• 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

D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wf8qn.493866$yV6.422113@newsfe27.ams2...
>
>
> "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.

I await ever so anxiously for you to have another problem with life, er,
windows 7.
 
D

Dave

Flightless Bird
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CLVpn.393088$IC.127162@newsfe13.ams2...
snip
> 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.


Here's some "step-by-step" instructions for you that I'll bet you've heard a
lot in your short life.
1. Rise up on the balls of your feet.
2. Spin to the right, gently, so as to not cause vertigo.
3. When pointing 180 deg. opposed to target of your stupidity, squat
slightly
4. Launch into a sprint, don't stop until you get to Wonderland.

> 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.


More of your rationalization for justification. You do like to juxtapose,
don't you?
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:07:11 -0500, Dave wrote:

> "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


Thanks - you made my day!

I use such little analogies from time when I am defending the use (and the
necessity) of jargon. Not everyone likes it when I do that :)

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:11:22 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:07:11 -0500, Dave wrote:
>
>> "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

>
> Thanks - you made my day!
>
> I use such little analogies from time when I am defending the use (and the
> necessity) of jargon. Not everyone likes it when I do that :)


Not everybody likes it when I don't poofread (sic; it's another of my ideas
of humor).

"such little analogies" should be "little analogies like that"

"from time" should be "from time to time".

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
 
J

John

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

>
>
>"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.


Strange. After this discussion got up to speed I did try the bloke's
instruction. They worked.

But then, you seem a bit strange.You seem to believe that somehow,
perhaps with their magic wand, anyone who is instructing you will,
somehow, bludgeon the knowledge into your skull and Viola! You will
know. If you don't know it is the fault of someone else.... you don't
have to exert yourself, you simply tip your head back and open your
mouth, like a baby bird, and someone else will pour the knowledge in.
You don't even have to chew.

My experience, and from your writing I am certain that my experiences
far outweigh yours, is that all the Instructor can do is make the
information available. It is up to the student to assimilate it.

John B.
 
L

Lee Waun

Flightless Bird
"Interesting Ian" <spam.me2REMOVE@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:wf8qn.493866$yV6.422113@newsfe27.ams2...
>
>
> "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 g
> 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.



I am tired of you off you go to my killfile.
 
G

Gene E. Bloch

Flightless Bird
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:02:50 -0000, Interesting Ian wrote:

> "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.


Thanks for the last paragraph. It gave me one (actually three) of my better
laughs today.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
 
Top