Posts by Martin 1436 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jan 2008
Hmmm.
Until I see the actual Dartmouth BASIC manual, or a copy of it, and not merely multiple assertions all over the web, I'll stick by my memory. We knew that Algol was Algorithm Language, and Fortran was Formula Translation - but Beginner's All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code? Please allow me to be very dubious.
"Don't forget that BASIC was developed at Dartmouth college as a simplified (hence the "B") way to teach programming..."
You are aware, aren't you, that the "Beginner's All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code" is a retro-fitted phrase? BASIC was called BASIC because it was basic. Afterwards, people asked "But what does it stand for?" and someone came up with this truly horrible suggestion.
I was using BASIC in 1971 on a PDP-10 at Hatfield Polytechnic over a phone line from our school. But I didn't hear anything about "Beginner's etc etc" until sometime in the 1980s - round about the time that the story that BASIC was invented by Bill Gates started.
A couple of pedantic points
A tome is a big heavy book. The major advantage of e-books is that a whole library, never mind an individual book, is not big and heavy.
And if VAT at 20% is removed from an e-book, that reduces the price by approximately 17%..
But yes - I don't quite see why an e-book should attract VAT when a paper book does not....
Actually, not quite...
In the case of ePub, even if Sony, Kobo AND Adobe all go bust (which is roughly what would need to happen for Digital Editions to stop working) the books will continue to work on your licenced readers and PC.s.
Kindle - not so sure...
But this is why people strip the DRM off their books - so that they DO keep them if the worst comes to the worst.
About every tenth time it happens, I ask - why on earth are people so damn RUDE on the internet?
Why do people on forums routinely use the sort of language that would get them sacked if they used it at work, and smacked in the face if they used it down the pub?
It's possible to disagree with someone, or observe that they have missed a point, without resorting to abuse.
The very first sentence of the article is completely misleading, in a way that the Discovery Institute or Answers In Genesis would be proud of.
There is no indication or even an implication that 'Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be "treated"'.
In fact the press release states that "From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected...People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think."
It also says that ""This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat."
There is no suggestion whatsoever that this sort of skepticism is a "sickness of society". On the contrary, it says that this behaviour is to be expected.
But I've given up expecting fair or reasonable discussion on this subject on El Reg.
Good science is self evident?!
Let me just mention a few items:-
Newton's laws of motion
Special relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Plate Tectonics
Evolution
Genetics and DNA
Those are all, unarguably and undeniable, good science. They were all far from self evident when they were first postulated.
I have a horrible feeling that in a hundred years time, AGW will also be on this list.
Actually, I think you'll find it's the other way round.
Science, being science, is generally adjusted to fit the facts. That includes climate science. That's why the predictions are adjusted as we get more data.
Deniers are the ones who deny evidence, spout FUD and make dogmatic statements with no evidence. The above post being a classic example.
Just for precision:-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Or to put it another way - you won't be arrested for simply saying "fuck" in public. You won't normally even be arrested if you just tell a copper to "fuck off" - unless he feels threatened. If a cop arrested someone every time he was told to fuck off, he'd literally have no time to do anything else.
Frankly, why should coppers - or anyone else in public service - have to put up with "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" when they are just doing their job?
...how hard would it be to ensure that the tickets for the show are not transferable and hence put the kibosh on the profiteers?
And if you do need some way of valid transfers at face value only - well, Google are a pretty significant technology company and should be able to solve said problem.
Look, we know that Lewis Page only ever covers news which supports his anti AGW agenda. But with comments like "famous climate-alarmist scientists", he is going way beyond what is really justifiable.
It's actually a good thing for everyone that someone has done some research and discovered that things are not quite as we first thought. It's called science. We can never be sure we're absolutely right. But it's just another datum. As someone above said, it doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening.
Honestly, the last time I saw so much one-sided reporting on a science issue, it was the Discovery Institute trying to deny evolution.
Difference is that I could see how useful a good search engine would be. I don't see why a huge number of people would want to make their photos look old. I bet 25 million of the 27 million users have downloaded the app, tried it and thought "Cool!" and then never used it again.
...as I gave to the person who was approximately as rude as you were about Verity Stob.
At the top of each article, you'll see a few words. These are called a title. They are there to give you some idea what the article is about. The BOFH articles always have the word "BOFH" at the start of the title.
If you don't like the BOFH, refrain from clicking on these articles.
I can reasonably fit about four thousand books into my house, and I've now run out of space.
I buy beautiful books, and I buy first editions for my collection - all else I get as an ebook if I can. And I'm told that it's relatively easy to strip the DRM, so that it becomes my own. Not that I'd know anything about that, of course.
Another braindead moron here defending the Kindle.
The Kindle sold well despite it not supporting ePub (which I personally regret). It's dead easy to use and it's cheap, and it looks good.
I've got both a Sony Reader and a Kindle. Means I can choose the cheapest book.
And btw - if you wouldn't up to a large hefty bloke reading a Kindle on the tube and tell him he's a brain-dead moron, why do you think it's acceptable to use the same language on the Internet?
He created the world in six days, then rested for a day.
Then it was Monday again. And just like you and me, it was back to work, creating the rest of the universe. Probably took him several six-day weeks.
The bible is inerrant, but it doesn't include absolutely everything God ever did.
"I once got a defendant a non custodial sentence for smashing a brick into his girlfriends face.... not a proud moment."
No you didn't. He either pleaded guilty or was found guilty, and the sentence was not a matter for you. You just did your job, which was to defend him to the best of your ability. If the prosecution couldn't prove GBH, or the bench was too soft, that's not your problem.
If the political will was there, and the finance was available, it would be perfectly possible.
If we could start more-or-less from scratch in 1961 and get a moon landing by 1969, then with our additional technical knowledge, and our massively more powerful and efficient computers, I can see no good technical reason why we couldn't have a base on the moon by 2020.
I agree with you, of course. It'll never happen.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
