Valeev is by no means the worst offender

maxwell wrote:
:
:How's this from another 'old-timer' - running 200+ tellers on a real-
:time full-function banking system over a wide-area network off ONE 386
:server.
:

The things the financial industry does have always frightened me.

I used to know a guy who was involved in some of the original
development of the ATM. They'd never run it with real money and they
were concerned that it might still have some bugs. They were
scheduled to do a demo for a bunch of bank VPs and originally planned
on doing it with cut paper. The marketing guy flipped out and said
that of course for a demo this important they needed to use real
money, so they loaded it up with a couple thousand dollars in $20s.

Of course, the curse of the demo struck and the thing went berserk,
proceeding to shred its way through all the cash in the bin....


--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."

-- Buffy the vampire

On 20 Feb, 12:59, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

On 19 Feb, 21:30, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:

Conferences are not quite the same thing as publica-
tions, Ian. *As for me being kicked out, it's statements
like that...made without regard for reality or truth...
which cause others to brand you "loony" and me to
regard you as conceited.

In the mosquito thread I have not made aany comments of the type I
have made here. Ask a civil question and you will get a civil answer.

Ian Parker wrote:

On 20 Feb, 12:59, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:

I've told you before, Ian, I don't think you're capable of
debate because you can't be challenged without spinning
out...it's this behaviour combined with your (apparent)
lack of peer-reviewed work added to your tendency to
make things up as you go and put words into the mouths
of others which tells me that discussing anything with
you is a waste of time. *

The only reason I'm even on this thread is because you
ran here from a different thread...one which was con-
fined to only two groups...to tattle about me being
mean to you. *("Mean" in this case defined as "refusing
to play your silly control games.")

Grow up, Ian and quit drumming your heels on the virtual
carpet.

I am not making anything up. All I want out of you is a sane space
program which has appeal.

You're not exactly well-positioned to demand sanity, Ian.

There is precisely nothing which is relevant to life here on Earth.
This has to be the conclusion. There remains the question of what sane
individual would support NASA or space if this is the only viable
conclusion. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is indeed
the case.

There is certainly no one in this group who is prepared to argue for a
program which is remotely viable.

Lovely...does that mean you'll no longer be presenting
to an empty room?

Deirdre

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 20 Feb, 12:59, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: On 19 Feb, 21:30, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
: wrote:
:
: Conferences are not quite the same thing as publica-
: tions, Ian. *As for me being kicked out, it's statements
: like that...made without regard for reality or truth...
: which cause others to brand you "loony" and me to
: regard you as conceited.
:
: In the mosquito thread I have not made aany comments of the type I
: have made here. Ask a civil question and you will get a civil answer.
:
: I'm not interacting with you on the mosquito thread,
: Ian...my comment was made in response to someone
: else.
:
: I am not arraogant. All I have ever done is state, restate and restate
: again the official NASA position. Surely no one (except perhaps you
: anf Fred) can object to that.
:
: The lack of response for your thesis denotes lack of
: audience, Ian...didn't your vast conference experience
: teach you anything? Haven't you noticed the room is
: empty and the lecture canceled?
:
: Of course you would be kicked out. I would have thought that was a
: pretty non controversial statement. You do not go aroung calling
: people names like you do.
:
: Your statements are non-controversial only because
: no one assigns any importance to what you say...it's
: like the babbling of toddler...sometimes funny, some-
: time annoying but rarely informative.
:
: I have posted a lot more bluntly than is my habit. This is largely
: because you simply refuse to acknowlege documented facts.
:
: I've told you before, Ian, I don't think you're capable of
: debate because you can't be challenged without spinning
: out...it's this behaviour combined with your (apparent)
: lack of peer-reviewed work added to your tendency to
: make things up as you go and put words into the mouths
: of others which tells me that discussing anything with
: you is a waste of time. *
:
: The only reason I'm even on this thread is because you
: ran here from a different thread...one which was con-
: fined to only two groups...to tattle about me being
: mean to you. *("Mean" in this case defined as "refusing
: to play your silly control games.")
:
: Grow up, Ian and quit drumming your heels on the virtual
: carpet.
:
:
:I am not making anything up.
:

Horse manure. You make all sorts of things up, pretend people said
them, make silly assertions, and then act as if they all somehow
become true through sheer repetition.

:
:All I want out of you is a sane space
rogram which has appeal.
:

This, of course, has *NEVER* been what you've tried to discuss.

:
:I do not believe one exists.
:

Then shut up and go away and stop annoying people.

:
:All that is
:"sanely" offered to anyone is a hugely expensive manned trip to Mars
:which moreover will totally contaminate the Martian surface.
:

Liar. Perhaps you should actually have been reading what people were
saying before you and your zany ilk drove them all away?

'Contaminate the Martian surface'? With WHAT? And what damage do you
think such 'contamination' will do?

:
:There is precisely nothing which is relevant to life here on Earth.
:This has to be the conclusion.
:

No, you're not arrogant. You just think you know it all and that your
moronic conclusion "has to be the conclusion".

:
:There remains the question of what sane
:individual would support NASA or space if this is the only viable
:conclusion. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this is indeed
:the case.
:

No, Ian. There remains the question of what makes a loonytoon like
you think he's the arbiter of all things space.

:
:There is certainly no one in this group who is prepared to argue for a
rogram which is remotely viable.
:

You mean no one is prepared to argue for the sort of silly program you
insist is "the only viable one".

Perhaps if you'd shut up you'd learn something. But I doubt it. I
don't think you're capable (of either shutting up or of learning
anything).


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

"maxwell" wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 8:42 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: :By the time I was actually writing programs (1987), I was doing it
either
: at
: :Purdue where we ran Unix on mainframes or at work where we ran VAX VMS
on
: :mainframes. Both mainframes had access to adequate hard drive based
: :storage.
: :
:
: Let me nitpick just a bit. I'd bet those weren't 'mainframes'. VAXen
: were almost all considered minicomputers until either the VAX 8000 or
: VAX 9000 series. VAX 8000 were sold as 'super-minis'.
:
:True, but most newbies wouldn't understand the distinction. They just
know
:that the old machines weren't PC's. :-)
:

Hey, are you calling me old? :-)

:
:At Purdue we ran Unix on VAX 11/780's, which were (by then old) VAX
:minicomputers. They would support somewhere around 200 simultaneous users
er machine, but we were running mostly simple programs and simple
:undergraduate simulations.
:

That's a lot of users to load onto an 11/780. We might have had that
many users in total on one, but we'd lock the machine off when it hit
30 users logged on at once.

:
:I'm not sure what machines we had at work, but they were far more
powerful
:and could support more users and far more demanding programs (CAD/CAM/CAE
:software execution and development). This was in the late 80's and early
:90's, so the time would have been right for them to have been VAX
mainframes
:instead of minicomputers. Our terminals at work were everything from
simple
:VT-100's with Selinar graphics, to high end hardware accelerated
Tektronix
:graphics terminals and the like.
:

It was an easy step from 11/780 to 11/785. Next step up was the 8000
series super minis.

:
:It wasn't until the early 90's that we started to acquire desktop
machines
:running VAX/VMS to replace our graphics terminals attached to the
:mainframes. Those machines were far better than running on most graphics
:terminals.
:

That was about when we started switching over to Suns as a more
economical solution, along with some DEC Alphas for data reduction
work.

:
:Then the VAX/VMS desktop workstations were replaced with other Unix boxes
:from various venders. Now most of those have been replaced with PC's
:running Windows or Linux.
:

We've still got a bunch of big Unix servers, but a lot of work is
being done on Linux and Windows.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

How's this from another 'old-timer' - running 200+ tellers on a real-
time full-function banking system over a wide-area network off ONE 386
server.
===========================================
Bwahahahaha!

Try computing a million points around an ellipse using Kepler's equation,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KeplersEquation.html

The Sea Harrier flight simulator had four Interdata 8-32s, three
PDP 11s and an electronic warfare computer that was classified, all
for one pilot and one instructor. All processing had to be completed
in 30 milliseconds and then repeated. That's what real-time means
and the FAA, CAA and military were hot on it, you didn't get
certified without it. We were always trading data for speed, how many
street lights could you trim off and make it look like a real road, then
add weather. Fly into ground fog and the computations were enormous
and nobody wants the picture to flicker, it destroys the effect. That's
on top of all the other functions; engine, sound, instrumentation,
platform motion, flight parameters, missile lock on, missile strikes,
enemy planes, instructor station input, pilot input, model of aircraft
carrier... the list is endless.

Banking system... that's like comparing a Wright biplane to
Concorde, they both flew in real time.
Then came a leap forward. The 8086. And you compare than to
a '386 and call yourself a "old timer"? You are a puppy.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
I had an arrangement with the TAs. As long as I finished before they
got done grading everyone else's I got full credit for it. That let
me go in the day after everything was due and work it when the machine
had practically no one on it.

I guess it never occurred to anyone else to ask them....

This comes to mind:

Saavik: Admiral, may I ask you a question?
Kirk: What's on your mind, Lieutenant?
Saavik: The Kobayashi Maru, sir.
Kirk: Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now?
Saavik: On the test, sir... will you tell me what you did? I would really
like to know.
McCoy: Lieutenant, you are looking at the only Starfleet cadet who ever beat
the no-win scenario.
Saavik: How?
Kirk: I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship.
Saavik: What?
David Marcus: He cheated.
Kirk: I changed the conditions of the test; got a commendation for original
thinking. I don't like to lose.
Saavik: Then you never faced that situation... faced death.
Kirk: I don't believe in the no-win scenario.

;-)

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: I had an arrangement with the TAs. As long as I finished before they
: got done grading everyone else's I got full credit for it. That let
: me go in the day after everything was due and work it when the machine
: had practically no one on it.
:
: I guess it never occurred to anyone else to ask them....
:
:This comes to mind:
:
:Saavik: Admiral, may I ask you a question?
:Kirk: What's on your mind, Lieutenant?
:Saavik: The Kobayashi Maru, sir.
:Kirk: Are you asking me if we're playing out that scenario now?
:Saavik: On the test, sir... will you tell me what you did? I would really
:like to know.
:McCoy: Lieutenant, you are looking at the only Starfleet cadet who ever beat
:the no-win scenario.
:Saavik: How?
:Kirk: I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to rescue the ship.
:Saavik: What?
avid Marcus: He cheated.
:Kirk: I changed the conditions of the test; got a commendation for original
:thinking. I don't like to lose.
:Saavik: Then you never faced that situation... faced death.
:Kirk: I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
:

Yeah. It's in the Rules (of Gunfighting):

"Always cheat. Always win. The only unfair fight is the one you
lose."

I've got a few things in common with the good Admiral...


--
"I've always known. I'll die alone."
-- Admiral James T. Kirk

On 20 Feb, 18:56, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:

Lovely...does that mean you'll no longer be presenting
to an empty room?

I think the conclusion must be that sci.space.policy is totally
lacking in constructive ideas. This should have been obvious a lot
earlier.

All they seem to want to do is put panspermia from Eareth into
practice. Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 20 Feb, 18:56, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
wrote:
:
: Lovely...does that mean you'll no longer be presenting
: to an empty room?
:
:
:I think the conclusion must be that sci.space.policy is totally
:lacking in constructive ideas. This should have been obvious a lot
:earlier.
:

No, I think the conclusion must be that the Artificial Stupidity
System (A.S.S.) known locally as 'Ian Parker' is too bloody thick to
have an idea, constructive or otherwise.

:
:All they seem to want to do is put panspermia from Eareth into
ractice. Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert.
:

As is contamination from any unmanned expedition, apparently.

Is this your latest 'cause', Ian? Given up on AI, von Neumann
machines, and all the rest of your usual claptrap to now claim manned
flight is bad because of possible contamination?

It goes without saying that you're a bloody moron.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Ian Parker wrote:

Contamination on any manned expedition is a dead cert.

Contamination by _what_?

Deirdre