Discussion:
Computers can never learn maths. "At school I done subjects like..."
Add Reply
Harrison Hill
2018-07-10 15:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?

"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".

Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
and survived to go down instead with The Lusitania. According to wiki:

"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."

Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.



Vanderbilt (look out for the "wide-awake hat") at Handcross in Sussex in 1908.

<http://www.slaughamarchives.org/picture/number513.asp>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-10 15:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
Vanderbilt (look out for the "wide-awake hat") at Handcross in Sussex in 1908.
<http://www.slaughamarchives.org/picture/number513.asp>
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
Lanarcam
2018-07-10 16:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
You will have to revise all your judgements about that now
that neural networks are everywhere.

"Self-training is one of the semi-supervised learning methods
that alternatively repeat training a base classifier and
labeling unlabeled data in training set. Most self-training
methods have adopted confidence measures to select confidently
labeled examples because high-confidence usually implies
low error."

<http://www.ijfis.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.5391/IJFIS.2017.17.1.1>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-10 17:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
You will have to revise all your judgements about that now
that neural networks are everywhere.
No, I won't.
soup
2018-07-11 12:12:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
I had heard, "Fast adding machines".
'They' are stupid (shouldn't anthropomorphize soup), very very fast but
unthinking.

Unless you get into quantum machines which I readily admit I don't have
clue 1 about how they work, (apparently every bit can be 1 or 0 at the
same time, how does that work?).
'They' say that if quantum mechanics don't scare you you haven't
understood them, well I am ****-scared and readily admit I know
nothing.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-11 13:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soup
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
I had heard, "Fast adding machines".
'They' are stupid (shouldn't anthropomorphize soup), very very fast but
unthinking.
Unless you get into quantum machines which I readily admit I don't have
clue 1 about how they work,
Do they work (other than on trivial tasks like multiplying 2 by 3)? I
thought they were still in the future. They're a bit like high-quality
machine translation, which was predicted in about 1955 to be about five
years in the future and has remained five years in the future in every
prediction since.
Post by soup
(apparently every bit can be 1 or 0 at the
same time, how does that work?).
'They' say that if quantum mechanics don't scare you you haven't
understood them, well I am ****-scared and readily admit I know
nothing.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-11 17:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soup
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
I had heard, "Fast adding machines".
'They' are stupid (shouldn't anthropomorphize soup), very very fast but
unthinking.
Unless you get into quantum machines which I readily admit I don't have
clue 1 about how they work, (apparently every bit can be 1 or 0 at the
same time, how does that work?).
'They' say that if quantum mechanics don't scare you you haven't
understood them, well I am ****-scared and readily admit I know
nothing.
As with a spin 1/2, or other two-state system.
The general state of a qbit = a|0> + b|1>,
with a and b complex, normalised with a*a + b*b = 1

To confuse you further: the pure states of a qbit can be mapped
to the surface of a unit sphere.
The classical states correspond to the poles.

Jan
Richard Tobin
2018-07-11 21:19:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
What makes you think that sufficiently complex abacuses couldn't learn?

-- Richard
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-12 10:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
What makes you think that sufficiently complex abacuses couldn't learn?
By intropection?

Jan
Richard Tobin
2018-07-12 11:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
What makes you think that sufficiently complex abacuses couldn't learn?
By intropection?
Probably abacuses would come to the inverse conclusion.

-- Richard
Peter Moylan
2018-07-12 13:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
What makes you think that sufficiently complex abacuses couldn't learn?
By intropection?
Probably abacuses would come to the inverse conclusion.
Extraspection?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Quinn C
2018-07-11 21:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
Yes, the human brain is a machine. But wow, what a machine!
(Marvin Minsky, I think)
--
The trouble some people have being German, I thought,
I have being human.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.130
Peter Moylan
2018-07-10 16:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Apparently a computer programmed to search for elementary proofs in
geometry came up with the following:

To prove: that the two base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal;

Proof: triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB. QED.

Apparently no human had not thitherto published this proof.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Tobin
2018-07-10 17:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently a computer programmed to search for elementary proofs in
To prove: that the two base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal;
Proof: triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB. QED.
The computer proof story seems to be traceable to Minsky who said he
had come up with the proof while simulating a computer proof algorithm
by hand:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/12/14/a-i

Minsky is wrong that Euclid used the method of dropping a
perpendicular (the usual method taught at school). He used a more
complicated method whose diagram resembles a bridge, possibly
explaining the name "pons asinorum" for the theorem.
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently no human had not thitherto published this proof.
Unfortunately for the story, Pappus had proved it about 1700
years earlier. And Lewis Carroll had Euclid reject it in
Euclid and his Modern Rivals; see pages 46-7 of this scan:

https://archive.org/stream/euclidandhismode000469mbp

-- Richard
Peter Moylan
2018-07-11 07:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently a computer programmed to search for elementary proofs
To prove: that the two base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal;
Proof: triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB. QED.
The computer proof story seems to be traceable to Minsky who said he
had come up with the proof while simulating a computer proof
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/12/14/a-i
Minsky is wrong that Euclid used the method of dropping a
perpendicular (the usual method taught at school). He used a more
complicated method whose diagram resembles a bridge, possibly
explaining the name "pons asinorum" for the theorem.
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently no human had not thitherto published this proof.
Sorry about the double negative. Editing error.
Post by Richard Tobin
Unfortunately for the story, Pappus had proved it about 1700 years
earlier. And Lewis Carroll had Euclid reject it in Euclid and his
https://archive.org/stream/euclidandhismode000469mbp
Oh, well. It remains an interesting proof, even it wasn't as original as
I'd been led to believe.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Quinn C
2018-07-11 18:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently a computer programmed to search for elementary proofs
To prove: that the two base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal;
Proof: triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB. QED.
The computer proof story seems to be traceable to Minsky who said he
had come up with the proof while simulating a computer proof
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/12/14/a-i
Minsky is wrong that Euclid used the method of dropping a
perpendicular (the usual method taught at school). He used a more
complicated method whose diagram resembles a bridge, possibly
explaining the name "pons asinorum" for the theorem.
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently no human had not thitherto published this proof.
Sorry about the double negative. Editing error.
It would have been perfectly clear as "No human had never not published
no proof like that."
--
Everyone gets one personality tic that's then expanded into an
entire character, in the same way that a balloon with a smiley
face will look like a person if at some point you just stop
caring. -- David Berry, NatPost (on the cast of Criminal Minds)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-10 16:53:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Gosh. He really doesn't know the First Law of Holes: when you're in a
hole, stop digging.
--
athel
Harrison Hill
2018-07-10 17:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Gosh. He really doesn't know the First Law of Holes: when you're in a
hole, stop digging.
In accountancy (which was my profession) they would say "If
they are digging themselves into a hole, the first thing to do
is to take away the spade".

It is surely obvious to everybody who is not completely geriatric
(and I am hot on your heels), that computers can outsmart us.

"Computers can never learn maths".

Rather than insulting me, come up with a kind of maths that
computers can never learn. Good luck for France tonight.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-07-10 20:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Quinn C
2018-07-10 22:28:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
--
Manche Dinge sind vorgeschrieben, weil man sie braucht, andere
braucht man nur, weil sie vorgeschrieben sind.
-- Helmut Richter in de.etc.sprache.deutsch
David Kleinecke
2018-07-10 22:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Quinn C
2018-07-10 22:47:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Why do you think I suppressed what the colleague actually said, after
leading with a tease?

Your question should have been: What do they have against Croatia?
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use
the 'Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-07-11 20:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Why do you think I suppressed what the colleague actually said, after
leading with a tease?
"suppressed"?
Post by Quinn C
Your question should have been: What do they have against Croatia?
Not "What does s/he have against Croatia?"?
You did say "*One* colleague".

/Anders, Denmark.
Quinn C
2018-07-11 21:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Why do you think I suppressed what the colleague actually said, after
leading with a tease?
"suppressed"?
Post by Quinn C
Your question should have been: What do they have against Croatia?
Not "What does s/he have against Croatia?"?
That's another option.
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
You did say "*One* colleague".
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)

"s/h/e"?
--
Smith & Wesson--the original point and click interface
Janet
2018-07-12 15:27:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest he
abandons the dickhead-male sigs.

" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "

" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas man
is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"

Janet
Quinn C
2018-07-12 17:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest he
abandons the dickhead-male sigs.
" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "
" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas man
is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"
Wow, someone is not getting the message. If I quoted statements
advocating flat-earth theory, would you think I believed them?

I must have live a sheltered life, because I didn't think anyone these
days could take these statements as any more than a museum of
curiosities.

Which I present with a serious intent: Only a good 100 years ago, quite
intelligent people who we owe important medical progress to could hold
ideas about the sexes that are so obviously absurd to us now.

So don't ever think you're immune.

Current holdovers of the above are e.g. the idea that testosterone
makes you violent, or many beliefs about PMS and the influence of the
menstrual cycle on women in general.
--
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance.
Robert R. Coveyou
Janet
2018-07-12 23:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest he
abandons the dickhead-male sigs.
" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "
" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas man
is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"
Wow, someone is not getting the message. If I quoted statements
advocating flat-earth theory, would you think I believed them?
I must have live a sheltered life, because I didn't think anyone these
days could take these statements as any more than a museum of
curiosities.
Which I present with a serious intent: Only a good 100 years ago, quite
intelligent people who we owe important medical progress to could hold
ideas about the sexes that are so obviously absurd to us now.
So don't ever think you're immune.
Current holdovers of the above are e.g. the idea that testosterone
makes you violent, or many beliefs about PMS and the influence of the
menstrual cycle on women in general.
best stop digging that hole now.

Janet.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-13 07:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest he
abandons the dickhead-male sigs.
" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "
" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas man
is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"
Wow, someone is not getting the message. If I quoted statements
advocating flat-earth theory, would you think I believed them?
I must have live a sheltered life, because I didn't think anyone these
days could take these statements as any more than a museum of
curiosities.
Which I present with a serious intent: Only a good 100 years ago, quite
intelligent people who we owe important medical progress to could hold
ideas about the sexes that are so obviously absurd to us now.
So don't ever think you're immune.
Current holdovers of the above are e.g. the idea that testosterone
makes you violent, or many beliefs about PMS and the influence of the
menstrual cycle on women in general.
best stop digging that hole now.
Janet.
+1

It wasn't obvious to me either that he was quoting those statements
only to make fun of them.
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2018-07-13 12:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest he
abandons the dickhead-male sigs.
" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "
" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas man
is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"
Wow, someone is not getting the message. If I quoted statements
advocating flat-earth theory, would you think I believed them?
I must have live a sheltered life, because I didn't think anyone these
days could take these statements as any more than a museum of
curiosities.
Which I present with a serious intent: Only a good 100 years ago, quite
intelligent people who we owe important medical progress to could hold
ideas about the sexes that are so obviously absurd to us now.
So don't ever think you're immune.
Current holdovers of the above are e.g. the idea that testosterone
makes you violent, or many beliefs about PMS and the influence of the
menstrual cycle on women in general.
 best stop digging that hole now.
  Janet.
+1
It wasn't obvious to me either that he was quoting those statements only
to make fun of them.
Really? It was obvious to me, even more so because Quinn had talked
about no longer being a man, or being male, I forget which.
--
Jerry Friedman
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-13 13:23:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest he
abandons the dickhead-male sigs.
" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "
" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas man
is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"
Wow, someone is not getting the message. If I quoted statements
advocating flat-earth theory, would you think I believed them?
I must have live a sheltered life, because I didn't think anyone these
days could take these statements as any more than a museum of
curiosities.
Which I present with a serious intent: Only a good 100 years ago, quite
intelligent people who we owe important medical progress to could hold
ideas about the sexes that are so obviously absurd to us now.
So don't ever think you're immune.
Current holdovers of the above are e.g. the idea that testosterone
makes you violent, or many beliefs about PMS and the influence of the
menstrual cycle on women in general.
 best stop digging that hole now.
  Janet.
+1
It wasn't obvious to me either that he was quoting those statements
only to make fun of them.
Really? It was obvious to me, even more so because Quinn had talked
about no longer being a man, or being male, I forget which.
OK, I did realize that. However, he should realize that people coming
for the first time to this group will have no reason not to take them
seriously.
--
athel
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-07-13 14:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:23:31 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-13 14:52:31 +0200, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Quinn C
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest
he abandons the dickhead-male sigs.
" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "
" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas
man is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"
Wow, someone is not getting the message. If I quoted statements
advocating flat-earth theory, would you think I believed them?
I must have live a sheltered life, because I didn't think anyone
these days could take these statements as any more than a museum
of curiosities.
Which I present with a serious intent: Only a good 100 years ago,
quite intelligent people who we owe important medical progress to
could hold ideas about the sexes that are so obviously absurd to
us now.
So don't ever think you're immune.
Current holdovers of the above are e.g. the idea that testosterone
makes you violent, or many beliefs about PMS and the influence of
the menstrual cycle on women in general.
 best stop digging that hole now.
  Janet.
+1
It wasn't obvious to me either that he was quoting those statements
only to make fun of them.
Really? It was obvious to me, even more so because Quinn had talked
about no longer being a man, or being male, I forget which.
OK, I did realize that. However, he should realize that people coming
for the first time to this group will have no reason not to take them
seriously.
I initially took them at face-value. I still think it's not a good idea
to have such sigs, especially if mixed with others that aren't meant
sarcastically.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Jerry Friedman
2018-07-13 01:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Janet
Post by Quinn C
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they". Or any other
gender-neutral pronoun you prefer (e, ey, ze, xe ...)
If he hopes for personal recognition as gender-neutral, I suggest he
abandons the dickhead-male sigs.
" their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. "
" Woman is a pair of ovaries with a human being attached, whereas man
is a human being furnished with a pair of testes"
Wow, someone is not getting the message. If I quoted statements
advocating flat-earth theory, would you think I believed them?
I must have live a sheltered life, because I didn't think anyone these
days could take these statements as any more than a museum of
curiosities.
Which I present with a serious intent: Only a good 100 years ago, quite
intelligent people who we owe important medical progress to could hold
ideas about the sexes that are so obviously absurd to us now.
...

That usage of "a good" suggests that the quantity is big. It doesn't go
with "only". You want something like "Only a hundred-odd years ago" or
"Not much more than a century ago".
--
Jerry Friedman
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-07-13 14:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Why do you think I suppressed what the colleague actually said, after
leading with a tease?
"suppressed"?
Why did you use the word "suppressed"? AFAICS, you quoted them in full.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Quinn C
Your question should have been: What do they have against Croatia?
Not "What does s/he have against Croatia?"?
That's another option.
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
You did say "*One* colleague".
I, for one, prefer being referred to as "they".
Sorry, I do know that, but forgot. Apologies.

/Anders, Denmark.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-11 13:44:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-11 15:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-11 17:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
With lots and lots of diacritical marks! Not to the extent of
Vietnamese, of course, but Serb manages without any.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-11 18:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:07:19 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
And they gave us the cravat.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Quinn C
2018-07-11 18:13:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 08:07:19 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
And they gave us the cravat.
Now there's a big negative! Although the original may not have been as
suffocating.
--
ASCII to ASCII, DOS to DOS
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-07-11 20:29:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
Depends on who you are. Most Russians will, I expect, find the Serbian
alphabet more legible than the Croatian.

/Anders, Denmark.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-11 20:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
Depends on who you are. Most Russians will, I expect, find the Serbian
alphabet more legible than the Croatian.
The readers of this newsgroup use the Croatian alphabet.
RH Draney
2018-07-11 22:18:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
Depends on who you are. Most Russians will, I expect, find the Serbian
alphabet more legible than the Croatian.
The readers of this newsgroup use the Croatian alphabet.
Is that the one that was carved into the tree at the Roanoke colony?...r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-12 03:25:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
At least they use an alphabet with greater legibility than the Serbs do.
Depends on who you are. Most Russians will, I expect, find the Serbian
alphabet more legible than the Croatian.
The readers of this newsgroup use the Croatian alphabet.
Is that the one that was carved into the tree at the Roanoke colony?...r
Who knows?
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2018-07-12 03:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The readers of this newsgroup use the Croatian alphabet.
No, they don't, you ignorant asshole.
The Croatian alphabet has eight additional letters
not used in English and lacks four of ours.

Now just shut the fuck up and spare us your PeteY-weasel shit.

See the narcopathic asshole:
Loading Image...
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-12 03:27:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The readers of this newsgroup use the Croatian alphabet.
No, they don't, you ignorant asshole.
The Croatian alphabet has eight additional letters
not used in English and lacks four of ours.
Sociopath is as ignorant about English usage as ever, and about alphabets
as well, it turns out.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
2018-07-12 04:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Now just shut the fuck up and spare us your PeteY-weasel shit.
I snipped the predictable and *irrational* PeteY-weasel shit.

See narcopathic asshole PeteY:
http://aman.members.sonic.net/PeteY-tie.jpg
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-11 17:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
Don't bitch about them. Just like the Germans,
'the Croats now too, have god on their side',

Jan
David Kleinecke
2018-07-11 20:03:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
Don't bitch about them. Just like the Germans,
'the Croats now too, have god on their side',
My father like to quote Kaiser Bill - Got Mittens.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-12 06:32:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
Don't bitch about them. Just like the Germans,
'the Croats now too, have god on their side',
Who's bitching? During the Yugoslav wars, however, I did get irritated
by the way everything was blamed on the wicked Serbs.
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-12 10:41:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Ah, the saintly Croats, who never committed any atrocities during the
Yugoslav wars, and who valiantly opposed the Nazis during the Second
World War.
Don't bitch about them. Just like the Germans,
'the Croats now too, have god on their side',
Who's bitching?
You. You were blaming todays Croatians for
what their grandparents did during WWII.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
During the Yugoslav wars, however, I did get irritated
by the way everything was blamed on the wicked Serbs.
With good reason, most of the time.
However, did it really escape your attention that Slobodan Praljak
(a Croatian warlord held responsible for many atrocities)
was convicted for it in the Yougoslavia Tribunal in The Hague?

Jan
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-10 23:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-10 23:21:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
As do 4 of the French (with possibly more by the time the new
season starts). Croatia field a team that consists largely of players
that do or have in the past too. Not sure what you're trying to suggest!
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-11 12:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:21:05 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
As do 4 of the French (with possibly more by the time the new
season starts). Croatia field a team that consists largely of players
that do or have in the past too. Not sure what you're trying to suggest!
I was thinking ahead to a Final between England and Croatia. In a
club-membership sense that would be English versus mainly English, with
many players playing against their club-mates.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-11 15:06:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was thinking ahead to a Final between England and Croatia. In a
club-membership sense that would be English versus mainly English, with
many players playing against their club-mates.
How was it even possible to end up with four Europe teams? Does it not
work like a tennis or basketball tournament, with pairings going up the
tree from the initial 32 or whatever competitors? And they do talk about
geographical groupings.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-11 16:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was thinking ahead to a Final between England and Croatia. In a
club-membership sense that would be English versus mainly English, with
many players playing against their club-mates.
How was it even possible to end up with four Europe teams? Does it not
work like a tennis or basketball tournament, with pairings going up the
tree from the initial 32 or whatever competitors? And they do talk about
geographical groupings.
Qualification for the finals is done by continental groupings resulting
in an initial 32 this time of

7 S. & Central American
14 European
7 African & Middle Eastern
4 Asian & Australasian

After that all regional bets are off. The group stage is seeded
on the basis of world ranking alone (with the provision that
you won't be grouped with a team that you played in qualification).
From the last 16 onward, which only 6 non-European teams
reached, it's straight knock-out.

Previous semi finals ....

2014 2 S. America, 2 Europe
2010 1 S. America 3 Europe
2006 4 Europe

The aim is to get the best 4 teams into the semi-finals not, unlike
American competitions such as the Little League World Series, to
guarantee the host a spot in the final whatever the standard!
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-11 18:06:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
I was thinking ahead to a Final between England and Croatia. In a
club-membership sense that would be English versus mainly English, with
many players playing against their club-mates.
How was it even possible to end up with four Europe teams? Does it not
work like a tennis or basketball tournament, with pairings going up the
tree from the initial 32 or whatever competitors? And they do talk about
geographical groupings.
Qualification for the finals is done by continental groupings resulting
in an initial 32 this time of
7 S. & Central American
14 European
7 African & Middle Eastern
4 Asian & Australasian
The tournaments to achieve qualification start three years before the
World Cup competition itself. For this World Cup there were 210
countries who entered. (As host, Russia "qualified" automatically.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#Inter-confederation_play-offs

The qualifying tournaments for the 2022 World Cup start next year.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
After that all regional bets are off. The group stage is seeded
on the basis of world ranking alone (with the provision that
you won't be grouped with a team that you played in qualification).
From the last 16 onward, which only 6 non-European teams
reached, it's straight knock-out.
Previous semi finals ....
2014 2 S. America, 2 Europe
2010 1 S. America 3 Europe
2006 4 Europe
The aim is to get the best 4 teams into the semi-finals not, unlike
American competitions such as the Little League World Series, to
guarantee the host a spot in the final whatever the standard!
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Bob Martin
2018-07-11 05:32:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
Will that still be true after Brexit?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-11 09:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
Will that still be true after Brexit?
Brexit is unlikely to change that.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-11 10:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
Will that still be true after Brexit?
Yes, probably. The rules for non-EU players will simply take over. As
all the players in question are proven internationals by the very dint
of having been selected for the World Cup their ability to play for
English clubs won't be affected at all.
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-07-11 20:32:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?

/Anders, Denmark.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-11 20:50:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
Most of them aren't Belgian, NPR just explained.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-11 20:55:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
It is by no means a given that players who play for Belgium
are Belgian!
Quinn C
2018-07-11 21:20:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
It is by no means a given that players who play for Belgium
are Belgian!
One unusual fact about the Croatia team is that all players seem to
have Slavic names. No African, Arab or Turkish names in sight.

It's mostly true for England, too, but that's partially because their
colonizees have taken or been assigned English names.
--
Some things are taken away from you, some you leave behind-and
some you carry with you, world without end.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.31
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-11 21:13:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 22:32:13 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
/Anders, Denmark.
Yes.
"Belgian" can be used, but it is common in English (BrE) football
reporting to use "<team name> player(s)". "Belgium", "England",
"France", etc are the names of teams.

For example:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44800889

The FA has been fined 70,000 Swiss francs (£50,000) after Dele Alli,
Eric Dier and Raheem Sterling wore "unauthorised" socks at the World
Cup.

The players wore branded ankle support socks over official Nike
socks, ignoring a Fifa warning to stop.
....
-> Fifa said several England players "continued to display unauthorised
commercial branding on playing equipment items before and during the
quarter-final match between Sweden and England".

and from this live blog about today's match:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2018/07/11/england-vs-croatia-world-cup-2018-live-score-latest-updates/

-> Danijel Subasic, the Croatia goalkeeper...

9:43PM
Sam Wallace's match report coming up
stay here for the live blog reaction from Gareth Southgate and the
-> England players.

6:20PM
-> Here is how the England players got on last time out

-> Referee who has sent off three England players will officiate World
Cup semi-final
11 Jul 2018, 5:19pm
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
bill van
2018-07-11 21:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
/Anders, Denmark.
I've noticed that "Belgian" has been on the wane in English in recent
years, especially in news media. But I don't think it's going to
disappear entirely. Uses such as "The Belgians lost their semi-final to
France" will survive. I think.

bill
Richard Yates
2018-07-12 04:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bill van
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
/Anders, Denmark.
I've noticed that "Belgian" has been on the wane in English in recent
years, especially in news media. But I don't think it's going to
disappear entirely.
As long as there are waffles and horses.
Post by bill van
Uses such as "The Belgians lost their semi-final to
France" will survive. I think.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-12 06:36:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
Post by bill van
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
/Anders, Denmark.
I've noticed that "Belgian" has been on the wane in English in
recent>years, especially in news media. But I don't think it's going
to>disappear entirely.
As long as there are waffles and horses.
and chocolate, and beer.
Post by Richard Yates
Post by bill van
Uses such as "The Belgians lost their semi-final to>France" will
survive. I think.
--
athel
Mark Brader
2018-07-12 01:45:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
ObAUE: "Belgium" players? Not "Belgian"?
What it sounds like to me is that Peter was intending to identify what
team these players were on, as opposed to their citizenship. (I have
no idea of whether that is a sensible distinction in this context.)
--
Mark Brader | "I don't want to say they're unsafe,
Toronto | but they're dangerous."
***@vex.net | --former US transportation sec'y Ray Lahood
Pavel Svinchnik
2018-07-12 02:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Gosh. He really doesn't know the First Law of Holes: when you're in a
hole, stop digging.
In accountancy (which was my profession) they would say "If
they are digging themselves into a hole, the first thing to do
is to take away the spade".
It is surely obvious to everybody who is not completely geriatric
(and I am hot on your heels), that computers can outsmart us.
"Computers can never learn maths".
Rather than insulting me, come up with a kind of maths that
computers can never learn. Good luck for France tonight.
My master's thesis was a computer program that did symbolic deductive logic manipulations. Not sure if it actually learned anything other than what I programmed it to do. I had hoped to do my doctoral work on a computer program that learned via inductive logic but life interfered and I had to get a job instead.

Paul
David Kleinecke
2018-07-10 17:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
CAD is not what is usually called Applied Math. Just because
mathematics is applied does not make it Applied Math.

CAD is a perfectly respectable branch of Engineering.
Harrison Hill
2018-07-10 17:10:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
CAD is not what is usually called Applied Math. Just because
mathematics is applied does not make it Applied Math.
CAD is a perfectly respectable branch of Engineering.
"Just because mathematics is applied does not make it Applied Math".

Really and truly?
soup
2018-07-11 12:04:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
Harrison Hill
2018-07-12 08:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.

"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.

On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0. I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-12 11:16:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-12 12:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
--
athel
Harrison Hill
2018-07-12 12:52:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.

Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Richard Tobin
2018-07-12 13:47:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
No existing computer is "vastly more intelligent" than humans.
Computers vastly exceed human capabilities in some areas, but
intelligence is not yet one of them.

Even rocks exceed human capabilities in some respects - when thrown,
they can determine their own trajectories to infinite precision in
real time.

-- Richard
Harrison Hill
2018-07-12 14:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Harrison Hill
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
No existing computer is "vastly more intelligent" than humans.
Computers vastly exceed human capabilities in some areas, but
intelligence is not yet one of them.
You say "not yet"; but it won't be long. To say that Einstein
as a baby was "vastly more intelligent" than the people around
him, would net be an exaggeration.
Post by Richard Tobin
Even rocks exceed human capabilities in some respects - when thrown,
they can determine their own trajectories to infinite precision in
real time.
Only because, over billions of years, humans have decayed into what
have since become rocks. I think you need to "run that past me one
more time" as we used to say.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-12 15:25:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Harrison Hill
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
No existing computer is "vastly more intelligent" than humans.
Computers vastly exceed human capabilities in some areas, but
intelligence is not yet one of them.
You say "not yet"; but it won't be long. To say that Einstein
as a baby was "vastly more intelligent" than the people around
him, would net be an exaggeration.
Yes it would, on so many levels. Einstein himself would have been
horrified at the very suggestion.
Harrison Hill
2018-07-12 14:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
I suppose it depends where you draw your baseline. Google seems
to suggest that nobody has any idea how memory is "stored" in the brain.
I have not yet Googled "What electricity *is*", but I suspect nobody
has any idea about that either. If they did, there are probably no words
in our language that they could use to describe it back to us.

I'm pretty certain I heard the verb "electricate" used yesterday - by no
less an authority than Justin Timberlake. We need new verbs, but I'm not
convinced that we need "electricate".
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-12 14:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation. If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.

Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
Lanarcam
2018-07-12 14:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation. If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
Probably a waste of time, but try to read this:

<https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/cs11/report.html#Neural%20networks%20versus%20conventional%20computers>

"Neural networks process information in a similar way the human
brain does. The network is composed of a large number of highly
interconnected processing elements(neurones) working in parallel
to solve a specific problem. Neural networks learn by example.
They cannot be programmed to perform a specific task. The examples
must be selected carefully otherwise useful time is wasted or even
worse the network might be functioning incorrectly. The disadvantage
is that because the network finds out how to solve the problem
by itself, its operation can be unpredictable."
Harrison Hill
2018-07-12 14:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them.
They process inputs - like we all do.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation.
Excel has PI(). Lotus DOS (the most powerful spreadsheet ever created) had
PI. I guess Supercalc might have had PI. Computers have *accurate* pi.

I once sat with a person I thought was about as stupid as anyone I'd
ever met. He was using a really crummy spreadsheet. After a while I
became frustrated and asked him "What is that spreadsheet?"

"It is one I wrote myself", he said. What a thing to be able to say!
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
If you are going to go sub-atomic on me, then prepare to be hilariously
terrified.
Tony Cooper
2018-07-12 15:42:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:08:15 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them.
In the US, you could change "Computers" to "Politicians" and "anyone"
to "lobbyists" and the sentence would ring true.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-12 16:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation. If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare.
You seem to be forgetting the Third Law. (And perhaps the First Law as well.)
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
He's not in bad company.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-12 16:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation. If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare.
You seem to be forgetting the Third Law. (And perhaps the First Law as well.)
What's it got to do with entropy. Oh, that third law. S'not a robot, innit!
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
He's not in bad company.
Hmm. Nobody really believes it. It's just the stuff of specious analogy!
Quinn C
2018-07-12 17:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation. If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
None of this has much to do with intelligence. You point out that
(current) computers don't have intrinsic motivation, which is an
important difference between them and life, whether human life or an
amoeba. I believe it's part of why programming them to do emotions or
ethics seems so much more difficult than chess.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
It should be much more terrifying then that the majority of scientist
believe a version of it.
--
... their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-12 22:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quinn C
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation. If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
None of this has much to do with intelligence. You point out that
(current) computers don't have intrinsic motivation, which is an
important difference between them and life, whether human life or an
amoeba. I believe it's part of why programming them to do emotions or
ethics seems so much more difficult than chess.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
It should be much more terrifying then that the majority of scientist
believe a version of it.
I trust you have some evidence of this apparent mass exodus from logic
and reason.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-13 07:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Quinn C
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation. If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
None of this has much to do with intelligence. You point out that
(current) computers don't have intrinsic motivation, which is an
important difference between them and life, whether human life or an
amoeba. I believe it's part of why programming them to do emotions or
ethics seems so much more difficult than chess.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
It should be much more terrifying then that the majority of scientist
believe a version of it.
I trust you have some evidence of this apparent mass exodus from logic
and reason.
+1. Quinn is being ridiculous, unless he can produce evidence.
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2018-07-13 01:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation.
So the question of artificial intelligence is whether it will be
possible to program a future computer in a way that amounts to telling
it to be intelligent.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
An interesting question there is whether a computer can be programmed to
simulate a human brain to such a degree of accuracy that the computer
acts like a brain. Presumably it would need sensory inputs and motor
outputs.

However, that may well not be the best way to make an intelligent computer.
--
Jerry Friedman
Harrison Hill
2018-07-13 07:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-07-12 13:16:28 +0200, Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by soup
Post by Harrison Hill
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
So what used to be called a draughtsman .
Doesn't actually understand what he is doing but does produce some
pretty pictures.
In the Engineering design office, CAD is the least-well paid
discipline; so is a skill to avoid if you are ambitious. That can be
easily and painlessly achieved, when you are starting out, by taking
so long over it that next time they ask somebody else.
"Doesn't understand what he is doing", is unfair. Nobody in that
Office "understands what they are doing"; the people at the top know
what they are trying to achieve; the experts at the bottom know
whatever their speciality is. In the middle are the designers, who liaise
with everybody to make sure the project comes together.
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0.
No. It can't!
Post by Harrison Hill
I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
Not really necessary. One just need to ask oneself if it makes any more
sense than most of the things you write.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If that's how your brain works it explains a lot. The rest of us have vastly
more complex systems in play.
Well I think we can agree that super-computers have binary ("1-0",
"on/off", "charge/no charge") memory *only*? Since they are vastly
more intelligent than either of you two, I take it as a great compliment
that you consider me to have super-computer qualities.
Sure we (and they) have "processes" (Madrigal), but those complex
processes originate from electrical binary processes.
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation.
So the question of artificial intelligence is whether it will be
possible to program a future computer in a way that amounts to telling
it to be intelligent.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
An interesting question there is whether a computer can be programmed to
simulate a human brain to such a degree of accuracy that the computer
acts like a brain. Presumably it would need sensory inputs and motor
outputs.
However, that may well not be the best way to make an intelligent computer.
We are sophisticated machines, but we are designed for climbing
trees and fighting wolves - there wouldn't be any point in
replicating us.

When you make an "intelligent computer", you would surely make
it highly intelligent, and able to learn, in *just* its specialism.
If it performs heart-surgery, then heart-surgery is all it needs
to know.
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-13 09:50:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip]
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation.
So the question of artificial intelligence is whether it will be
possible to program a future computer in a way that amounts to telling
it to be intelligent.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
An interesting question there is whether a computer can be programmed to
simulate a human brain to such a degree of accuracy that the computer
acts like a brain. Presumably it would need sensory inputs and motor
outputs.
However, that may well not be the best way to make an intelligent computer.
We are sophisticated machines, but we are designed for climbing
trees and fighting wolves - there wouldn't be any point in
replicating us.
Ah, yes.
The massed trees and the ferocious bands of wolves
of the African savanne.
No idea how humanity managed to survive,

Jan
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-13 10:19:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. J. Lodder
[snip]
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Computers are not intelligent. They do whatever anyone tells them. If
they are given a program that calculates the value of pi as 54 they will
report that result without the slightest reservation.
So the question of artificial intelligence is whether it will be
possible to program a future computer in a way that amounts to telling
it to be intelligent.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If they are given a
program that results in their own destruction they will process it without
any concern for their own or anybody else's welfare. If they are dropped
in the ocean they will make no attempt to swim to safety. Anything and
everything they do is mindless.
Meanwhile, any resemblance between the binary operations of a
computer and the electro-chemical processes of the brain is a fiction.
That you believe it a reasonable model is both hilarious and terrifying!
An interesting question there is whether a computer can be programmed to
simulate a human brain to such a degree of accuracy that the computer
acts like a brain. Presumably it would need sensory inputs and motor
outputs.
However, that may well not be the best way to make an intelligent computer.
We are sophisticated machines, but we are designed for climbing
trees and fighting wolves - there wouldn't be any point in
replicating us.
Ah, yes.
The massed trees and the ferocious bands of wolves
of the African savanne.
No idea how humanity managed to survive,
Sorry? Are you saying that ape descendants are NOT designed
for climbing trees?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-13 12:48:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Harrison Hill
We are sophisticated machines, but we are designed for climbing
trees and fighting wolves - there wouldn't be any point in
replicating us.
Ah, yes.
The massed trees and the ferocious bands of wolves
of the African savanne.
No idea how humanity managed to survive,
Sorry? Are you saying that ape descendants are NOT designed
for climbing trees?
Do you know of any ape descendants?

HH is of course wrong about hominins/hominids/whatever being designed for
"climbing trees" -- they wouldn't be bipedal if they were -- and for
"fighting" predators -- they would have rather better offensive equipment
if they were -- and about the concept "designed" -- but countering one
myth with another isn't a good way to proceed.
Richard Tobin
2018-07-13 12:57:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Do you know of any ape descendants?
Are you not descended from your mother?

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-13 13:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Do you know of any ape descendants?
Are you not descended from your mother?
Have you looked at a cladistics diagram lately? Or really, since the time
of Bishop Wilberforce? No one suggested that humans are "descended from" apes.
Richard Tobin
2018-07-13 13:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Do you know of any ape descendants?
Are you not descended from your mother?
Have you looked at a cladistics diagram lately?
Yes, this one for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Historical_and_modern_terminology

We are apes back to 20 million years ago.

Even if you choose to exclude humans from being apes, we are descended
from the common ancestor of chimps and gorillas, which was certainly
an ape.

-- Richard
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-13 13:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Harrison Hill
We are sophisticated machines, but we are designed for climbing
trees and fighting wolves - there wouldn't be any point in
replicating us.
Ah, yes.
The massed trees and the ferocious bands of wolves
of the African savanne.
No idea how humanity managed to survive,
Sorry? Are you saying that ape descendants are NOT designed
for climbing trees?
Do you know of any ape descendants?
I'm one myself.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
HH is of course wrong about hominins/hominids/whatever being designed for
"climbing trees" -- they wouldn't be bipedal if they were -- and for
"fighting" predators -- they would have rather better offensive equipment
if they were -- and about the concept "designed" -- but countering one
myth with another isn't a good way to proceed.
--
athel
RHDraney
2018-07-12 15:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0. I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
We found there were several levels of understanding on this when people
starting singing the praises of digital reproduction of sound...the
continuous/analog people said that digital recording was "cold" and
"lifeless"...the discrete/digital side countered that with sufficient
resolution it could be made more accurate than analog recording...the
analog side then pointed out that the human ear is by nature an analog
device, with the eardrum moving through a range of positions with each
vibration...then the digital folks said that while that might be true,
perception depended not upon all those intermediate positions but by
whether various neurons either fired or did not during listening; there
was no "this one fired 63% of the way" setting....r
Harrison Hill
2018-07-13 07:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RHDraney
Post by Harrison Hill
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0. I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
We found there were several levels of understanding on this when people
starting singing the praises of digital reproduction of sound...the
continuous/analog people said that digital recording was "cold" and
"lifeless"...the discrete/digital side countered that with sufficient
resolution it could be made more accurate than analog recording...the
analog side then pointed out that the human ear is by nature an analog
device, with the eardrum moving through a range of positions with each
vibration...then the digital folks said that while that might be true,
perception depended not upon all those intermediate positions but by
whether various neurons either fired or did not during listening; there
was no "this one fired 63% of the way" setting....r
Even more "analogue" than sound is (arguably) sight. Between pure black
and pure white are thousands of hues, of various colours, that we can
just about distinguish. Should we describe them in analogue form or
digital form?

For all my adult lifetime the RGB function is the only way a pixel
can tell what colour to be: "0,0,0" is black; "255,255,255" is white;
every other colour is somewhere in between. (I've never used RGB
and it strikes me that yellow might be difficult to achieve!). How
could you tell a pixel what to do without a binary function such as
RGB?
Jerry Friedman
2018-07-13 13:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Harrison Hill
Post by RHDraney
Post by Harrison Hill
On the question (posed earlier) about a computer being a big abacus; it
is an abacus with just one bead per rung. Everything in this world can
be explained using 1 and 0. I doubt if our brains use anything more
sophisticated than "on" and "off" - but perhaps Athel can enlighten us.
We found there were several levels of understanding on this when people
starting singing the praises of digital reproduction of sound...the
continuous/analog people said that digital recording was "cold" and
"lifeless"...the discrete/digital side countered that with sufficient
resolution it could be made more accurate than analog recording...the
analog side then pointed out that the human ear is by nature an analog
device, with the eardrum moving through a range of positions with each
vibration...then the digital folks said that while that might be true,
perception depended not upon all those intermediate positions but by
whether various neurons either fired or did not during listening; there
was no "this one fired 63% of the way" setting....r
Even more "analogue" than sound is (arguably) sight. Between pure black
and pure white are thousands of hues, of various colours, that we can
just about distinguish. Should we describe them in analogue form or
digital form?
For all my adult lifetime the RGB function is the only way a pixel
Probably true of screens, but definitely not true of printing. You
could look up "CMYK". After that, you could learn about high-quality
color printing. It won't take you long to know more than I do.
Post by Harrison Hill
"0,0,0" is black; "255,255,255" is white;
every other colour is somewhere in between. (I've never used RGB
and it strikes me that yellow might be difficult to achieve!).
There are lots of sites where you can play around with RGB. You might
enjoy learning how yellow and other colors are achieved.
Post by Harrison Hill
How
could you tell a pixel what to do without a binary function such as
RGB?
Human color vision is pretty complicated.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...