0800, (Mike Girouard) wrote:

Tom Watson wrote in message . ..
On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, (Mike Girouard)
wrote:


BIG SNIP


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)


That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.

If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."


and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....

Show me talent - I'll respect it. Put yourself in my face and tell me
you're talented - you get shown the nearest window . . . closed or
not.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

On 2 Dec 2004 13:16:18 -0800, (Mike Girouard) wrote:

A few more are born with the almost insectile patience required to
concentrate with the smallest focus until that piece of the whole is
perfect then go on to the next piece and do the same. Yet a few more
have the innovative skills to make something so completely new that no
comparison with precursors is even possible.

Michael , I absolutely loved the description of the patience needed
to create the detailed piece. The hearkening to the insectile was
masterful. Yet, it requires more.

Without the sense of the whole, your take on creativity becomes the
slavish devotion to minutiae.

There is both one mind and two - the overmind tempers the creation of
the obsessed mind, to the degree that they act in consort.

But the overmind must rule, lest it succumb to ritual.

Innovation is the natural result of attempted replication, and that is
why it is a good exercise to re-create the best of what the world has
to offer, based on your take on things.

I happen to revere a particular Goddard-Townsend secretary desk.

But, as an older man, there are things that I would change.

Innovation, in the sense that you have evoked, is really a
re-imagining of the genre - and I would not choose to go there.

I'll settle for dovetailed intersections of the pigeonholes, and a
change of finish, to something that doesn't take so much of the
caretaker's budget of time or money.

I suppose it is a paean to evolution, rather than revolution.

Just my take on things, you know - not a knock.






Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

George wrote:

Unless you're running windows, you're sitting at one.

Dream on. I remember a discussion with a number of other techs one time
back before there was such a thing as a microprocessor in the world, let
alone Windows. Our consensus was that one of the benefits the computer has
brought into the world is that it provides a clear demonstration of the
perversity of inanimate objects.

Yeah, it's _supposed_ to give the same result given the same input . . .

"J" wrote in message
...


"George" george@least wrote in message
...

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given
the
same input. It can do no other.

Where can I get one of those machines?

-j



--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote:

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 07:59:42 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

NO! The machine is incapable of doing the job without the human, whereas
the human is capable of doing the job without the machine.

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given the
same input. It can do no other.

The question isn't whether one can do the job without the other. It's
which part of the system (human-machine) has the skill. With modern
machinery the answer is increasingly 'the machine'.

When you can give the machine the drawing and the lumber and it produces the
finished part without further intervention then the machine has the skill.
Until then the skill lies in setting the machine up to do the work. Even
NC machines need tweaking to get the parts to come out right.


--RC



"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
rcook writes:

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now

It's been going on since the first caveman learned to sharpen a stone
before
hitting his enemy or prey.

Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than
Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken


You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:24:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

wrote:

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 07:59:42 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

NO! The machine is incapable of doing the job without the human, whereas
the human is capable of doing the job without the machine.

The machine is about repetition. It produces the same result, given the
same input. It can do no other.

The question isn't whether one can do the job without the other. It's
which part of the system (human-machine) has the skill. With modern
machinery the answer is increasingly 'the machine'.

When you can give the machine the drawing and the lumber and it produces the
finished part without further intervention then the machine has the skill.
Until then the skill lies in setting the machine up to do the work. Even
NC machines need tweaking to get the parts to come out right.

Increasingly the skill is shifting to the machine from the human. It's
not entirely there yet and it may never be for most things. However
the process has been going on for more than a century.

--RC


--RC



"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
rcook writes:

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now

It's been going on since the first caveman learned to sharpen a stone
before
hitting his enemy or prey.

Charlie Self
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than
Christianity
has made them good." H. L. Mencken


You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/North...s/Adirondacks/

rcook writes:


Increasingly the skill is shifting to the machine from the human. It's
not entirely there yet and it may never be for most things. However
the process has been going on for more than a century.

Think about the first caveman discovering a sharp edge on a rock, and finding
it made him more skillfull at killing his prey than did the older, blunt edged
rock. It's been going on for way more than a century.

Charlie Self
"Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy."
Edgar Bergen, (Charlie McCarthy)

fvytyshx posts:

Adirondacks (I think) ad.

And your point is? I used to live in and around the Adirondacks, but that was
pre-yuppie, so we weren't up on wine tasting. We just drank it if we liked the
flavor, served it to someone else if we didn't.

Charlie Self
"Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy."
Edgar Bergen, (Charlie McCarthy)

On 06 Dec 2004 14:28:55 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:

rcook writes:


Increasingly the skill is shifting to the machine from the human. It's
not entirely there yet and it may never be for most things. However
the process has been going on for more than a century.

Then how come I have a "Measure Once, Curse Twice" sign in my shop?


Think about the first caveman discovering a sharp edge on a rock, and finding
it made him more skillfull at killing his prey than did the older, blunt edged
rock. It's been going on for way more than a century.

Right. How EVER did cavemen get along over a century ago?
(/editor humor)


================================================== ========
CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks!
================================================== ========
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:22:20 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 06 Dec 2004 14:28:55 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:

rcook writes:


Increasingly the skill is shifting to the machine from the human. It's
not entirely there yet and it may never be for most things. However
the process has been going on for more than a century.

Then how come I have a "Measure Once, Curse Twice" sign in my shop?

Because:
1) Your momma didn't raise no stupid children?
2) You can learn from experience?

Pick one.

Seriously, I said the skill is increasingly being shifted into the
machine. Not that it's completely there yet, or perhaps ever will be.

--RC


Think about the first caveman discovering a sharp edge on a rock, and finding
it made him more skillfull at killing his prey than did the older, blunt edged
rock. It's been going on for way more than a century.

Right. How EVER did cavemen get along over a century ago?
(/editor humor)


================================================== ========
CAUTION: Do not use remaining fingers as pushsticks!
================================================== ========
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:22:20 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 06 Dec 2004 14:28:55 GMT, otforme (Charlie
Self)
calmly ranted:

rcook writes:


Increasingly the skill is shifting to the machine from the human.
It's
not entirely there yet and it may never be for most things.
However
the process has been going on for more than a century.

Then how come I have a "Measure Once, Curse Twice" sign in my shop?

Because:
1) Your momma didn't raise no stupid children?
2) You can learn from experience?

Pick one.

Seriously, I said the skill is increasingly being shifted into the
machine. Not that it's completely there yet, or perhaps ever will be.


I'd suggest a different perspective. Is the skill being shifted to the
machine OR are we developing different needed to use the machines most
efficiently? 21st century wrecker has problems using his electric
planer that 19th century artiste never had using his.
FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

On 07 Dec 2004 09:18:59 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

foggytown notes:

21st century wrecker has problems using his electric
planer that 19th century artiste never had using his.

Because that "19th century artiste" was a trained joiner who would have punched
someone's lights out if they called him an artiste?

However, he would have smiled if you called his outfit "quite gay" at
a holiday gathering. Nowadays, it's the other way around. G

Barry

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:22:20 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Then how come I have a "Measure Once, Curse Twice" sign in my shop?

Because:
1) Your momma didn't raise no stupid children?
2) You can learn from experience?

Pick one.

Seriously, I said the skill is increasingly being shifted into the
machine. Not that it's completely there yet, or perhaps ever will be.


Seriously, whenever you have a tool that can learn, come back and talk to me
about its "skill," a learning/learned phenomenon. And self-adjusting is
_not_ learning, because it has preset limits.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:10:06 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


Seriously, whenever you have a tool that can learn, come back and talk to me
about its "skill," a learning/learned phenomenon. And self-adjusting is
_not_ learning, because it has preset limits.

Learning is one important attribute - "Value" is another. The ability
to 'care' about the work and apply that care to this squirrelly piece
of wood that, in one set of hands looks like a piece of trash with
tearouts all over the place, but in another seems to literally flow
into the piece.

I know of 'learning' machines, I don't know of any that 'care'. There
are some that are governed by policies - policies set up by people.
Policies that are expressed in some form sufficient to the task
originally conceived but inadequately expressed and unable to be
self-modifying enough to call it 'caring'. It is the self-modifying
aspect that is a long way off (if ever) in machines - do you really
want a machine to be self-policing? - Sounds like Terminator ('course
he's governor now isn't he?). In people it's called free will...

TWS

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:21:55 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Yeah, it's _supposed_ to give the same result given the same input . . .


It does. The mistake many people make is that they think
that they need to look only at the most recent one to predict
consistency.

Have you noticed the lyric change to "Deck The Halls?" It's now our
"bright" apparel in the music supplied to schools.

Pressure from cross-dressers, I guess.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

How 'bout dem Gay 90s and WWI's Gay Paree?

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:21:55 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Yeah, it's _supposed_ to give the same result given the same input . . .


It does.

Unfortunately this is not true. In complex systems, and modern
microprocessors and software are quite complex, errors do occur and
performance is not entirely deterministic. To state otherwise is to be
hopelessly naive.

-j

On 6 Dec 2004 23:14:12 -0800, "foggytown" wrote:


wrote:
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:22:20 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 06 Dec 2004 14:28:55 GMT, otforme (Charlie
Self)
calmly ranted:

rcook writes:


Increasingly the skill is shifting to the machine from the human.
It's
not entirely there yet and it may never be for most things.
However
the process has been going on for more than a century.

Then how come I have a "Measure Once, Curse Twice" sign in my shop?

Because:
1) Your momma didn't raise no stupid children?
2) You can learn from experience?

Pick one.

Seriously, I said the skill is increasingly being shifted into the
machine. Not that it's completely there yet, or perhaps ever will be.


I'd suggest a different perspective. Is the skill being shifted to the
machine OR are we developing different needed to use the machines most
efficiently? 21st century wrecker has problems using his electric
planer that 19th century artiste never had using his.
FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

Quite true. However the learning curve tends to be a lot shorter
today.

Consider the difference between forge welding and modern welding
techniques. Modern welding is definitely a skill, but it takes less
time to learn it and it is easier to produce consistent results. If
you look at a lot of blacksmith-made stuff, you'll see that they went
to considerable lengths to avoid welds in applications where failure
could threaten life. For example eyes in hooks were usually punched
rather than welded.

Or look at cutting dovetails. For all the complaining about how long
it takes to learn to set up a dovetail jig, it's still faster than
learning to cut dovetails of the same quality by hand.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:10:06 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:22:20 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Then how come I have a "Measure Once, Curse Twice" sign in my shop?

Because:
1) Your momma didn't raise no stupid children?
2) You can learn from experience?

Pick one.

Seriously, I said the skill is increasingly being shifted into the
machine. Not that it's completely there yet, or perhaps ever will be.


Seriously, whenever you have a tool that can learn, come back and talk to me
about its "skill," a learning/learned phenomenon. And self-adjusting is
_not_ learning, because it has preset limits.

You're using a more narrow definition of 'skill'. I'm using it in the
sense of 'ability to achieve a given result'.

What's happening is that the 'skill' is designed into the machine.
It's not something it 'learns.' (Of course that also means that the
machine is limited in what it can do, but that's another issue.)

--RC


Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

I joke about this all the time, saying that when I get a little older and
more curmudgeonly I will start my own campaign to take back the word "Gay".
It used to be a perfectly good word until it was co-opted by a bunch of
radicals, most of whom certainly aren't "gay! Most of them aren't even
moderately happy!
"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Have you noticed the lyric change to "Deck The Halls?" It's now our
"bright" apparel in the music supplied to schools.

Pressure from cross-dressers, I guess.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

How 'bout dem Gay 90s and WWI's Gay Paree?

Doug Brown wrote:

I joke about this all the time, saying that when I get a little older and
more curmudgeonly I will start my own campaign to take back the word
"Gay". It used to be a perfectly good word until it was co-opted by a
bunch of radicals, most of whom certainly aren't "gay! Most of them aren't
even moderately happy!

Ever see a movie called "Tough Guys" with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas?
If you haven't, look for it--there's a scene in there that I think you'll
appreciate.

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Have you noticed the lyric change to "Deck The Halls?" It's now our
"bright" apparel in the music supplied to schools.

Pressure from cross-dressers, I guess.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

How 'bout dem Gay 90s and WWI's Gay Paree?




--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:50 -0800, "J" wrote:

"GregP" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:21:55 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Yeah, it's _supposed_ to give the same result given the same input . . .


It does.

Unfortunately this is not true. In complex systems, and modern
microprocessors and software are quite complex, errors do occur and
performance is not entirely deterministic. To state otherwise is to be
hopelessly naive.


The answer you pretend to quote is, in fact, "hopelessly
naive," but it's not the one I gave. Why did you change it
while continuing to pretend it was mine ?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:10:06 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

Seriously, whenever you have a tool that can learn, come back and talk to
me
about its "skill," a learning/learned phenomenon. And self-adjusting is
_not_ learning, because it has preset limits.

You're using a more narrow definition of 'skill'. I'm using it in the
sense of 'ability to achieve a given result'.

What's happening is that the 'skill' is designed into the machine.
It's not something it 'learns.' (Of course that also means that the
machine is limited in what it can do, but that's another issue.)

Maybe we should send them to a "skill center" (voc ed facility) to pick some
up?

Guess not, until they could actually learn one.

I'll stick with AHD on this.
skill (sk¹l) n. 1. Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or
developed through training or experience.

GregP wrote:

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:50 -0800, "J" wrote:

"GregP" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:21:55 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Yeah, it's _supposed_ to give the same result given the same input . .
.


It does.

Unfortunately this is not true. In complex systems, and modern
microprocessors and software are quite complex, errors do occur and
performance is not entirely deterministic. To state otherwise is to be
hopelessly naive.


The answer you pretend to quote is, in fact, "hopelessly
naive," but it's not the one I gave. Why did you change it
while continuing to pretend it was mine ?

I note that you've avoided the point being raised.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:04:50 -0800, "J" wrote:

"GregP" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:21:55 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Yeah, it's _supposed_ to give the same result given the same input . .
..


It does.

Unfortunately this is not true. In complex systems, and modern
microprocessors and software are quite complex, errors do occur and
performance is not entirely deterministic. To state otherwise is to be
hopelessly naive.


The answer you pretend to quote is, in fact, "hopelessly
naive," but it's not the one I gave. Why did you change it
while continuing to pretend it was mine ?

I thought it was your answer. And I changed nothing.
Maybe there is some part of it which I don't understand?
I took it to be an echo of George's position stated earlier in the thread.
What were you meaning to say?

-j

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 07:10:06 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

Seriously, whenever you have a tool that can learn, come back and talk
to
me
about its "skill," a learning/learned phenomenon. And self-adjusting
is
_not_ learning, because it has preset limits.

You're using a more narrow definition of 'skill'. I'm using it in the
sense of 'ability to achieve a given result'.

What's happening is that the 'skill' is designed into the machine.
It's not something it 'learns.' (Of course that also means that the
machine is limited in what it can do, but that's another issue.)

Maybe we should send them to a "skill center" (voc ed facility) to pick
some
up?

Guess not, until they could actually learn one.

I'll stick with AHD on this.
skill (sk¹l) n. 1. Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or
developed through training or experience.

I'm with George here. Machines have functions rather than skills.

"Function - The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or
employed."

-j