| Re: Qbasic [message #317031 is a reply to message #317020] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 16:18   |
Alfred Falk
Messages: 195
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1300006837.483378389.146488.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
ber.org:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> > so if one is putting people
>>>> > into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> > "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> > "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be
>>>> > one of those pigeonholes.
>>>>
>>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> fruit.
>>>
>>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>> members are athiests
>>
>> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>
>
> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>
As I understand it, many forms of Buddhism recognize "deities" or divine
beings but these are not to be equated with the God of Abrahamic religions
or the multiple gods of the Greeks or Romans, among others. Tibetan
Buddhism has lots of deities. But to no Buddhist is the (or "a") Buddha a
God. However, reverence for Buddha is a tool for seeking enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317034 is a reply to message #317030] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 17:37 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Andreas Eder" wrote:
> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>
>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>>
>>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>
>>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>
>> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
>> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>
> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being a
> teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
But despite the problems, you still have a huge advantage with teapots. You
actually know what a teapot is and you can recognize one when you see it.
The atheist can't do that, he doesn't know if it is a force or a field or
something he can't even *imagine*. People can at least imagine dark matter.
I would bet money he/it/indescribable-something doesn't sound a bit like
Cecil B DeMille. Probably doesn't even speak English. Or at all.
I think that to be a serious atheist, you have to have an ego of at least 15
on a scale of one to ten.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317035 is a reply to message #317031] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 18:34 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <XnsA5F6922351DA6falkarcabca@213.239.209.88>,
Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1300006837.483378389.146488.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
> ber.org:
>
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> >> so if one is putting people
>>>> >> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> >> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> >> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be
>>>> >> one of those pigeonholes.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> > the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> > type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> > fruit.
>>>>
>>>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>>> members are athiests
>>>
>>> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
>> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>>
>
> As I understand it, many forms of Buddhism recognize "deities" or divine
> beings but these are not to be equated with the God of Abrahamic religions
> or the multiple gods of the Greeks or Romans, among others. Tibetan
It is pretty amazing how similar the roles and personalites of the
various "nature" gods are, even between unconnected civilizations.
The Norse and Mayan deity galleries have some stunning parallells.
Like Thor and the pair Coyopa/Calculha. Just an example.
> Buddhism has lots of deities. But to no Buddhist is the (or "a") Buddha a
> God. However, reverence for Buddha is a tool for seeking enlightenment.
I have the impression that the reverence for Budda is just as much
for his teachings/spirit as for the physical Buddha.
This touches over to philosphy.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317040 is a reply to message #317026] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 19:31 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On 26 Apr 2016 17:38:49 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2016-04-26, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-04-26, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>>> so if one is putting people
>>>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also
>>>> be one of those pigeonholes.
>>>
>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>> fruit.
>>>
>>> Such tactics may be expedient when a database demands SOME value
>>> for every row, but that does not make it factually
>>> correct.
>>
>> You are getting close to the pre-zero position in maths here?
>
> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to computers.
> Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>
> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>
> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>
> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
Well, there you go. record that, and play it back. That will give you
the sound of one modem communicating.
--
JimP.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317041 is a reply to message #317027] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 19:33 |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:31:00 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>
>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>
>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>
>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>
>
> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
> acoustically coupled handset?
>
> That should start something :)
>
> w..
There is a youtube video that uses a modem dialing and then
connecting, as one of the sounds in the song. Band: The Breeders, song
'Cannon ball'. I think they are a 1980s new wave or punk band.
--
JimP.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317047 is a reply to message #317027] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 22:35 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Walter Banks wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>
>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>
>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>
>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>
>
> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
> acoustically coupled handset?
>
> That should start something :)
>
> w..
>
Someone in the Apple II newsgroup was asking last week about BBSs they
could still call with a 300baud modem. But I'm not sure it was an
acoustic modem. I gather some places with modems have locked out the
slower speed modems, but I have no actual experience with that.
I was using dial up until October of 2012, some people are still using
them. It was a 56K modem, and certainly not acoustic coupled (I've never
had one of those, or rather, my Radio Shack Model 100 laptop could be
acoustically coupled but I never had the optional coupler, so I had to
plug it into the phone jack). But I was using pulse dialing, since I'd
never paid the premium for touchtone. When they installed the DSL that
month, They yanked out the extension to the top floor (which ran from the
pole to the window) claiming "it was a mess", so I no longer can use a
modem without running phone line to the floor below.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317048 is a reply to message #317020] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 22:42 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Peter Flass wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> > so if one is putting people
>>>> > into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> > "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> > "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one
>>>> > of those pigeonholes.
>>>>
>>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> fruit.
>>>
>>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>> members are athiests
>>
>> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>
>
> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>
I think some consider Buddhism a philosophy, but I'm not sure if that's
seen generally or is just a way for someone to practice it without denying
some other religion.
I thought in Tibet it had incorporated some of their local existing
religion, so Tibetan Buddhism is at least somewhat different from
elsewhere. But it's not that they are practicing two religions, but that
Buddhism takes care of both.
It gets complicated. "Native American" religion is probably not religion
as we know it, something lost in translation but also a reflection of
being more than something you do on Sundays. I dont' think you can
separate the "religion" from the culture or even language. So people who
have adapted European religion can live with that and their native
"religion" because the latter is a way of life.
But then also, "native American" is pretty broad, a year and a half ago or
so, a long dead Mohawk woman was turned into a Saint, lots of attention
given to that (complete with one photo I saw where a nun was wearing a toy
headdress), and then the next day Russell Means died, a much more
traditional guy. The two somehow can live together.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317049 is a reply to message #317016] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 22:44 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:39:11 +0100
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2016 06:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
>>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>>>> > Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> >> {snip}
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn
>>>> >>> it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was
>>>> >>> on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they
>>>> >>> work).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>>> >>> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A
>>>> >>> certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will
>>>> >>> not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> -- mrr
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>>> >
>>>> > Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>>>>
>>>> Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric
>>>> resistance they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
>>>
>>> Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf
>>> ball that hard.
>>>
>>
>> Golf balls were hit on the ISS, which is already in orbit. Consequently
>> the balls started with orbital speed.
>
> I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know there
> had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon from ISS
> with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a moon impact from
> ISS orbit ?
>
Wouldn't "how long would it take to hit the moon" be more interesting?
So one Saturday the hitting of the ball is on "Wide WOrld of Sports" and
then the next week, or perhaps longer, they are there on the moon to
document the landing of the ball on the moon.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317052 is a reply to message #317034] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 00:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Jack Brown
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:doa5crFld4lU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Andreas Eder" wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>
>>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>>>
>>>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>>
>>>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> > he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> > description is of an agnostic.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>>>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>
>>> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
>>> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>
>> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
>> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being a
>> teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
>
> But despite the problems, you still have a huge advantage with teapots.
> You actually know what a teapot is and you can recognize one when you see
> it. The atheist can't do that, he doesn't know if it is a force or a field
> or something he can't even *imagine*. People can at least imagine dark
> matter.
Doesn't need to. ALL he needs to do is point out that unless
there is evidence to substantiate the existence of whatever
it is, no one has any basis for insisting that it exists.
> I would bet money he/it/indescribable-something doesn't sound a bit like
> Cecil B DeMille. Probably doesn't even speak English. Or at all.
>
> I think that to be a serious atheist, you have to have an ego of at least
> 15 on a scale of one to ten.
More fool you.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317053 is a reply to message #317035] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 00:23 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Jack Brown
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
news:vv65vc-kc3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <XnsA5F6922351DA6falkarcabca@213.239.209.88>,
> Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1300006837.483378389.146488.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
>> ber.org:
>>
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>>> > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> >>> so if one is putting people
>>>> >>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> >>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> >>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be
>>>> >>> one of those pigeonholes.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> >> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> >> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> >> fruit.
>>>> >
>>>> > No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>>> > members are athiests
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
>>> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>>>
>>
>> As I understand it, many forms of Buddhism recognize "deities" or divine
>> beings but these are not to be equated with the God of Abrahamic religions
>> or the multiple gods of the Greeks or Romans, among others. Tibetan
>
> It is pretty amazing how similar the roles and personalites of the
> various "nature" gods are, even between unconnected civilizations.
>
> The Norse and Mayan deity galleries have some stunning parallells.
> Like Thor and the pair Coyopa/Calculha. Just an example.
Presumably that is just the result of how our minds evolved and
the limited number of possibilitys for even marginally plausible
inventions of particular gods.
There's a reason that only humans need gods as
a crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds'
>> Buddhism has lots of deities. But to no Buddhist is the (or "a") Buddha a
>> God. However, reverence for Buddha is a tool for seeking enlightenment.
>
> I have the impression that the reverence for Budda is just as much
> for his teachings/spirit as for the physical Buddha.
But just like with that fool that was actually stupid enough to
get nailed up by the Romans, we see a very similar variation
in whether some see him as just a particularly insightful human
or whether he is some form of a god or the son of one.
> This touches over to philosphy.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317055 is a reply to message #317027] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 01:06 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:31:00 -0400
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>
>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>
>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>
>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>
>
> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
> acoustically coupled handset?
Last time I used an acoustically coupled handset would be around
1976 - we had one at school to connect the teletype to one at the local
tech college.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317057 is a reply to message #317053] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 03:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <doatglFqn33U1@mid.individual.net>, 7865jb@nospam.com says...
>
> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
> news:vv65vc-kc3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>> In article <XnsA5F6922351DA6falkarcabca@213.239.209.88>,
>> Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:1300006837.483378389.146488.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
>>> ber.org:
>>>
>>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>>> >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> >>>> so if one is putting people
>>>> >>>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> >>>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> >>>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be
>>>> >>>> one of those pigeonholes.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> >>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> >>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> >>> fruit.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>>> >> members are athiests
>>>> >
>>>> > Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
>>>> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I understand it, many forms of Buddhism recognize "deities" or divine
>>> beings but these are not to be equated with the God of Abrahamic religions
>>> or the multiple gods of the Greeks or Romans, among others. Tibetan
>>
>> It is pretty amazing how similar the roles and personalites of the
>> various "nature" gods are, even between unconnected civilizations.
>>
>> The Norse and Mayan deity galleries have some stunning parallells.
>> Like Thor and the pair Coyopa/Calculha. Just an example.
>
> Presumably that is just the result of how our minds evolved and
> the limited number of possibilitys for even marginally plausible
> inventions of particular gods.
>
> There's a reason that only humans need gods as
> a crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds'
Humans as opposed to what? Have many conversations with space aliens do
you?
>>> Buddhism has lots of deities. But to no Buddhist is the (or "a") Buddha a
>>> God. However, reverence for Buddha is a tool for seeking enlightenment.
>>
>> I have the impression that the reverence for Budda is just as much
>> for his teachings/spirit as for the physical Buddha.
>
> But just like with that fool that was actually stupid enough to
> get nailed up by the Romans,
Which fool? Lots of people got nailed up by the Romans for lots of
things.
> we see a very similar variation
> in whether some see him as just a particularly insightful human
> or whether he is some form of a god or the son of one.
>
>> This touches over to philosphy.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317059 is a reply to message #317049] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 04:50 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604262242350.5412@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:39:11 +0100
>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2016 06:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
>>>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
>>>> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>>>> >> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> >>> {snip}
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn
>>>> >>>> it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was
>>>> >>>> on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they
>>>> >>>> work).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>>> >>>> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A
>>>> >>>> certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will
>>>> >>>> not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> -- mrr
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric
>>>> > resistance they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
>>>>
>>>> Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf
>>>> ball that hard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Golf balls were hit on the ISS, which is already in orbit. Consequently
>>> the balls started with orbital speed.
>>
>> I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know there
>> had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon from ISS
>> with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a moon impact from
>> ISS orbit ?
>>
> Wouldn't "how long would it take to hit the moon" be more interesting?
>
> So one Saturday the hitting of the ball is on "Wide WOrld of Sports" and
> then the next week, or perhaps longer, they are there on the moon to
> document the landing of the ball on the moon.
>
> Michael
If you are doing the minimal needed speed for the orbit transfer then you
will make a pretty elongated ellipse with the one focus on the moon and
the other on the ISS orbit.
I posted the calculation earlier, (7.68 - 1.01) * sqrt(2) m/s, ~= 9.37 m/s.
The orbital time will be roughly half that of the moon, and the transfer
time will be about half that; around one week.
But to accelrate a golf ball that much in a stroke would obliterate it.
Calculation: If a golf ball can withstand 50G of force, how long an
accelration strip would be needed for accelration to 9.37 m/s?
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317060 is a reply to message #317055] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 04:59 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <20160427060611.8b612d9d39088ff7371bd74f@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:31:00 -0400
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>>
>>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>>
>>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>>
>>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
One modem all by itself would just circle the preambles for the various
modem protocols, starting with 33.800 and going down to 1200/2400 or
even to 300. There are common preambles for everything beyond 14400,
and another common set for 4800-14400, and 1200/2400 also are the same
modulation. So there would be 4-6 sets of preambles, depending on the
setup. The 1200/2400 is different on the two sides of the pond.
After the preamble there would be handshake, sync and actual communication.
The longest setup time I have had was more than 180 seconds, dialling
one of the first BBSes in Estonia in the fall of the USSR, connecting via
Moscow with a dial time of ~130 second for the phone call setup, and
a long negotiation because of the bad phone line. I ended up with 3600
bps AFAIR.
And a large phone bill. But we had to encourage the people over there.
>>
>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>> acoustically coupled handset?
>
> Last time I used an acoustically coupled handset would be around
> 1976 - we had one at school to connect the teletype to one at the local
> tech college.
Lucky you. I had that until late 1985 for travel, until 1981 for mail etc.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317061 is a reply to message #317020] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 06:21 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> > so if one is putting people
>>>> > into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> > "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> > "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one
>>>> > of those pigeonholes.
>>>>
>>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> fruit.
>>>
>>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>> members are athiests
>>
>> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>
>
> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>
I would direct you to Kiplings "Buddha at Kamakura"
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317062 is a reply to message #317023] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 06:24 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1300006837.483378389.146488.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> >> so if one is putting people
>>>> >> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> >> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> >> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one
>>>> >> of those pigeonholes.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> > the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> > type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> > fruit.
>>>>
>>>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>>> members are athiests
>>>
>>> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
>> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>
> Buddism raises an important point about the "god" idea. If we do
> have a creator, would we be able to identify "it/him/her" at all, not
> to speak of actually having any form of communication.
>
> Jfr Marvin Minsky's paper about being able to communicate with
> a random alien.
>
> Would Nirvana qualify as a god, or not.
AFAIK, Nirvana is the state of becoming devoid of all emotion or desire.
(Like waking up after a night on the town.?)
>
> -- mrr
>
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317063 is a reply to message #317060] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 06:12 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:59:06 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20160427060611.8b612d9d39088ff7371bd74f@eircom.net>,
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> Last time I used an acoustically coupled handset would be around
>> 1976 - we had one at school to connect the teletype to one at the local
>> tech college.
>
> Lucky you. I had that until late 1985 for travel, until 1981 for mail etc.
I only stopped using it because I discovered I could actually go to
the tech and use the machine there.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317064 is a reply to message #317059] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 06:10 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:50:02 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1604262242350.5412@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:39:11 +0100
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/04/2016 06:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
>>>> > Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
>>>> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>>>> >>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> >>>> {snip}
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or
>>>> >>>>> burn it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's
>>>> >>>>> teapot was on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to
>>>> >>>>> everywhere they work).
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about
>>>> >>>>> there being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets.
>>>> >>>>> A certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably
>>>> >>>>> will not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> -- mrr
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric
>>>> >> resistance they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
>>>> >
>>>> > Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf
>>>> > ball that hard.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Golf balls were hit on the ISS, which is already in orbit.
>>>> Consequently the balls started with orbital speed.
>>>
>>> I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know
>>> there had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon
>>> from ISS with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a
>>> moon impact from ISS orbit ?
>>>
>> Wouldn't "how long would it take to hit the moon" be more interesting?
>>
>> So one Saturday the hitting of the ball is on "Wide WOrld of Sports" and
>> then the next week, or perhaps longer, they are there on the moon to
>> document the landing of the ball on the moon.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> If you are doing the minimal needed speed for the orbit transfer then you
> will make a pretty elongated ellipse with the one focus on the moon and
> the other on the ISS orbit.
>
> I posted the calculation earlier, (7.68 - 1.01) * sqrt(2) m/s, ~= 9.37
> m/s.
Erm km/s I think, 9.37 m/s would be quite easy I could probably
throw one that fast.
> The orbital time will be roughly half that of the moon, and the transfer
> time will be about half that; around one week.
>
> But to accelrate a golf ball that much in a stroke would obliterate it.
>
> Calculation: If a golf ball can withstand 50G of force, how long an
> accelration strip would be needed for accelration to 9.37 m/s?
Using 10km/s for easy numbers.
s = 2v^2/a .. v =~ 10^4m/s, a =~ 500m/s^2 .. 400km
But a golf ball can take a *lot* more than 50g which is only a
force of 25 Newtons on a 50g ball. Apparently
(http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/EmilyAccamando.shtml) the real figure
is more like 5000 Newtons or about 100,000G.
v = ~10^4 m/s, a = 10^5 m/s^2 .. 2km
Sanity check - real golf stroke ...
v =~ 40m/s, a = 10^5m/s .. 3.2cm - seems reasonable.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317065 is a reply to message #317019] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 06:32 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Wrote in message:
>>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>>> Horsehockey. Show me the thousands of atheist missionaries
>>>> out there forcibly converting the savages to the only true
>>>> religion. 99.99%
of athiests just wish the religious nutcakes
>>>> would leave them alone
and stay out of their private lives.
>>>
>>> That is mostly just an observation that Chritianity is more
>>> popular than atheism.
>>
>> Globally, Christianity (32%) is only about twice as popular as
>> atheism (15%), yet the former have killed a LOT more than twice
>> as many people as the latter--as have many other religions that
>> are less popular.
>>
>
> Probably over the last couple of millenea, but more recently Stalin, an
> athiest, killed a lot of people, and there is no clear consensus about what
> Hitler believed either.
Joseph Djugashvili(*sp) was aa failed priest in the Georgian Church,
as a Marxist he would have believed that religion was "Opium for the
People", a fraud to keep the masters in control.
Hitler had read Nietzsche (sp?) and misunderstood him. In Germany
at the timee, there was an allience of Christian faiths, and the state
since Bismark's attempt to seperate them failed. THis hindered the
religious elite from opposing him more actively.
>
>>> After my earlier post I realized that most of the women I have
>>> had long-term relationships were rather serious Christians. ...
>>> None of them tried to convert me.
>>
>> If they had a serious problem with you being non-Christian, they
>> probably wouldn't have entered the relationship in the first
>> place.
>>
>> My experience is that most Catholics and mainline Protestants are
>> happy to live and let live, at least until there are kids and
>> often even then, but most Evangelical Protestants are
>> not.
>>
>> S
>>
>
>
>
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317066 is a reply to message #317026] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 06:34 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-26, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-04-26, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>>> so if one is putting people
>>>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also
>>>> be one of those pigeonholes.
>>>
>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>> fruit.
>>>
>>> Such tactics may be expedient when a database demands SOME value
>>> for every row, but that does not make it factually
>>> correct.
>>
>> You are getting close to the pre-zero position in maths here?
>
> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to computers.
> Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>
> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
What is the source of this? K&R?
>
> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>
> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317067 is a reply to message #317027] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 06:35 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>
>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>
>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>
>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>
>
> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
> acoustically coupled handset?
>
> That should start something :)
>
> w..
War Games?
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317069 is a reply to message #317030] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 08:39 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Eder wrote:
> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>
>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>>
>>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>
>>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>
>> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
>> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>
> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being a
> teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the hypothesis.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317071 is a reply to message #317027] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 08:40 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Walter Banks wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>>
>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>
>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>
>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>
>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>
>
> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
> acoustically coupled handset?
>
> That should start something :)
I hear it every morning. I can tell if I'm going to have comm problems
by the sound.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317072 is a reply to message #317066] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 08:48 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnni11tf.18r.mausg@Smaus.org...
> On 2016-04-26, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-04-26, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-04-26, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>> > so if one is putting people
>>>> > into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> > "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> > "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also
>>>> > be one of those pigeonholes.
>>>>
>>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> fruit.
>>>>
>>>> Such tactics may be expedient when a database demands SOME value
>>>> for every row, but that does not make it factually
>>>> correct.
>>>
>>> You are getting close to the pre-zero position in maths here?
>>
>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to computers.
>> Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>
>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>
> What is the source of this? K&R?
That looks home-made to me. Note that a space character is a pretty sorry
sunstitute for nul.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317076 is a reply to message #317072] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 12:53 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-27, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> <mausg@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnni11tf.18r.mausg@Smaus.org...
>
>> On 2016-04-26, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to computers.
>>> Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>>
>>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>
>> What is the source of this? K&R?
>
> That looks home-made to me.
That it is. But it's based on experience.
> Note that a space character is a pretty sorry sunstitute for nul.
Actually, I was referring to "" as the null string - and NULL
as the absence of any string at all. Comparing the characters
' ' and '\0' is yet another exercise.
And yes, I've seen - and had to deal with - some pretty sorry
substitutes for decent data design.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317077 is a reply to message #317062] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 12:53 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-27, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> AFAIK, Nirvana is the state of becoming devoid of all emotion or desire.
>
> (Like waking up after a night on the town.?)
Dunno about you, but when I wake up after a night on the town I'm
in anything but nirvana. I'm certainly far from being devoid of
all emotion or desire. The emotion I feel at that point is one
of misery over the state I'm in, and it's accompanied by a desire
to never do it again. (Until next time, at least.)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317078 is a reply to message #317056] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 13:00 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> pg47 also has a NSC HYPERchannel advertisement ... I did a lot
> of work with NSC and HYPERchannel over the years ... some past posts
> http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt
>
> NSC later came out with TCP/IP router that included ibm mainframe
> channel interface ... and I wrote the RFC1044 support for it in the IBM
> TCP/IP product ... some past posts
> http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#1044
re:
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#3 Qbasic
In 1980, STL was bursting at the seam and 300 people from the IMS group
were being moved to offsite bldg with computer service back to STL
datacenter. They had tried remote 3270 and found the human factors
totally unacceptable. I was con'ed into doing channel extender support
with local channel attached 3270s at the offsite bldg (with HYPERchannel
A510s emulating mainframe channel running over T1 back to STL
datacenter). In tests with two side-by-side local 3270s in STL, one
HYPERchannel over T1 and one directly attached, users couldn't tell the
difference.
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#channel.extender
In the early 80s, we we were working with director of NSF and were
suppose to get $20M to provide T1 interconnect (and some faster) between
the NSF supercompuuter centers (mostly using HYPERchannel). Then
congress cuts the budget, some other things happens and finally NSF
releases an RFP (based in part on what we already had running, including
T1 link support). Internal politics prevents us from bidding and the
director of NSF tries to help writing the company a letter (copying the
CEO), but that just makes the situation worse (as does comments that
what we already have running is at least 5yrs ahead of all RFP
responses). The winning bid installs 440kbit links (not T1/1.5mbits
links called for in the RFP) ... and then sort of to look link they are
meeting the RFP specs, they install T1 trunks with telco multiplexor
running multiple 440kbit links over the T1 trunks. As regional networks
connect into the centers, it becomes the NSFNET backbone ... precursor
to modern internet. some old email
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#nsfnet
and past posts
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#nsfnet
Network Systems was also the first with a T3 (45mbit) tcp/ip router
product.
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317081 is a reply to message #317055] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 14:21 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:31:00 -0400
> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>>
>>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>>
>>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>>
>>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>>
>>
>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>> acoustically coupled handset?
>
> Last time I used an acoustically coupled handset would be around
> 1976 - we had one at school to connect the teletype to one at the local
> tech college.
>
That's probably about the right period.
But in hobby circles, the acoustic modems may have hung on a bit longer,
since one didn't need a DAA or approval of the whole modem. Steve Ciarcia
certainly described an acoustic modem in the early eighties, I want to say
1984 but I don't know.
Lee Felsenstein's Pennywhistle modem was acoustic, in 1976. There was an
early internal modem for the Apple II that was acoustic. But once the
more unified modems took over, ie the ones that were controlled via the
serial port, I think those were all direct connect.
As I mentioned in another post, the Radio Shack Model 100 laptop, which
came out in 1983, that was direct connect, but had a jack to plug in an
acoustic coupler (which was just the speaker and microphone that the
handset fit into). Those might have gotten some use, since the laptop was
popular with journalists, and they needed to transfer to the newspaper,
the acoustic coupler made it easier to find a phone to use it with.
That's another factor, did any acoustic modem come out for speeds faster
than 300baud? I don't remember any, I thought there were limitations that
sidelined acoustic modems for faster speeds.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317082 is a reply to message #317071] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 14:24 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
>>> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>>>
>>> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>>>
>>> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>>>
>>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>>>
>>
>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>> acoustically coupled handset?
>>
>> That should start something :)
>
> I hear it every morning. I can tell if I'm going to have comm problems
> by the sound.
>
But surely you aren't using an acoustic modem.
The direct connect ones generally have a speaker so you can monitor the
connection. And yes, once you get used to it, you can tell when
something's a miss, it sounds different.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317083 is a reply to message #317081] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 14:38 |
Anne & Lynn Wheel
Messages: 3156
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> But in hobby circles, the acoustic modems may have hung on a bit
> longer, since one didn't need a DAA or approval of the whole modem.
> Steve Ciarcia certainly described an acoustic modem in the early
> eighties, I want to say 1984 but I don't know.
The small rectangle flat card-swipe, point-of-sale terminals were an
emulated pc/xt and could be heard with the funny modem connection noise
for dial-up transactions (low-volume merchants that had separate dial-up
for every transactions, now lots are moving to internet). Last decade
there was some look at moving to 56kbit dialup, but with an
avg. transaction size of 60bytes, the 56kbit modem protocol connect
negotiation took longer than slow-speed negotiation & transmission of
60bytes.
for other topic drift, posts mentioning consumer dialup banking ...
and justification for moving to the internet in the mid-90s
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submisc.html#dialup-banking
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317084 is a reply to message #317081] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 14:46 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>
> Lee Felsenstein's Pennywhistle modem was acoustic, in 1976. There was
> an early internal modem for the Apple II that was acoustic. But once
> the more unified modems took over, ie the ones that were controlled
> via the serial port, I think those were all direct connect.
Both the Anderson Jacobsen and the Pennywhistle I used in the 80s were
acoustic and had serial ports.
I find it difficult to believe an *INTERNAL* modem (that fit into a
slot) was acoustically coupled, just because it would be very difficult
to jam a handset in the space provided ;)
Novation (which did make a crummy RS-232 interface A/C modem) also made
a Super Whizbang Neato toy for the Apple called the AppleCat ][ -- which
was a one-slot direct connect modem with a programmable tone generator
(in case you were one interested in experimenting with the effects that
700,900,1100, etc signalling might be useful for... KP+916+027+121+ST)
> That's another factor, did any acoustic modem come out for speeds
> faster than 300baud? I don't remember any, I thought there were
> limitations that sidelined acoustic modems for faster speeds.
Racal Vadic made an acoustic version of their proprietary 1200 bps modem
whose model number I can no longer recall. The direct-connect was the
3451 (which also did Bell 212). MIT had a Metric Assload of RV modems
into the late 80s.
There were also Acoustic Coupled versions of the Bell 202.
--NK1G
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317085 is a reply to message #317083] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 14:51 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> avg. transaction size of 60bytes, the 56kbit modem protocol connect
> negotiation took longer than slow-speed negotiation & transmission of
> 60bytes.
>
I know that the one I had (Zon? Does that sound right?) it was Bell 103
.... from when the answering modem started giving carrier, it IMMEDIATELY
started spewing ... the ENTIRE transaction took maybe 4 seconds of
online time (half of that waiting)
--NK1G
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317086 is a reply to message #317069] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 14:32 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2016 12:39:58 GMT
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
> Andreas Eder wrote:
>> J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
>>
>>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>>>
>>>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>>
>>>> > You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> > he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> > description is of an agnostic.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
>>>> between Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>>
>>> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
>>> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
>>> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
>>> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
>>
>> You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
>> do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being
>> a teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
>
> But you can't construct an experiment which will disprove the hypothesis.
Oh sure that's easy, collect every object in the designated area
that is of the right size to be a teapot and check them all, implementation
is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317087 is a reply to message #317047] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 15:19 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>> acoustically coupled handset?
>
> I was using dial up until October of 2012, some people are still using
> them. It was a 56K modem, and certainly not acoustic coupled...
Still using a 56K USR modem. Only high-speed option here is rural
wireless, a lot of bother to get it installed, not so very fast.
They can't put the antenna in the obvious place -- a power pole on my
property near the house -- due to a mare's nest of corporate
permissions, fees, waivers etc. so they end up walking around on the
roof of your house.
OP's question: Somebody gave me a Decwriter II circa '93 and an
acoustic coupler with it. I tried it (and the Decwriter) a couple of
times to call a BBS. It worked but my modem was faster and easier.
Gave it away whan the Decwriter's opto-electronic head-positioning
widget failed.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317088 is a reply to message #317085] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 15:36 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-27, Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
>
>> avg. transaction size of 60bytes, the 56kbit modem protocol connect
>> negotiation took longer than slow-speed negotiation & transmission of
>> 60bytes.
>
> I know that the one I had (Zon? Does that sound right?) it was Bell 103
> ... from when the answering modem started giving carrier, it IMMEDIATELY
> started spewing ... the ENTIRE transaction took maybe 4 seconds of
> online time (half of that waiting)
I heard some of those boxes do 1200 bps negotation, and a few times I even
heard that extra warble that meant 2400 bps. But you're right, higher speeds
would spend more time negotiating than they'd save sending such short messages.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317089 is a reply to message #317081] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 15:36 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> That's another factor, did any acoustic modem come out for speeds faster
> than 300baud? I don't remember any, I thought there were limitations that
> sidelined acoustic modems for faster speeds.
Judging by the speed of screen repaints, I'd say that the acoustic modem
in the movie "War Games" was doing 9600 bps. Too bad it was only a movie -
I'd have loved to have had one of them.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317090 is a reply to message #317071] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 15:59 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 6:40:51 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Walter Banks wrote:
>> On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
Just as one hand cannot clap on empty air, communication involves the
transmission of information from one place to another. So, indeed, there is no
such sound, and the analogy with Zen is valid.
>> How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
>> acoustically coupled handset?
>> That should start something :)
> I hear it every morning. I can tell if I'm going to have comm problems
> by the sound.
Now, that's interesting.
I've used acoustic coupling at 300 baud, but when I used the Internet over
dial-up, though I managed even at 14.4 kilobaud, even at the maximum of 56k
today's web sites would mostly not work.
For a while, in addition to conventional dial-up, I also used a local freenet
which one used a terminal emulation program to talk to, which allowed browsing
the web with Lynx and so on. That service, though, is no longer available in my
locality.
So I'm a bit surprised you have anything to communicate _with_ using an
acoustic coupler (or even a telephone modem card) in this day and age.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317095 is a reply to message #317057] |
Wed, 27 April 2016 16:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: 3899jk
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.318a3118569862fb98a123@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <doatglFqn33U1@mid.individual.net>, 7865jb@nospam.com says...
>>
>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:vv65vc-kc3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>> In article <XnsA5F6922351DA6falkarcabca@213.239.209.88>,
>>> Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:1300006837.483378389.146488.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
>>>> ber.org:
>>>>
>>>> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>>> >>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> >>>>> so if one is putting people
>>>> >>>>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> >>>>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform",
>>>> >>>>> "Conservative",
>>>> >>>>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also
>>>> >>>>> be
>>>> >>>>> one of those pigeonholes.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> >>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> >>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> >>>> fruit.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>>> >>> members are athiests
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists
>>>> > also
>>>> > practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, many forms of Buddhism recognize "deities" or
>>>> divine
>>>> beings but these are not to be equated with the God of Abrahamic
>>>> religions
>>>> or the multiple gods of the Greeks or Romans, among others. Tibetan
>>>
>>> It is pretty amazing how similar the roles and personalites of the
>>> various "nature" gods are, even between unconnected civilizations.
>>>
>>> The Norse and Mayan deity galleries have some stunning parallells.
>>> Like Thor and the pair Coyopa/Calculha. Just an example.
>>
>> Presumably that is just the result of how our minds evolved and
>> the limited number of possibilitys for even marginally plausible
>> inventions of particular gods.
>>
>> There's a reason that only humans need gods as
>> a crutch for their pathetically inadequate 'minds'
>
> Humans as opposed to what?
Anything else we know anything about.
> Have many conversations with space aliens do you?
My position on that is the same as gods, when you have some
evidence that there is any such thing, get back to us with that evidence.
>>>> Buddhism has lots of deities. But to no Buddhist is the (or "a")
>>>> Buddha a
>>>> God. However, reverence for Buddha is a tool for seeking
>>>> enlightenment.
>>>
>>> I have the impression that the reverence for Budda is just as much
>>> for his teachings/spirit as for the physical Buddha.
>>
>> But just like with that fool that was actually stupid enough to
>> get nailed up by the Romans,
>
> Which fool?
The one mentioned in that collection of fairy stories some call a bible.
> Lots of people got nailed up by the Romans for lots of things.
But it was the only one that has billions grovelling to it millennia later.
>> we see a very similar variation
>> in whether some see him as just a particularly insightful human
>> or whether he is some form of a god or the son of one.
>>
>>> This touches over to philosphy.
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
