Re: misK

[Douglas Alan <nessus@mit.edu>]

Steve Harris <steve@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk> wrote:

>>    Notice how the Aboriginal airplane lyrics come right before the "Night
>>    of the Swallow", which is a song about an airplane.  Isn't Kate
>>    awesome?

> Yes, but that's hardly a Mensa-difficulty link...let's keep _some_ 
> perspective here ;-)

It's not the connection between the Aboriginal lyrics and the
following song that is so awesome, per se.  It is the fact that Kate
would bother to make this subtle and sublime connection and then make
the connection so obscure that no one would ever be able to figure it
out.  This shows an incredible attention to details that only Kate
could notice.  One wonders what other myriad buried treasures are to
be found if only one knew what Kate knows.  Besides, when it comes to
Kate Bush, perspective is not what is required; rabid, unwavering
devotion is.

>> 3. Regarding "Tori Aimless"... isn't that "Boring Aimless".  At least
>>    that's what my wife calls her through my adament protests.  Perhaps
>>    Tori's latest album is turning me to my wife's perspective, though...

> The latest TA album requires a lot of concentration and effort, but
> it's well worth it.  I like it as so much music these days is 'in yer
> face', shallow, talentless cr*p, which requires one brain cell to
> listen to, and when you've listened to it once, that's it, there's
> nothing more to get out of it.

Bah, humbug!  There's plenty of wonderful music out there, among which
Tori's music used to be near the top.  On the most recent album though
Tori seems to have forgotten how to write a decent melody and tries to
cover up this fact with overly melodramatic phrasing that obscures
what little melodic innovation there was to begin with.  All in all,
most of the album ends up sounding like an homogonous paste.  This is
quite a departure from her first album, on which nearly every song
scintillated with brilliance.

>>    ...is without a doubt the
>>    most upsurd and offensive statement I have seen in all my years...

> Almost as upsurd as your spillung :-)

Unfortunately, some of us are a bit lysdexic.  Please be kind to our mistakes.

>>    Sure C++ is backward compatible with C,
>>    but look at the cost: A monstrosity of a language that is less
>>    powerful than laguages that are a hundred times simpler.

> Err, um?  Examples, please.

Scheme, Lisp, Smalltalk, Java, Sather, Self, Haskell, Modula 3,
Python, etc.

>>    And there aren't any C++ compilers for 286's.

> Tragic.  Who in their right (or left) mind still wants to use one?

I dunno.  Ask Chris.  My point, exactly.

>> - The angriest |>oug in the world

> Calm down, |>oug...do some deep breathing exercises, drink some wine,
> put on some music and relax, things don't matter _that_ much!  It's only
> life, after all.

I think I'll shake me up a Kate Bush Cocktail.

Chris Williams <chrisw@miso.wwa.com> writes:

>>   Chris Williams's claim that a Web page which only
>>   works with Netscape is worse that apartheid is without a doubt the
>>   most upsurd and offensive statement I have seen in all my years on
>>   the Internet.

>    That would be some accomplishment if it were true.

It is some accomplishment.  And it is true.

> How exactly is "you can't come into this store because you are
> black" different from "you can't read this page because you don't
> have expansive computer equipment"?

The differences are of such a magnitude and multitude that one hardly
knows where to begin.  The differences are so obvious and so
significant that it makes me question the sanity of anyone who would
say such a thing as you have said.  Either that or the person saying
such a thing has some veiled or latent racism that they are trying to
express.

>   Take away all the emotional elements - that the first inspires deep
> repugnance and the second doesn't seem to bother most people. Remove all
> that from the equation. Compare tham as two instances of bigotry; racial
> versus technical. 

And why should I take these things away from the equation?  The fact
of the matter is that apartheid SHOULD inspire deep repugnance, and
Netscape-only pages are at most a minor annoyance.  There is plenty of
material on the Web that I can't access from my Unix computer because
there is no good QuickTime implementation for Unix, or whatever.  Here
tons of money has been laid out for my computer, and I still can't
access some Web material!  You don't see me frothing at the mouth and
claiming that I'm being trampled on like a black person being pushed to
the back of the bus.  What planet are you living on, Chris?  Certainly
not the same one as I.

I don't plan on making a decent stab in this forum at listing all the
reasons why your position is full of crap, because listing all of the
reasons would take up many pages, and most of these reasons would be
obvious to all.  To be very brief, using your reasoning, Chris, the
Web itself would be just as bad as apartheid because not everyone can
afford a computer or a network connection.  Furthermore, charging
money for anything would be an attrocity because not everyone can
afford the price.  Writing a book in English (or a Web page, for that
matter) would be an attrocity unless you provided translations in
every known language.  Using your reasoning, Chris, it would be better
not to write a Web page at all, unless you had the time and resources
to make sure that it would work with all browsers.

The mind boggles at all the ways Netscape-only Web pages are precisely
NOT like apartheid.

> But the two biggest Kate Bush fans *cannot* see this page. Peter
> Fitzgerald-Morris has a 286 with a 9600-baud modem. Andy Marvick is
> on AOL.  What do these two major Kate fans see when they look at
> Mr. Siedhoff's page?

I truly doubt that either one of these fans would want their name used
to defend this repugnant position of yours.

> Do you know what the first English Language page to pop up in AltaVista
> when you search the phrase "Kate Bush"? Why, Mr. Burhard Siedhoff's! Try
> it and see. If any AOL user visits AltaVista and searches for info on 
> "Kate Bush", *that* is the sort of welcome they get.

Yeah, it's almost as bad as having rocks thrown through your window
when you move to a new town.  It's almost as bad as having crosses
burned on your front lawn and having your papa lynched.  You got me
there, Chris.

>>   Secondly, if you haven't noticed there is a war occuring on the
>>   Internet, and whether you like it or not, there is going to be only
>>   one winner: The choice is between Microsoft and Netscape.
>>   Microsoft is probably going to win this battle; in which case we
>>   will all lose.  On the other hand, there is still hope for
>>   Netscape.  Netscape may also be a dictator, but perhaps it will be
>>   a more benevolant dictator than the evil Microsoft.  

>   I'm using Microsoft IE 3.0 right now because it's a better browser.
> And it's smaller...not weighted down with a newsreader and mail program
> that I don't want. If anyone is in an economic position to compete with
> MS it is Netscape.

Microsoft has 2500 employees working on their Web software!  They are
pouring more money into this than Netscape and it's closest five
competors combined.

> You must have not been paying attention. Microsoft has been gaining
> ground by adhereing to standards. They have the first widely distributed
> browser to support Cascading Style Sheets...giving more power and 
> flexibility

You must be incredibly naive if you think that Microsoft has any
intention of ceding control of the Web to standards organizations.
Microsoft is in this game to win, and what they mean by win is
wresting control of the Web away from everyone else.  Netscape is
"ground zero" at the moment.  Once Netscape has been fried, the rest
of the dominoes will follow.  Microsoft's slogan in "Embrace and
Extend".  What do you think this "extend" means?  Well, for one thing
it means you get the ol' one two switch.  Look, there's Java in this
hand, and with a wave of the magic wand, poof it turns into Visual
Basic.  Applause everyone.  Bet you all can't wait to see what other
nifty tricks Microsoft has up its sleeves.

> Suggesting that compatibility of information be sacrificied just to
> spite Bill is insane. A "scorched earth" approach to the www.

It has nothing to do with "spite"; it has to do with who will control
the information standards of the twenty first century.  Having
Microsoft control them is just about one of the worst curses I could
wish on the world, short of an airborn Ebola virus.

> Poor analogy. Compiled code, in C or C++ or whatever still runs
> on the same machine.

Compiled C++ code does not run on a 286 because there aren't C++
compilers that will generate code for a 286.

> But if you were writing a utility and distributing the source, you
> would probably tend to write it in the most portable C possible.

No I wouldn't.  I have no interest whatsoever in writing C code.  Does
this make me a Nazi?

> Obviously I don't mean to belittle anyone's suffering.

Well, you are.  So stop.

- The angriest |>oug in the world