On 28.09.2015 19:51, Tim Wescott wrote: (snip)> I agree. I try to separate the two (well, the three if you factor in > fascination with the person herself -- and I say "her" because that's the > way I swing). > > However, presentation certainly is a factor in valuing a person in an > academic role -- people who are absolutely brilliant but can't > communicate for beans is always going to need people around them who are > damned smart to translate what they say into more human language. > Someone who's both brilliant and can communicate (like Feynman) has a > head start in that regard. >Feynman is a legend indeed. My main qualifications (and a Ph.D.) are in semiconductor physics. So, there is a picture of him in the lab tearoom. :) Regards, Evgeny.
OT: I'm ticked off at DSP guru fred harris
Started by ●September 27, 2015
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
Wow!! The replies to my original post are both fascinating and troubling. I posted a message that compliments a lady engineer for her intentionally appealing photo, and poked good natured fun at my friends Eric and Randy. And as far as I can tell Eric and Randy were mildly entertained. But, for some reason I can't understand, some of you were highly offended. In fact, Tim actually called me a "sexist" and Robert BJ wrote that I'd "better shape up, boy." I hope this newsgroup doesn't become a place where "Tolerance is strictly enforced" and we're compelled to drink the intellectually- poisonous "Political Correctness Kool-Aid." For everyone who replied to my original post, which face in the following illustration best represents you? http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/thats-not-funny/399335/ [-Rick-]
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
On 9/30/2015 5:52 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 9/30/15 5:45 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 9/30/2015 4:48 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> On 9/30/15 4:39 PM, Rick Lyons wrote: >>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:44 -0400, robert bristow-johnson >>>> <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/29/15 10:53 AM, b2508 wrote: >>>>>> I cannot believe that such topic exists! I don't know how old you >>>>>> are but >>>>>> this initial post is not ok even if you are a teenager! >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly you all know each other here but I think this kind of topics >>>>>> should remain in your private circles. >>>>> >>>>> Randy or Rick, it's your mother speaking to you. >>>>> >>>>> better shape up, boy. >>>> >>>> Rbj, >>>> By "shape up" do you mean Randy and I should think like you? >>> >>> i think everybody should think like me. >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> >>>> And if we don't "shape up" what are you going to do about it? >>> >>> i dunno. complain about how sexist and adolescent the thread is, i >>> s'pose. >> >> Unlike the threads that are just adolescent? >> > > oh no! i like the adolescent ones. > > but, being a prude, i just cannot deal with any reference to sex or > pussy hairs or locomotives or anything combining locomotives and pussies > (what an image!) or anything kinky like that. the USENET police should > deal harshly with that!I gather you are actually amused by this which I can understand. I don't care a lot one way or the other about postings here. There is a lot that goes on in newsgroups that makes this pale in comparison. I was posting in the Forth forum some time back and found they were using the term "carnal knowledge" of the computer system in a proposed addition to the ANS Forth standard. A lot of them are not native English speakers so I pointed out that the definition of "carnal knowledge" was to have sex with someone. I figured maybe they didn't understand this was not a term that meant what they were using it for. They laughed at me and called me a prude. I wasn't offended by the term. I just thought it was not a good way of expressing the concept given there was no reference that showed it meant what they were saying. I thought the many responses were very silly and not at all professional. This thread reminds me of that, but it isn't going into a standard, so I don't care much. I don't know if the term ever made it into the Forth standard. If it did, I hope it was defined somewhere. It seems very silly indeed to talk about having sex with your computer. -- Rick
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
On 9/30/2015 6:09 PM, Rick Lyons wrote:> > Wow!! > > The replies to my original post are both > fascinating and troubling. > > I posted a message that compliments a lady > engineer for her intentionally appealing photo, > and poked good natured fun at my friends Eric > and Randy. And as far as I can tell Eric and > Randy were mildly entertained. But, for some > reason I can't understand, some of you were > highly offended. In fact, Tim actually called > me a "sexist" and Robert BJ wrote that I'd > "better shape up, boy." > > I hope this newsgroup doesn't become a place > where "Tolerance is strictly enforced" and > we're compelled to drink the intellectually- > poisonous "Political Correctness Kool-Aid."How is anything "enforced" in a newsgroup?> For everyone who replied to my original post, > which face in the following illustration best > represents you? > > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/thats-not-funny/399335/If the responses bother you, you might want to rethink your foray into standup comedy. Remember Michael Richards? -- Rick
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:52:58 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 9/30/15 5:45 PM, rickman wrote: >> On 9/30/2015 4:48 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>> On 9/30/15 4:39 PM, Rick Lyons wrote: >>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:44 -0400, robert bristow-johnson >>>> <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/29/15 10:53 AM, b2508 wrote: >>>>>> I cannot believe that such topic exists! I don't know how old you >>>>>> are but this initial post is not ok even if you are a teenager! >>>>>> >>>>>> Clearly you all know each other here but I think this kind of >>>>>> topics should remain in your private circles. >>>>> >>>>> Randy or Rick, it's your mother speaking to you. >>>>> >>>>> better shape up, boy. >>>> >>>> Rbj, >>>> By "shape up" do you mean Randy and I should think like you? >>> >>> i think everybody should think like me. >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> >>>> And if we don't "shape up" what are you going to do about it? >>> >>> i dunno. complain about how sexist and adolescent the thread is, i >>> s'pose. >> >> Unlike the threads that are just adolescent? >> >> > oh no! i like the adolescent ones. > > but, being a prude, i just cannot deal with any reference to sex or > pussy hairs or locomotives or anything combining locomotives and pussies > (what an image!) or anything kinky like that. the USENET police should > deal harshly with that!I don't get it. What's the matter with cats and cat hair? Explain, please! -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
On 9/30/15 6:09 PM, Rick Lyons wrote:> > Wow!! > > The replies to my original post are both > fascinating and troubling. > > I posted a message that compliments a lady > engineer for her intentionally appealing photo, > and poked good natured fun at my friends Eric > and Randy. And as far as I can tell Eric and > Randy were mildly entertained. But, for some > reason I can't understand, some of you were > highly offended. In fact, Tim actually called > me a "sexist" and Robert BJ wrote that I'd > "better shape up, boy."just "teaming up" with b2508, whoever that is.> > I hope this newsgroup doesn't become a place > where "Tolerance is strictly enforced" and > we're compelled to drink the intellectually- > poisonous "Political Correctness Kool-Aid."hey Rick, you gotta know when someone is deadpanning you. i think you and i have been here before, long ago. more than a decade. (regarding your book and not defining "Nyquist frequency" it in, which i ribbed you about.) since google groups works like shit now, i can't find the thread. sorry if i offended. i didn't mean to. -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
On 9/30/2015 6:29 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:52:58 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > >> On 9/30/15 5:45 PM, rickman wrote: >>> On 9/30/2015 4:48 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>>> On 9/30/15 4:39 PM, Rick Lyons wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:44 -0400, robert bristow-johnson >>>>> <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/29/15 10:53 AM, b2508 wrote: >>>>>>> I cannot believe that such topic exists! I don't know how old you >>>>>>> are but this initial post is not ok even if you are a teenager! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clearly you all know each other here but I think this kind of >>>>>>> topics should remain in your private circles. >>>>>> >>>>>> Randy or Rick, it's your mother speaking to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> better shape up, boy. >>>>> >>>>> Rbj, >>>>> By "shape up" do you mean Randy and I should think like you? >>>> >>>> i think everybody should think like me. >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> >>>>> And if we don't "shape up" what are you going to do about it? >>>> >>>> i dunno. complain about how sexist and adolescent the thread is, i >>>> s'pose. >>> >>> Unlike the threads that are just adolescent? >>> >>> >> oh no! i like the adolescent ones. >> >> but, being a prude, i just cannot deal with any reference to sex or >> pussy hairs or locomotives or anything combining locomotives and pussies >> (what an image!) or anything kinky like that. the USENET police should >> deal harshly with that! > > I don't get it. What's the matter with cats and cat hair? Explain, > please!No body wants to hear about Mrs. Slocombe's pussy's hairs. -- Rick
Reply by ●September 30, 20152015-09-30
robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 9/30/15 4:39 PM, Rick Lyons wrote: >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:44 -0400, robert bristow-johnson >> <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/29/15 10:53 AM, b2508 wrote: >>>> I cannot believe that such topic exists! I don't know how old you >>>> are but >>>> this initial post is not ok even if you are a teenager! >>>> >>>> Clearly you all know each other here but I think this kind of topics >>>> should remain in your private circles. >>> >>> Randy or Rick, it's your mother speaking to you. >>> >>> better shape up, boy. >> >> Rbj, >> By "shape up" do you mean Randy and I should think like you? > > i think everybody should think like me. > > :-) > >Of course. To do otherwise would cause some sort of Cretan Paradox black hole...>> And if we don't "shape up" what are you going to do about it? > > i dunno. complain about how sexist and adolescent the thread is, i s'pose. > > beats me. > > :-\ > >-- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 1, 20152015-10-01
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:> On 9/30/2015 6:29 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:52:58 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >>> On 9/30/15 5:45 PM, rickman wrote: >>>> On 9/30/2015 4:48 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>>>> On 9/30/15 4:39 PM, Rick Lyons wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:44 -0400, robert bristow-johnson >>>>>> <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/29/15 10:53 AM, b2508 wrote: >>>>>>>> I cannot believe that such topic exists! I don't know how old you >>>>>>>> are but this initial post is not ok even if you are a teenager! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Clearly you all know each other here but I think this kind of >>>>>>>> topics should remain in your private circles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Randy or Rick, it's your mother speaking to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> better shape up, boy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rbj, >>>>>> By "shape up" do you mean Randy and I should think like you? >>>>> >>>>> i think everybody should think like me. >>>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And if we don't "shape up" what are you going to do about it? >>>>> >>>>> i dunno. complain about how sexist and adolescent the thread is, i >>>>> s'pose. >>>> >>>> Unlike the threads that are just adolescent? >>>> >>>> >>> oh no! i like the adolescent ones. >>> >>> but, being a prude, i just cannot deal with any reference to sex or >>> pussy hairs or locomotives or anything combining locomotives and pussies >>> (what an image!) or anything kinky like that. the USENET police should >>> deal harshly with that! >> >> I don't get it. What's the matter with cats and cat hair? Explain, >> please! > > No body wants to hear about Mrs. Slocombe's pussy's hairs.Eeeeeewe! -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply by ●October 1, 20152015-10-01
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:> On 9/30/2015 6:29 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:52:58 -0400, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >>> On 9/30/15 5:45 PM, rickman wrote: >>>> On 9/30/2015 4:48 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >>>>> On 9/30/15 4:39 PM, Rick Lyons wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:18:44 -0400, robert bristow-johnson >>>>>> <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/29/15 10:53 AM, b2508 wrote: >>>>>>>> I cannot believe that such topic exists! I don't know how old you >>>>>>>> are but this initial post is not ok even if you are a teenager! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Clearly you all know each other here but I think this kind of >>>>>>>> topics should remain in your private circles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Randy or Rick, it's your mother speaking to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> better shape up, boy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rbj, >>>>>> By "shape up" do you mean Randy and I should think like you? >>>>> >>>>> i think everybody should think like me. >>>>> >>>>> :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And if we don't "shape up" what are you going to do about it? >>>>> >>>>> i dunno. complain about how sexist and adolescent the thread is, i >>>>> s'pose. >>>> >>>> Unlike the threads that are just adolescent? >>>> >>>> >>> oh no! i like the adolescent ones. >>> >>> but, being a prude, i just cannot deal with any reference to sex or >>> pussy hairs or locomotives or anything combining locomotives and pussies >>> (what an image!) or anything kinky like that. the USENET police should >>> deal harshly with that! >> >> I don't get it. What's the matter with cats and cat hair? Explain, >> please! > > No body wants to hear about Mrs. Slocombe's pussy's hairs.No, wait, I misread that. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
