• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Windows startup sound

J

John

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:00:12 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-me@other.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>
>> "John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is not
>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that is
>>> lacking.
>>
>> You really would make a great teacher.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting a
>>> particular bit of information.
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate.
>
>How do you feel about speakers of Urdu or Arabic, then? Are they flawed
>because you can't understand them?


Yes, many people feel exactly that way. I don't live in the U.S. and I
frequently hear tourists say "But he can't even speak English" as
though these "foreigners" are somehow deficient. (Of course, the
locals are saying the same thing - "Stupid foreigner, can't even say
hello". :)

John B.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:09:04 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
<spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>What I specifically have in mind are
>their philosophical abilities. For example discussions pertaining to the
>mind body problem and whether computers can be said to be conscious or could
>become conscious. Their complete lack of understanding is a wonder to
>behold. The same goes for most skepics* and materialists.
>
>* spelling deliberate.

I wasn't able to find a definition for skepic. Color me ignorant.
 
N

Nil

Flightless Bird
On 22 Mar 2010, "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com>
wrote in alt.windows7.general:

> If a teacher spouts forth gobbledygook why do you suppose that it
> is those trying to learn who are at fault? Often it is the people
> trying to learn who are at fault because they are too stupid. But
> often it is the teacher who is at fault for presupposing knowledge
> despite the continual insistence by his students that they lack
> such knowledge. In this case it is the teacher who is stupid.
>
> What are you unable to understand about that?

If you want to fix your own computer, you have to be willing to
learn a little bit about them. If you need to ask questions, do so,
and if you appear to be sincerely interested, people will probably
spend their valuable time to help you understand. Nobody here owes
you anything, AND if you refuse to accept responsibility for your
part of the bargain, you best expect all the derision you get.

If you don't understand, and you're not WILLING to understand, then
you should just go pay to have it fixed for you. There's nothing
wrong with that in of itself, just don't go insulting the guy who
fixes it for you. I don't insult my auto repairman when I can't
repair my transmission. Would you?

What are you unable to understand about that?
 
J

John

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:11:34 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
<spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1qu8j7ekp2cwy.1d55002vlw879$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>>
>>> "John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is not
>>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that is
>>>> lacking.
>>>
>>> You really would make a great teacher.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting a
>>>> particular bit of information.
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate.
>>
>> How do you feel about speakers of Urdu or Arabic, then? Are they flawed
>> because you can't understand them?
>>
> Information only exists in the context of conscious minds. So they
>wouldn't be conveying information anymore than if they were addressing an
>empty room.


You are simply trying to rationalize the fact that you didn't
understand something by mouthing platitudes. You asked a technical
question regarding computer programming and didn't understand the
answer which was complete and accurate. And you want to blame the
writer for your lack of knowledge.

Sort of "kill the messenger" type of thinking isn't it? "I don't
understand it therefore the it must be wrong."

John B.
 
I

Interesting Ian

Flightless Bird
"Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D43E23C32FDCnilch1@130.133.4.11...
> On 22 Mar 2010, "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com>
> wrote in alt.windows7.general:
>
>> If a teacher spouts forth gobbledygook why do you suppose that it
>> is those trying to learn who are at fault? Often it is the people
>> trying to learn who are at fault because they are too stupid. But
>> often it is the teacher who is at fault for presupposing knowledge
>> despite the continual insistence by his students that they lack
>> such knowledge. In this case it is the teacher who is stupid.
>>
>> What are you unable to understand about that?
>
> If you want to fix your own computer, you have to be willing to
> learn a little bit about them. If you need to ask questions, do so,
> and if you appear to be sincerely interested, people will probably
> spend their valuable time to help you understand. Nobody here owes
> you anything, AND if you refuse to accept responsibility for your
> part of the bargain, you best expect all the derision you get.
>
> If you don't understand, and you're not WILLING to understand, then
> you should just go pay to have it fixed for you. There's nothing
> wrong with that in of itself, just don't go insulting the guy who
> fixes it for you. I don't insult my auto repairman when I can't
> repair my transmission. Would you?
>
> What are you unable to understand about that?

I understand all that perfectly and I agree with all that absolutely.

Unfortunately it's kinda irrelevant to anything I have said.
 
I

Interesting Ian

Flightless Bird
"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:mf7gq5l5saf5qrut55amhr9e7hh4u76hj6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
> <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is not
>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that is
>>> lacking.
>>
>>You really would make a great teacher.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting a
>>> particular bit of information.
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>>You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate.
>
>
> And you are grasping at straws.
>
> You asked a question, the answer was given to you in terms that anyone
> who is very familiar with the workings of a computer would understand.
> You didn't understand.
>
> If you ask an engineer to tell you whether a beam will support
> something he will reply with a mass of mathematics which, if you
> understand will be because somewhere you obtained sufficient education
> to understand.
>
> However, in essence, you were correct, you didn't understand and
> therefore the writer didn't communicate, but would it have made you
> feel better had he written "I'd tell you but YOU wouldn't understand"?
> Because essentially that is what you are implying.
>
> John B.

Step by step instructions would be ideal. However I appreciate that might
be too time consuming. It's not his response which is irritating, it's his
and other peoples ' assertion that he has explained himself as clearly as
possible. This is clearly transparently false.

And this issue of whether information can be said to exist in the absence of
a conscious mind is much more interesting than might initially be supposed.
It has ramifications for whether a computer can ever said to be able to
understand or be conscious for example. But let's not get into that.
 
J

John

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:33:05 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
<spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>
>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:mf7gq5l5saf5qrut55amhr9e7hh4u76hj6@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>> <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is not
>>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that is
>>>> lacking.
>>>
>>>You really would make a great teacher.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting a
>>>> particular bit of information.
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>>You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate.
>>
>>
>> And you are grasping at straws.
>>
>> You asked a question, the answer was given to you in terms that anyone
>> who is very familiar with the workings of a computer would understand.
>> You didn't understand.
>>
>> If you ask an engineer to tell you whether a beam will support
>> something he will reply with a mass of mathematics which, if you
>> understand will be because somewhere you obtained sufficient education
>> to understand.
>>
>> However, in essence, you were correct, you didn't understand and
>> therefore the writer didn't communicate, but would it have made you
>> feel better had he written "I'd tell you but YOU wouldn't understand"?
>> Because essentially that is what you are implying.
>>
>> John B.
>
>Step by step instructions would be ideal. However I appreciate that might
>be too time consuming. It's not his response which is irritating, it's his
>and other peoples ' assertion that he has explained himself as clearly as
>possible. This is clearly transparently false.
>
>And this issue of whether information can be said to exist in the absence of
>a conscious mind is much more interesting than might initially be supposed.
>It has ramifications for whether a computer can ever said to be able to
>understand or be conscious for example. But let's not get into that.

The point is that he did give you step by step instructions,even to
actually writing the HTML instructions that you needed. The point that
you do, or do not, understand is, in a sense, immaterial. You asked
the man and the man told you.

Now as to the fact that you didn't understand, well it is obvious that
it is not your area of expertise, nothing more. So we have, in effect,
an Italian talking to a Spaniard. Both are articulate in their own
area but they can't communicate. To say that either is "wrong" is
simply demonstrating ignorance.

John B.
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:u8pkg4n4zbsz.x3ig6ranln4e.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:09:17 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:eek:sLpn.65542$0t.54246@newsfe17.ams2...
>> snip
>>
>>> It's computer programming! The instructions that computers follow is
>>> not
>>> English. ;-) They could never understand English! (but try telling AI
>>> geeks that!)
>>>
>>>
>>> If my SO could understand the instructions enough
>>>> to create the file, it must be pretty darn simple. I think you may be
>>>> trying to read too much into them. You sound like an intelligent
>>>> person,
>>>> but this may just be out of your league.
>>>
>>> Yes I know it's out of my league. I did explicitly state in my opening
>>> post that I'm not particularly proficient with computers. Day to day
>>> use
>>> I am, but not when it comes to getting underneath the bonnet.
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with not knowing what
>>>> to do. But it is wrong to assume that hardly anyone understands it just
>>>> because you don't.
>>>
>>> I'm not assuming that no on else knows because *I* don't. That has
>>> nothing to do with it. In my experience it's something that computer
>>> geeks know and understand, but that the rest of the population don't.
>>> And
>>> computer geeks appear to be simply incapable of comprehending that
>>> no-one
>>> else has a clue what they're talking about. They just continually spout
>>> forth gobbledygook and are contemptuous of those that don't understand
>>> them. Yet they in turn are utterly clueless when it comes to other
>>> subjects which requires some basic intellect to grasp.
>>>
>>> They jus' annoy me beyond all measure.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Getting rude with people trying to help you is rude.
>> Asking a question and persisting once you have enough information given
>> to
>> you that lets you understand it's not a simple "check a box" fix, but
>> requires a little knowledge is rude.
>> Insisting people "spoon-feed" you is rude.
>> Expecting someone to supply the spoon so you can be "spoon-fed" is rude.
>> And those jus' annoy me, and possibly others, beyond all measure.
>> Dave
>
> I also was offended by Interesting Ian's claim that people who understand
> computers understand nothing else (as in the phrase "utterly clueless" he
> used above). On the contrary - my experience has been that most
> physicists,
> computer programmers, mathematicians, what have you, understand a lot of
> things beyond those fields - literature, music, painting, and so on - but
> the liberal arts people around them are quick to claim that the
> science/engineering types are very narrow, while they themselves are
> unable
> to know which end of a screwdriver to hold, and unwilling to learn.
>
> In short, my tech friends know a lot more about Shakespeare and Mahler
> than
> my literary friends do about quantum mechanics and relativity...
>
> What he calls gobbledygook is the language of the game which, IMO, he
> wants
> to play without knowing that language or being willing to learn it...
>
> I wonder: would he be annoyed at a driving instructor referring to the
> wheel in front of him as a "steering wheel" instead of a "funny round
> thing"?
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

I agree with your assessment, but I'm going to be walking around for the
rest of the day chuckling about the "funny round thing."
Dave
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fOUpn.15961$dx1.3012@newsfe29.ams2...
>
>
> "Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D43D0F0FD008nilch1@130.133.4.11...
>> On 22 Mar 2010, "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in
>> alt.windows7.general:
>>
>>> What he calls gobbledygook is the language of the game which, IMO,
>>> he wants to play without knowing that language or being willing to
>>> learn it...
>>
>> Bingo. That's it in a nutshell.
>>
>> Being ignorant is excusable. Being rude to others in an attempt to
>> justify and preserve one's own ignorance is not.
>
> If a teacher spouts forth gobbledygook why do you suppose that it is those
> trying to learn who are at fault? Often it is the people trying to learn
> who are at fault because they are too stupid. But often it is the teacher
> who is at fault for presupposing knowledge despite the continual
> insistence by his students that they lack such knowledge. In this case it
> is the teacher who is stupid.
>
> What are you unable to understand about that?

OK, let me try a nice way to say what I hoped you'd get from my previous
post.
Let's assume your example is a college classroom. Do you honestly think the
professor gives a whip if the student is either stupid or lacks knowledge?
(Other than social empathy.) A student has volunteered to be there, paid
their tuition and bought the books, they are then under the burden to learn
the subject matter. If they have a problem they then ask the professor and
if they don't understand the information then they need to read the text,
and again, and again until they get it. Repetition will make it happen or
cause you to realize you probably shouldn't have enrolled in this class, but
nothing gives you the right to be rude to the professor because you find the
answer to the question you asked is a little out of your comprehension
range, hopefully until you've read the text again. And if you choose not to
read, but to skip that part of the course offering, then you say thanks to
the professor and start reading for the next week or another class.
Now, if you're in middle school or high school you might feel like you have
the right to act that way, but you don't. Those instructors have spent many
hours, days, weeks, months and etc. learning their craft in order to pass
knowledge on to you. Because, for the most part, you have to be in the
classroom, almost all of them will try different ways and different
approaches to the same information in order for you to understand, but,
again, there comes a time when you need to read for yourself or skip that
part of the course offerings. You don't get rude, you say thanks and walk
away.
I think you're bright enough to draw your own parallel on this analogy.
Dave
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eek:TUpn.15962$dx1.5392@newsfe29.ams2...
>
>
> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1jnzkhjbx4rxv.d36qc9vnmyv0$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:11:34 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>>
>>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:1qu8j7ekp2cwy.1d55002vlw879$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>>>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>>>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that is
>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really would make a great teacher.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>>>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting a
>>>>>> particular bit of information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate.
>>>>
>>>> How do you feel about speakers of Urdu or Arabic, then? Are they flawed
>>>> because you can't understand them?
>>>>
>>> Information only exists in the context of conscious minds. So they
>>> wouldn't be conveying information anymore than if they were addressing
>>> an
>>> empty room.
>>
>> Consider answering my question...
>>
>> And you said "transmitting", which you've now changed to "conveying". I
>> think of that switch as disingenuous.
>>
>
> They are neither transmitting nor conveying information.
>
> And as for your "question" I fail to understand it. What do you mean by
> asking if speakers of Arabic, Urdu are "flawed". What on earth does
> "flawed" mean in this context?
>
> The language that one speaks in is wholly irrelevant. The relevant
> question here is whether the person being spoke to is able to understand
> that language. If not then the speaker is not transmitting information.
> Consider this question. Would books hold information if every single
> conscious being in the Universe were to die?

No, the relevancy is not whether the language is comprehendible to the
person who asked. For example, the person who asked speaks Yiddish, entered
a venue where the language is Arabic or Urdu then wants to get rude with the
speakers because he doesn't understand. The information is being
conveyed/transmitted, but not being received. Now, is the fault with the
transmitter or the receiver? Answer: receiver!
Yes. Your logic is flawed in that you think the information is tied to being
conveyed, which it is not. The information is in the books, doesn't
disappear when or if everyone dies, then reappear when or if life comes
back. It is there, will stay there and disappearing will never be tied to
whether there are people to read it.
You keep trying to defend rudeness and people are trying to tell you that
it's wrong. None of your disenchanting examples will disguise the fact you
don't understand and it's not someone else's fault. It may not be your fault
either, you may be ignorant but not stupid, but it's your choice to make as
to saying thanks and walking away or investing in learning the language.
Dave
 
I

Interesting Ian

Flightless Bird
"Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:idCdnV1mvskYdjXWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@sigecom.net...
>
>
> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:fOUpn.15961$dx1.3012@newsfe29.ams2...
>>
>>
>> "Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D43D0F0FD008nilch1@130.133.4.11...
>>> On 22 Mar 2010, "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in
>>> alt.windows7.general:
>>>
>>>> What he calls gobbledygook is the language of the game which, IMO,
>>>> he wants to play without knowing that language or being willing to
>>>> learn it...
>>>
>>> Bingo. That's it in a nutshell.
>>>
>>> Being ignorant is excusable. Being rude to others in an attempt to
>>> justify and preserve one's own ignorance is not.
>>
>> If a teacher spouts forth gobbledygook why do you suppose that it is
>> those trying to learn who are at fault? Often it is the people trying to
>> learn who are at fault because they are too stupid. But often it is the
>> teacher who is at fault for presupposing knowledge despite the continual
>> insistence by his students that they lack such knowledge. In this case
>> it is the teacher who is stupid.
>>
>> What are you unable to understand about that?
>
> OK, let me try a nice way to say what I hoped you'd get from my previous
> post.
> Let's assume your example is a college classroom. Do you honestly think
> the professor gives a whip if the student is either stupid or lacks
> knowledge?

Which amongst many other reasons constitutes an excellent reason not to
attend.


> (Other than social empathy.) A student has volunteered to be there, paid
> their tuition and bought the books, they are then under the burden to
> learn the subject matter. If they have a problem they then ask the
> professor and if they don't understand the information then they need to
> read the text, and again, and again until they get it. Repetition will
> make it happen or cause you to realize you probably shouldn't have
> enrolled in this class, but nothing gives you the right to be rude to the
> professor because you find the answer to the question you asked is a
> little out of your comprehension range,

I was always rude to my tutors/professors. Not because I didn't understand
what they were saying though (I did philosophy rather than computer
programming), but because they were stupid. I'm being serious. I don't
think they were in a position to teach me anything. So I scarcely ever
bothered attending lectures or classes, and if I did I used to argue with
the tutor all the time.

Anyway all this is irrelevant. You spouted forth gobbledygook when I
specifically stated I did not have an in-depth knowledge of computing. You
do not have the ability to communicate and if you were a teacher it would be
an absolute disgrace if you were not sacked.




hopefully until you've read the text again. And if you choose not to
> read, but to skip that part of the course offering, then you say thanks to
> the professor and start reading for the next week or another class.
> Now, if you're in middle school or high school

What the heck are "middle school" and "high school when they're all at
home??

you might feel like you have
> the right to act that way, but you don't. Those instructors have spent
> many hours, days, weeks, months and etc. learning their craft in order to
> pass knowledge on to you.

I don't have the right to argue against them?? You've got to be kidding
right?? I believe the phrase rhymes with clucking bell.
 
I

Interesting Ian

Flightless Bird
"Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:x4Cdnfxjj9xMcjXWnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@sigecom.net...
>
>
> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:eek:TUpn.15962$dx1.5392@newsfe29.ams2...
>>
>>
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:1jnzkhjbx4rxv.d36qc9vnmyv0$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:11:34 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:1qu8j7ekp2cwy.1d55002vlw879$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>>>>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>>>>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really would make a great teacher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>>>>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> particular bit of information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot
>>>>>> translate.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you feel about speakers of Urdu or Arabic, then? Are they
>>>>> flawed
>>>>> because you can't understand them?
>>>>>
>>>> Information only exists in the context of conscious minds. So they
>>>> wouldn't be conveying information anymore than if they were addressing
>>>> an
>>>> empty room.
>>>
>>> Consider answering my question...
>>>
>>> And you said "transmitting", which you've now changed to "conveying". I
>>> think of that switch as disingenuous.
>>>
>>
>> They are neither transmitting nor conveying information.
>>
>> And as for your "question" I fail to understand it. What do you mean by
>> asking if speakers of Arabic, Urdu are "flawed". What on earth does
>> "flawed" mean in this context?
>>
>> The language that one speaks in is wholly irrelevant. The relevant
>> question here is whether the person being spoke to is able to understand
>> that language. If not then the speaker is not transmitting information.
>> Consider this question. Would books hold information if every single
>> conscious being in the Universe were to die?
>
> No, the relevancy is not whether the language is comprehendible to the
> person who asked. For example, the person who asked speaks Yiddish,
> entered a venue where the language is Arabic or Urdu then wants to get
> rude with the speakers because he doesn't understand. The information is
> being conveyed/transmitted, but not being received. Now, is the fault with
> the transmitter or the receiver? Answer: receiver!

This does absolutely nothing to refute my statement "You're not transmitting
information if the recipient cannot translate".

It's not the responsibility of the student to learn a different language;
it's the responsibility of the teacher to transmit information. And as I
have stated information is not in fact information in abstraction from any
conscious mind.




> Yes. Your logic is flawed in that you think the information is tied to
> being conveyed, which it is not. The information is in the books, doesn't
> disappear when or if everyone dies, then reappear when or if life comes
> back. It is there, will stay there and disappearing will never be tied to
> whether there are people to read it.


Well I rather think this justifies what I was saying before about computer
programmers being stupid in any philosophical matters! LOL
 
I

Interesting Ian

Flightless Bird
"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:bhhhq5hbeu20fbnrh86mug6ubosvjasb1f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:33:05 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
> <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>news:mf7gq5l5saf5qrut55amhr9e7hh4u76hj6@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
>>> <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable, whether
>>>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It is not
>>>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader that is
>>>>> lacking.
>>>>
>>>>You really would make a great teacher.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of transmitting a
>>>>> particular bit of information.
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>>You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you are grasping at straws.
>>>
>>> You asked a question, the answer was given to you in terms that anyone
>>> who is very familiar with the workings of a computer would understand.
>>> You didn't understand.
>>>
>>> If you ask an engineer to tell you whether a beam will support
>>> something he will reply with a mass of mathematics which, if you
>>> understand will be because somewhere you obtained sufficient education
>>> to understand.
>>>
>>> However, in essence, you were correct, you didn't understand and
>>> therefore the writer didn't communicate, but would it have made you
>>> feel better had he written "I'd tell you but YOU wouldn't understand"?
>>> Because essentially that is what you are implying.
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>>Step by step instructions would be ideal. However I appreciate that might
>>be too time consuming. It's not his response which is irritating, it's
>>his
>>and other peoples ' assertion that he has explained himself as clearly as
>>possible. This is clearly transparently false.
>>
>>And this issue of whether information can be said to exist in the absence
>>of
>>a conscious mind is much more interesting than might initially be
>>supposed.
>>It has ramifications for whether a computer can ever said to be able to
>>understand or be conscious for example. But let's not get into that.
>
> The point is that he did give you step by step instructions,even to
> actually writing the HTML instructions that you needed. The point that
> you do, or do not, understand is, in a sense, immaterial. You asked
> the man and the man told you.

Well I followed his instructions as carefully as possible supplemented with
reading various webpages. It doesn't work.
 
A

Allen

Flightless Bird
Interesting Ian wrote:
>
I find you about as UNinteresting as a person could be. Goodbye.
 
A

Allen

Flightless Bird
Interesting Ian wrote:
>
>
> "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com> wrote in message
> news:x4Cdnfxjj9xMcjXWnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@sigecom.net...
>>
>>
>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:eek:TUpn.15962$dx1.5392@newsfe29.ams2...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:1jnzkhjbx4rxv.d36qc9vnmyv0$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:11:34 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1qu8j7ekp2cwy.1d55002vlw879$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:52:51 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John" <johnbslocomb@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ijueq55o6fuim3kudkfps2h0tafmaa38v3@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You asked a question and you got a perfectly plausible answer,
>>>>>>>> complete with source code, which if the reader were capable,
>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>> through education or practice, of understanding, would have. It
>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>> the answer that is at fault it is the knowledge of the reader
>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>> lacking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really would make a great teacher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many/most trades use esoteric languages, not to wow the uninitiated
>>>>>>>> but because that is the quickest and easiest method of
>>>>>>>> transmitting a
>>>>>>>> particular bit of information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're not transmitting information if the recipient cannot
>>>>>>> translate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you feel about speakers of Urdu or Arabic, then? Are they
>>>>>> flawed
>>>>>> because you can't understand them?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Information only exists in the context of conscious minds. So they
>>>>> wouldn't be conveying information anymore than if they were
>>>>> addressing an
>>>>> empty room.
>>>>
>>>> Consider answering my question...
>>>>
>>>> And you said "transmitting", which you've now changed to "conveying". I
>>>> think of that switch as disingenuous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are neither transmitting nor conveying information.
>>>
>>> And as for your "question" I fail to understand it. What do you mean
>>> by asking if speakers of Arabic, Urdu are "flawed". What on earth
>>> does "flawed" mean in this context?
>>>
>>> The language that one speaks in is wholly irrelevant. The relevant
>>> question here is whether the person being spoke to is able to
>>> understand that language. If not then the speaker is not
>>> transmitting information. Consider this question. Would books hold
>>> information if every single conscious being in the Universe were to die?
>>
>> No, the relevancy is not whether the language is comprehendible to the
>> person who asked. For example, the person who asked speaks Yiddish,
>> entered a venue where the language is Arabic or Urdu then wants to get
>> rude with the speakers because he doesn't understand. The information
>> is being conveyed/transmitted, but not being received. Now, is the
>> fault with the transmitter or the receiver? Answer: receiver!
>
> This does absolutely nothing to refute my statement "You're not
> transmitting information if the recipient cannot translate".
>
> It's not the responsibility of the student to learn a different
> language; it's the responsibility of the teacher to transmit
> information. And as I have stated information is not in fact
> information in abstraction from any conscious mind.
>
>
>
>
>> Yes. Your logic is flawed in that you think the information is tied to
>> being conveyed, which it is not. The information is in the books,
>> doesn't disappear when or if everyone dies, then reappear when or if
>> life comes back. It is there, will stay there and disappearing will
>> never be tied to whether there are people to read it.
>
>
> Well I rather think this justifies what I was saying before about
> computer programmers being stupid in any philosophical matters! LOL
>
>
>
I was a banker, but also a computer person. I spent a great deal of my
time explaining to programmers what bankers wanted, and almost as much
time explaining to bankers what programmers could and couldn't do. I
told people "I'm trilingual--I speak banker, programmer and English, and
they are all different languages."
Allen
 
C

Chris Sidener

Flightless Bird
___________________ snip ______________
>>
>> The point is that he did give you step by step instructions,even to
>> actually writing the HTML instructions that you needed. The point that
>> you do, or do not, understand is, in a sense, immaterial. You asked
>> the man and the man told you.
>
> Well I followed his instructions as carefully as possible supplemented
> with reading various webpages. It doesn't work.
>

Correction...
It doesn't work for you.

I don't want it but did it just to see what the fuss was about.
The instructions were clear, concise and worked for me.

End of my story.

Chris
 
N

Nil

Flightless Bird
On 23 Mar 2010, "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com>
wrote in alt.windows7.general:

> Which amongst many other reasons constitutes an excellent reason
> not to attend.

I'd say you should stop attending here, too. This is a free user forum,
and any answers you get here are generously volunteered by people using
their valuable time. You've squandered any good will you might have
arrived with by your rude attitude toward those who have wasted their
time with you. You've pretty much assured that you will never get any
help here in the future, so you might as well go away for good.
 
C

Char Jackson

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:15:09 -0000, "Interesting Ian"
<spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Well I followed his instructions as carefully as possible supplemented with
>reading various webpages. It doesn't work.

It works fine, but that's irrelevant by now. Personally, I'm very much
looking forward to your next request for help and all of the
discussion it's sure to generate. :)
 
I

Interesting Ian

Flightless Bird
"Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D44913E7D6D8nilch1@130.133.4.11...
> On 23 Mar 2010, "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com>
> wrote in alt.windows7.general:
>
>> Which amongst many other reasons constitutes an excellent reason
>> not to attend.
>
> I'd say you should stop attending here, too. This is a free user forum,
> and any answers you get here are generously volunteered by people using
> their valuable time.

And my observations and advice were very generously given by me entirely
free of charge. I don't seem to be getting much thanks. So don't expect me
to post again until I have another problem with windows 7.
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Wo6qn.40328$Vh1.27946@newsfe15.ams2...
>
>
> "Dave" <davidj92@wowway.com> wrote in message
> news:idCdnV1mvskYdjXWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@sigecom.net...
>>
>>
>> "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:fOUpn.15961$dx1.3012@newsfe29.ams2...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9D43D0F0FD008nilch1@130.133.4.11...
>>>> On 22 Mar 2010, "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in
>>>> alt.windows7.general:
>>>>
>>>>> What he calls gobbledygook is the language of the game which, IMO,
>>>>> he wants to play without knowing that language or being willing to
>>>>> learn it...
>>>>
>>>> Bingo. That's it in a nutshell.
>>>>
>>>> Being ignorant is excusable. Being rude to others in an attempt to
>>>> justify and preserve one's own ignorance is not.
>>>
>>> If a teacher spouts forth gobbledygook why do you suppose that it is
>>> those trying to learn who are at fault? Often it is the people trying
>>> to learn who are at fault because they are too stupid. But often it is
>>> the teacher who is at fault for presupposing knowledge despite the
>>> continual insistence by his students that they lack such knowledge. In
>>> this case it is the teacher who is stupid.
>>>
>>> What are you unable to understand about that?
>>
>> OK, let me try a nice way to say what I hoped you'd get from my previous
>> post.
>> Let's assume your example is a college classroom. Do you honestly think
>> the professor gives a whip if the student is either stupid or lacks
>> knowledge?
>
> Which amongst many other reasons constitutes an excellent reason not to
> attend.
>
>
>> (Other than social empathy.) A student has volunteered to be there, paid
>> their tuition and bought the books, they are then under the burden to
>> learn the subject matter. If they have a problem they then ask the
>> professor and if they don't understand the information then they need to
>> read the text, and again, and again until they get it. Repetition will
>> make it happen or cause you to realize you probably shouldn't have
>> enrolled in this class, but nothing gives you the right to be rude to the
>> professor because you find the answer to the question you asked is a
>> little out of your comprehension range,
>
> I was always rude to my tutors/professors. Not because I didn't
> understand what they were saying though (I did philosophy rather than
> computer programming), but because they were stupid. I'm being serious.
> I don't think they were in a position to teach me anything. So I scarcely
> ever bothered attending lectures or classes, and if I did I used to argue
> with the tutor all the time.
>
> Anyway all this is irrelevant. You spouted forth gobbledygook when I
> specifically stated I did not have an in-depth knowledge of computing.
> You do not have the ability to communicate and if you were a teacher it
> would be an absolute disgrace if you were not sacked.
>
>
>
>
> hopefully until you've read the text again. And if you choose not to
>> read, but to skip that part of the course offering, then you say thanks
>> to the professor and start reading for the next week or another class.
>> Now, if you're in middle school or high school
>
> What the heck are "middle school" and "high school when they're all at
> home??
>
> you might feel like you have
>> the right to act that way, but you don't. Those instructors have spent
>> many hours, days, weeks, months and etc. learning their craft in order to
>> pass knowledge on to you.
>
> I don't have the right to argue against them?? You've got to be kidding
> right?? I believe the phrase rhymes with clucking bell.
>
>
Isn't it strange, as I was reading your response I had the almost exact same
thought as you, if you had ever been in any of my classes your ignorant,
sanctimonious, stump-stupid ass would have been flunked and out.
Course, I'd have had to sit in the Dean's office and explain how your rude,
ill-informed diatribes disrupted the class to the point I had to ask you to
leave and as I was escorting you to the door, you thought you'd treat me
like those real civilized parochial school teachers did when you acted real
stupid, and I had to go Neanderthal on you to get your zit-covered face out
of the class-room and under control until campus police arrived. The
bruises? Well, sir, he did struggle a bit.
Worked every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top