Jihad needs scientists

[krw]

In article <epqqv2t6s4ttag7qov051p5gj2nltp89lp@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) Gave us:

That is not a recursive problem at all. You seem unclear on what
recursive means.


She sure is good at doing it though. Recursive nonsense.

Like your "guns won't fire in space", gunpowder needs oxygen (yes

folks, that's todays Dimbulbism)? Dimbulb, you're the last one on
the planet that should be throwing bricks!

--
Keith

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

krw wrote:

In article <epqqv2t6s4ttag7qov051p5gj2nltp89lp@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) Gave us:


That is not a recursive problem at all. You seem unclear on what
recursive means.


She sure is good at doing it though. Recursive nonsense.


Like your "guns won't fire in space", gunpowder needs oxygen (yes
folks, that's todays Dimbulbism)? Dimbulb, you're the last one on
the planet that should be throwing bricks!

Now that's funny. Did anyone think to ask him if AA cells
could work without oxygen?

 

[krw]

In article <e3170$45fd7fbc$4fe7414$4523@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:

In article <epqqv2t6s4ttag7qov051p5gj2nltp89lp@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) Gave us:


That is not a recursive problem at all. You seem unclear on what
recursive means.


She sure is good at doing it though. Recursive nonsense.


Like your "guns won't fire in space", gunpowder needs oxygen (yes
folks, that's todays Dimbulbism)? Dimbulb, you're the last one on
the planet that should be throwing bricks!

Now that's funny. Did anyone think to ask him if AA cells
could work without oxygen?

Of course not, without oxygen they'd be too small!

--
Keith

 

[MassiveProng]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Keith

Fuck off, KeithTard.

 

In article <etjolv$3gp$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <1174221298.287074.230690@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <1173976773.203668.217...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential.

I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following
statement carefully:

This statement is incorrect.

Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it
must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and
higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I
think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion.

Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are
dumb enough to let it.

The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer
science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR
file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know
where to look it up).

You are agreeing with my point. I think you now are starting to see what
has really happened with BAH's agrument. She has made an incorrect
statement and was left with the choice of admitting the error or ignoring
the path to the solution. She simply won't step outside the problem.

I wasn't paid to step outside the problem. I was paid to solve the
problem and I did in a manner that didn't cost money nor waste time.

The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self
consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm
(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way
her head explodes.

Well we do know that she is a republican.

You can't even get that correct.
<snip>

/BAH

 

[krw]

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.

Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your

stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

--
Keith

 

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.

Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.

/BAH

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.


All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.

That all depends on who you're trying to convince. ProngHead
and Smith are obviously going to need more convincing than
people with an elementary physical sciences comprehension.

Using a tall Pyrex bowl or similar container, cover a glow
coil (a furnace hot surface igniter will do) with the
gunpowder of choice. For the educated, it will be sufficient
to suspend dry ice above till all the air is displaced and
a burning match lowered into the space extinguishes, showing
there's no air (or free oxygen) present. Apply power to
the glow coil and watch the gunpowder burn.

For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in
it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The
easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace
the air in your container with argon.

If ProngHead is going to be really ignorant you'd have to
do a demonstration using a vacuum chamber of some sort. I
don't expect you'll do that in your kitchen.

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 18, 11:03 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com>
wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <etjdf4$8qk_...@s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbah...@aol.com> wrote:

In article <1174221298.287074.230...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <1173976773.203668.217...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential.

I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following
statement carefully:

This statement is incorrect.

Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it
must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and
higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I
think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion.

Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are
dumb enough to let it.

The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer
science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR
file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know
where to look it up).

"This statement is TRUE"

Is true and then there is no recursion. Problem solved.

The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self
consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm
(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way
her head explodes.

The people who are doing the work making those tapes are not
programmers. Although they appear to have been more sophisticated
than most participants of this thread; nevertheless, they could
not be expected to edit magtapes as part of the packaging
procedures.

The people handling the tapes is not who we thought we were arguing with.
We had assumed a programmer wrote the script to cause the tape to get
written correctly. The person would mount the tape and from there, it is
all software. If your procedure had these people doing more than that,
you left lots of holes for trouble to get in.

Not knowing all the players and all the gambits is always
a problem. It is far easier for the folks who were part
and party at the time. On this basis alone you're in a
classic never win situation. You can say how you would
do things, but you cannot say how they should have,
because obviously they made their own decisions based
on scenarios which, at this late date, you cannot
accurately reproduce.

I think you misunderstand the situation. BAH made claims which I took
to be all honest rememberances of the situation in the past. Among
these was an error. She claimed something that was posible to be
beyond the scope of the posible. We were not arguing over what was
done. It was about what could have been done. She had represented
herself as a developer but it now appears more likely that she was an
operator.

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 19, 4:26 am, jmfbah...@aol.com wrote:

In article <etjolv$3g...@blue.rahul.net>,
kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:



In article <1174221298.287074.230...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <1173976773.203668.217...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential.

I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following
statement carefully:

This statement is incorrect.

Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it
must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and
higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I
think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion.

Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are
dumb enough to let it.

The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer
science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR
file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know
where to look it up).

You are agreeing with my point. I think you now are starting to see what
has really happened with BAH's agrument. She has made an incorrect
statement and was left with the choice of admitting the error or ignoring
the path to the solution. She simply won't step outside the problem.

I wasn't paid to step outside the problem. I was paid to solve the
problem and I did in a manner that didn't cost money nor waste time.

You haven't understood the teerm "step outside the problem". That term
applies to where your own thinking has gotten trapped within and is
now actually part of the problem you are trying to solve. We do it
all the time without really thinking about it. Take the simple
example:

Solve for Y : Y = Y+1

You will quickly say "It can't be done" because you can see the
problem from the outside. If you didn't see that you may end up
covering a page with chicken scratch to come to the same conclusion.

The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self
consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm
(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way
her head explodes.

Well we do know that she is a republican.

You can't even get that correct.

You can't even see the joke.

 

[krw]

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.

Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.

Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?
B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MooseFET wrote:

On Mar 18, 11:03 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com
wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <etjdf4$8qk_...@s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbah...@aol.com> wrote:

In article <1174221298.287074.230...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <1173976773.203668.217...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential.

I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following
statement carefully:

This statement is incorrect.

Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it
must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and
higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I
think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion.

Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are
dumb enough to let it.

The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer
science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR
file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know
where to look it up).

"This statement is TRUE"

Is true and then there is no recursion. Problem solved.

The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self
consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm
(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way
her head explodes.

The people who are doing the work making those tapes are not
programmers. Although they appear to have been more sophisticated
than most participants of this thread; nevertheless, they could
not be expected to edit magtapes as part of the packaging
procedures.

The people handling the tapes is not who we thought we were arguing with.
We had assumed a programmer wrote the script to cause the tape to get
written correctly. The person would mount the tape and from there, it is
all software. If your procedure had these people doing more than that,
you left lots of holes for trouble to get in.

Not knowing all the players and all the gambits is always
a problem. It is far easier for the folks who were part
and party at the time. On this basis alone you're in a
classic never win situation. You can say how you would
do things, but you cannot say how they should have,
because obviously they made their own decisions based
on scenarios which, at this late date, you cannot
accurately reproduce.

I think you misunderstand the situation. BAH made
claims which I took to be all honest rememberances
of the situation in the past.

All that doesn't mean you don't get caught up in chasing
a few ghosts along the way.

Among these was an error.

You'd have to have the entire specification in front of
you at one time, understand the specification as well
as what the customer(s) expected, the corporate culture,
the technology of the day, and more, in order to determine
whether there was an error in what she's been telling you.
I've read it as it came out and agree with her that, as
she stated in the beginning of this subthread, she was
placed in a catch 22 situation. The other thing I've
learned to do in this lifetime is to read between the
lines just a bit.

Yes there are "solutions" which fall outside the
specification. That today we would probably be
intolerant of the specification is an altogether
different issue.

She claimed something that was posible to be
beyond the scope of the posible. We were not arguing
over what was done. It was about what could have been
done.

You're actually arguing against the specification.

She had represented herself as a developer but it now
appears more likely that she was an operator.

BAH is not the first bright person I've encountered who
has difficulty expressing themselves in writing. The
sci newsgroups are full of such people.

 

[MooseFET]

On Mar 19, 6:49 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com>
wrote:
[....]

That all depends on who you're trying to convince. ProngHead
and Smith are obviously going to need more convincing than
people with an elementary physical sciences comprehension.

Now now

[....]

For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in
it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The
easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace
the air in your container with argon.

Argon is easy to get from a welding supply house. It will work a
little better than N2 because it is heavier.

If ProngHead is going to be really ignorant you'd have to
do a demonstration using a vacuum chamber of some sort. I
don't expect you'll do that in your kitchen.

It depends on how good of a vacuum is needed and how much creative
work with kitchen stuff and plumbing items and the like you are
willing to do.

You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam
filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low
pressures:

P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

krw wrote:

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

MooseFET wrote:

On Mar 19, 6:49 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com
wrote:
[....]

That all depends on who you're trying to convince. ProngHead
and Smith are obviously going to need more convincing than
people with an elementary physical sciences comprehension.


Now now

[....]

For those ignorant who claim that CO2 has oxygen present in
it, the experiment becomes just a bit more complicated. The
easiest approach is to procure an argon cylinder and displace
the air in your container with argon.

Argon is easy to get from a welding supply house. It will work a
little better than N2 because it is heavier.

The "argon" used in welding is usually mixed with CO2.
They call it argon because it is mostly argon.

If ProngHead is going to be really ignorant you'd have to
do a demonstration using a vacuum chamber of some sort. I
don't expect you'll do that in your kitchen.


It depends on how good of a vacuum is needed and how much creative
work with kitchen stuff and plumbing items and the like you are
willing to do.

You can get under 50Tor with water as the working material. A steam
filled container placed in the freezer would get down to quite low
pressures:

P = ( (T-Tmelt)/(Tboil-Tmelt) )^4

True, but....

To get a vacuum you have to have containment. Even a small
amount of gunpowder fired off will need a large fully
contained chamber, or a very strong one. We can do this,
but IMO it falls outside the sorts of things one might
want to attempt in a residential kitchen.

She's made her point. This is a problem of working within
the specification.

 

[krw]

In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!

Did someone say "FIRE"?

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).

My wife gets pissed when I make messes in her kitchen. It's a female
thing, right BAH? ;-)

--
Keith

 

[nonsense@unsettled.com]

krw wrote:

In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:


In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...


In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...


On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:



Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!


Did someone say "FIRE"?

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).


My wife gets pissed when I make messes in her kitchen. It's a female
thing, right BAH? ;-)

You mean you can't convince her to do the experiment
for you?

 

[krw]

In article <18fed$45feb079$49ecfc1$12401@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:
In article <f340f$45fe9f31$4fe7374$11990@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
nonsense@unsettled.com says...

krw wrote:


In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...


In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...


On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:



Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!


Did someone say "FIRE"?

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).


My wife gets pissed when I make messes in her kitchen. It's a female
thing, right BAH? ;-)

You mean you can't convince her to do the experiment
for you?

Are you CRAZY?! Even the Hussein boys wouldn't have tried that. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[MassiveProng]

On 19 Mar 2007 07:06:13 -0700, "MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> Gave
us:

On Mar 18, 11:03 am, "nonse...@unsettled.com" <nonse...@unsettled.com
wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <etjdf4$8qk_...@s874.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbah...@aol.com> wrote:

In article <1174221298.287074.230...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Mar 16, 2:55 pm, kensm...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <1173976773.203668.217...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Unhinged is wrong though - the problem is onlyselfreferential.

I'm going to disagree with you slightly on this. Read the following
statement carefully:

This statement is incorrect.

Now imagine BAH saying "the statement is incorrectso therefor it
must be correct so it must be incorrect ......." and so on in a higher and
higher voice and then exploding like always happens in bad scifi. This I
think you would agree makes the situation a problem with recursion.

Yes. But it is an avoidable recursion. It only recurses if you are
dumb enough to let it.

The whole point here is that anyone with a half decent computer
science education should know exactly how to construct the TAPE.DIR
file so that the checksum/CRC is right first time (or at worst know
where to look it up).

"This statement is TRUE"

Is true and then there is no recursion. Problem solved.

The trouble for fuBAH is that generating a file containing a self
consistent checksum or CRC requires the use of a programming algorithm
(which instantly conflicts with her rabid Islamophobia). So either way
her head explodes.

The people who are doing the work making those tapes are not
programmers. Although they appear to have been more sophisticated
than most participants of this thread; nevertheless, they could
not be expected to edit magtapes as part of the packaging
procedures.

The people handling the tapes is not who we thought we were arguing with.
We had assumed a programmer wrote the script to cause the tape to get
written correctly. The person would mount the tape and from there, it is
all software. If your procedure had these people doing more than that,
you left lots of holes for trouble to get in.

Not knowing all the players and all the gambits is always
a problem. It is far easier for the folks who were part
and party at the time. On this basis alone you're in a
classic never win situation. You can say how you would
do things, but you cannot say how they should have,
because obviously they made their own decisions based
on scenarios which, at this late date, you cannot
accurately reproduce.

I think you misunderstand the situation. BAH made claims which I took
to be all honest rememberances of the situation in the past. Among
these was an error. She claimed something that was posible to be
beyond the scope of the posible. We were not arguing over what was
done. It was about what could have been done. She had represented
herself as a developer but it now appears more likely that she was an
operator.

Or a not all that good analyst.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:33:31 -0600, "nonsense@unsettled.com"
<nonsense@unsettled.com> Gave us:

krw wrote:

In article <etm1vk$8qk_002@s869.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <MPG.2068539f2552666d98a17d@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <b6hsv2thiah5p2a2ja06jlfgc105ra694p@4ax.com>,
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org says...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:04:19 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:


Keith


Fuck off, KeithTard.


Aw, now Dimbulb. That's not very nice. All I did is repeat your
stupidity so the folks over in sci.physics could get in on the fun.

All right. Now I got a question. If I wanted to test your
statement, how would I go about doing it? The restriction is
that my kitchen is my lab.


Test what?

A. Dimbulb doesn't believe a gun will fire in space?

If you can't hear it fire, it didn't fire!

B. Dimbulb is an idiot?
C. Dimbulb isn't being very nice?
D. I repeated Dimbulb's stupidity so you folks would get in on
the fun?
E. Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen?

P.S. I don't advise playing with gunpowder in the kitchen. ;-)

Awwwww. You're no fun. It is fine so long as you don't contain
it (restrict expansion).

Go get yourself a ten pound can and light it in your kitchen. Be
sure to start the video recorder first.