Is SR an Ether Theory?

On 2007-03-29, Eric Gisse wrote:
You aren't really good at anything, are you? You can't even write a
standards-compliant newsreader. Hell, you struggle with writing a HTML-
based webpage. How did you manage to get a BS in computer science when
you obviously have no aptitude for the craft?

Supposing, as we should do for it provides for a more entertaining picture,
Fred wrote X.CPP the way it is straight off, instead of writing it in a sane
form and then obfuscating it, I think it's quite unfair to suggest he has no
aptitude for the craft. Surely one should appreciate the achievement; like
constrained writing, it might not be great literature but the fact that
anyone manages it boggles the mind.

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Aatu Koskensilta a écrit :
On 2007-03-29, Eric Gisse wrote:
You aren't really good at anything, are you? You can't even write a
standards-compliant newsreader. Hell, you struggle with writing a HTML-
based webpage. How did you manage to get a BS in computer science when
you obviously have no aptitude for the craft?

Supposing, as we should do for it provides for a more entertaining picture,
Fred wrote X.CPP the way it is straight off, instead of writing it in a sane
form and then obfuscating it, I think it's quite unfair to suggest he has no
aptitude for the craft. Surely one should appreciate the achievement; like
constrained writing, it might not be great literature but the fact that
anyone manages it boggles the mind.


In fact, it's not so hard (as a Latin author, I can affirm it). And it
fills A Void

On 2007-03-29, Denis Feldmann wrote:
In fact, it's not so hard (as a Latin author, I can affirm it). And it
fills A Void

I'll trust your word on that. Alas, I can't find any way to bring in
'Gadsby' in this post.

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Hi Aatu_Koskensilta, Gisse's a punk, he doesn't know squat.
X.CPP reads like a comic strip to me, as simple as ****.
But that doesn't mean that I expect others to feel the same way.

Like hashes from the " NNTP-Posting-Host " field ( in a post )
and selections from the " Path " field, a hash of
the " X-HTTP-UserAgent " field is used to identify _ Nymshifters _.

Consider fields like " User-Agent ", " X-Newsreader ",
" X-HTTP-UserAgent " and " X-Mailer "...
For example, this " X-HTTP-UserAgent " field:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

All I want to see from that is something like " Netscape_7_1_XP_BQJ0A "
telling me it's " Netscape 7.1 on Win_XP " and " BQJ0A ",
a Base-62 ( 0-9, A-Z, a-z ) hash of the entire field.

In " Netscape_7_1_XP_BQJ0A ", the underscores are there so
it's a valid " C identifier ", searchable with just one click
( when VS_2005's text cursor is on it ).

First I'll collect a list of all such fields
from the most recent 3,000 posts to Sci.Physics,
then I'll remove redundencies and sort it by frequency,
listing the most popular " agents " first.

From this list, I'll pick out what I want X.EXE to report on.
If nothing is " interesting ", X.EXE simply shows the entire field.

On 2007-03-29, Jeff?Relf wrote:
Hi Aatu_Koskensilta, Gisse's a punk, he doesn't know squat.
X.CPP reads like a comic strip to me, as simple as ****.
But that doesn't mean that I expect others to feel the same way.

Don't be too modest! It's a work of art, an abstract poem.

But perhaps all this merry banter, on Visual Studio, your code, C++, would
be more appropriate in a, well, more appropriate newsgroup?

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

"Eric Gisse" writes:

On Mar 28, 10:50 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Randy_Poe, You asked me,
" How's that code review going, by the way ?
You seemed worried a few months ago that your customer had
hired some other programmers to review your source.

You haven't mentioned your project at all since then.
Followed my advice to try to broaden your customer base ? ".

No word from that customer, I don't know what they're up to.
They may yet hire me back... I don't charge 50 dollars an hour.

It means they aren't hiring you back, dumbass.

Depending on what you want, I'm not the best coder.

You aren't really good at anything, are you? You can't even write a
standards-compliant newsreader. Hell, you struggle with writing a HTML-
based webpage. How did you manage to get a BS in computer science when
you obviously have no aptitude for the craft?

Because a BSc in Computer Science is about the easiest "Science" or
Engineering discipline out there?

Hi Eric_Gisse, You asked me,
" Aren't you due for another eviction right about now ? ".

Last Christmas I thought for sure I'd be evicted, but I wasn't.
They just raised my rent 30 dollars above what others are paying,
including those who just moved in.

That's the cost of having " friends ".
Most of them aren't really my friends,
they're just people with bad mental problems, the homeless.

If this one " girl ", Julie, gets evicted from her low income housing
I might let her move in... If she can get on the lease.
Other than a big pain in the ass, I'd get _ Nothing _ out of it...

I'd do it just to help her, if I can... and because she's interesting.

Eric Gisse wrote:

Your equations are exactly Laplace's equation in Cartesian
coordinates! Why do you keep making things so difficult for yourself?

You are right. But the point is not whether the equations could not have
been solved in a more standard way. The point is "they" think that Least
Squares Finite Element Methods can not work properly with simple shapes,
like triangles, or quadrilaterals. Our objective has been to prove that
"they" are wrong in this respect. Apart from this, I find it a challenge
to find good numerics for first order problems without having to convert
them to second order ones, i.e. Laplace or Poisson.

Han de Bruijn

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 28, 9:03 pm, Jeff...Relf wrote:

Hi Eric Gisse, What's the " Big Bang model " ?

Did you seriously just ask "What is the Big Bang model?"

It's creation in atheist's terms.

Han de Bruijn

On Mar 29, 12:34 am, Han de Bruijn
wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Your equations are exactly Laplace's equation in Cartesian
coordinates! Why do you keep making things so difficult for yourself?

You are right. But the point is not whether the equations could not have
been solved in a more standard way. The point is "they" think that Least
Squares Finite Element Methods can not work properly with simple shapes,
like triangles, or quadrilaterals. Our objective has been to prove that
"they" are wrong in this respect. Apart from this, I find it a challenge
to find good numerics for first order problems without having to convert
them to second order ones, i.e. Laplace or Poisson.

Take a penny, leave a penny.

You increase the complexity by making it into a second order problem,
but the second order problem has been studied for the better part of
two centuries and has a solution for every conceivable coordinate
system and situation.


Han de Bruijn