 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / February 2006Xah's Edu Corner: Examples of Quality Technical Writing
i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today. http://www.php.net/manual/en/ although Pretty Home Page is another criminal hack of the unix lineage, but if we are here to judge the quality of its documentation, it is a impeccability. it has or possesses properties of: To the point and useful. PHP has its roots in mundaness, like Perl and Apache. Its doc being practicality oriented isn't a surprise, as are the docs of Perl and Apache. Extreme clarity! The doc is extremely well-written. The authors's writing skills shows, that they can present their ideas clearly, and also that they have put thoughts into what they wanted to say. Ample usage examples. As with Perl's doc, PHP doc is not afraid to show example snippets, yet not abuse it as if simply slapping on examples in lieu of proper spec or discussion. Appropriate functions or keywords are interlinked. This aspect is also well done in other quality docs, such as Mathematica, Java, MS JScript, Perl's official docs. No abuse of jargons. In fact, it's so well written that there's almost no jargons in its docs, yet conveys its intentions to a tee. This aspect can also be seen in Mathematica's doc, or Microsoft's JScript doc, for examples. No author masturbation. (if fact, you won't see a first-person perspective, as is the case with most quality tech writing.) We must truely appreciate the authors of the PHP doc. Because, PHP, as a free sh.t in the unix sh.t culture, with extreme ties to Perl and Apache (both of which has extremely motherfucked docs), but can wean itself from a sh.t milieu and stand pure and clean to become a paragon of technical writing. ------------ Reminder for the purpose of this post: The world's mother f.ckers are the community and doc writers of: Unix (man pages), Perl, Apache, Python. As i have alluded or expounded before, the unix & Apache are criminally the worst, Perl being a close follow up. Python's on a class of its own, being a mutated Computer Sciency f.ck that is possibly even worse on the whole than Perl's doc. Here a sample list of a variety of quality technical writings: Mathematica http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/ Microsoft's JScript official docs http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsconjscriptfundamenta ls.asp Emacs Lisp Introduction (by Robert J. Chassell) http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-lisp-intro/ (GNU project's documentations are almost always quality documentations. For example, the official emacs and elisp docs ale both of high quality.) Java official doc http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/index.html Java, being a bottled-up inflexible language with incessant lies backup by huge amounts of $money$, nevertheless hired professional writers for its huge official documentation produced a very well done doc for a very complex language. (however, the official Java Tutorial is a f.cking crap) Scheme (R5RS) http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/HTML/r5rs-Z-H-2.html Scheme (Teaching yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days) http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme-Z-H-1.html These are all quality technical writings. They have different styles and audiences and coverages. If you want to see clarity and concision, see JScript, PHP, and Scheme intro. If you want to see clarity with verbosity, see Emacs Lisp Intro. For clarity sans arcana yet covers esoterica, see the Mathematica doc. Some of these are written for people with no experience in programing, yet functions as equivalent to teaching/documenting extremely advanced programing concepts. If you want to see proper use of jargons at a IT professional level, see the Java doc. If you want to see exemplary tech writing in a academic style, see the Scheme R5RS. Related essay: Why OpenSource Documentation is of Low Quality http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/gubni_papri.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ > i had the pleasure to read the PHP's manual today. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > • Extreme clarity! Do you have an "Approved by Xah Lee" seal logo they could put on their web page?  Signature__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ "Remember, Information is not knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom; Wisdom is not truth; Truth is not beauty; Beauty is not love; Love is not music; Music is the best." -- Frank Zappa > Do you have an "Approved by Xah Lee" seal logo they could put on their web page? Funny, that'd *exactly* mirror the opinion I have of PHP :D (btw, why is this posted to every newsgroup EXCEPT a PHP one? make us feel good?) SignatureMajority, n.: That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law. > btw, why is this posted to every newsgroup EXCEPT a PHP one? Xah's a pretty well-known troll in these parts. I suppose he thinks someone is going to take the bait and rush to "defend" the other languages or some such nonsense. sherm-- SignatureCocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org Post-modernism, Academia, and the Tech Geeking fuckheads the Sokal Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair SCIGen and World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities, Xah Lee http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/oop.html Politics and the English Language, George Orwell http://xahlee.org/p/george_orwell_english.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ I don't know about anyone else, but you'd impress me much more if you didn't swear in your posts. I am personally not offended, but it does lower your credibility in my eyes. Just a tip. Brad recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery. i felt a sensation of neatness, as if php = Perl Improved, for a dedicated job of server-side scripting. Everything is so-built-in, and the integrated functions for web application programing such as CGI/Database is so convenient. What a PRACTICALITY! It has gotten a long way, even now with a independent interpreter and engine (Zend) for embedded computation of any other mark-up lang. And, its array/hash is kinda linguistically cleaner, by combining the two into one. (after all, array indexes are unique, so they are denotationally and mathematically list of keyed pairs (hashes) too) As for nested structure, it does away with Perl's ${x}->{'whatnot'}[$x]->[$y{'z'}] insanity. And I'm most impressed by its extremely well-written documentation. But as i know the lang more, my feeling changed, yet Perl Improved is still apt, with a new interpretation. see http://tnx.nl/php If Unix, Apache, Perl, MySQL etc sh.t can impact the world with motherf..king evolutionary outrageous $free$ lies, why should we fault Pretty Home Page? Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ >recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i >read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it >is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery. that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. Roedy Green said something like: >> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i >> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it >> is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery. > > that's very lovely, but off topic. Trolling for language flame wars > belong is comp.lang.java.advocacy. I had plonked him back in May for this kind of crap. I suggest you do the same. SignatureIf I can ever figure out how, I hope that someday I'll succeed in my lifetime goal of creating a signature that ends with the word "blarphoogy". > Roedy Green said something like: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I had plonked him back in May for this kind of crap. I suggest you do the > same. It's better just to ignore him because he is only looking for the attention and pseudo respect.. "You don't put a fire out with gasoline". SignatureThanks in Advance... IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager __________________________________________________________________________ 'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"' -William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-) Of course I have Xah plonked but thanks to your > On 9 Dec 2005 11:15:16 -0800, "Xah Lee" <xah@xahlee.org> wrote >> [...] Perl, of which i have mastery. I had the laugh of the week. Thank you very much, you really made my day. jue > recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i > read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze because it > is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery. I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human usenet correspondent. Please answer these questions: If Alice goes to the supermarket to buy a pint of milk, does her head go with her? Please elaborate. What is the difference between my disher blowing a fuse and your boss blowing a fuse? Please elaborate. How can you turn off the light of a candle? Why does it work? >>>>> "Tin" == Tin Gherdanarra <tinman31337@gmail.com> writes: Tin> Xah Lee wrote: >> recently i got a project that involves the use of php. In 2 days, i >> read almost the entirety of the php doc. Finding it a breeze >> because it is roughly based on Perl, of which i have mastery. Tin> I suspect that you are a computer program posing as a human Tin> usenet correspondent. Tin> Please answer these questions: [...] Will you accept a solution in Perl? He has mastery of that language, you know. You might have better luck if you phrase your questions in Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him to bugger off in plain English. Say, there's a thought... Martin > Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him > to bugger off in plain English. "It" buggers off if everybody ignores it. "It" posts because it knows that its actions pisses off so many people. SignatureJohn Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/ Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/ I ploink googlegroups.com :-) >>>>>> "Tin" == Tin Gherdanarra <tinman31337@gmail.com> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Perl, too, since he doesn't seem to understand it when people tell him > to bugger off in plain English. OK, lets try: die; SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com use bytes; # Larry can take Unicode and shove it up his a.s sideways. # Perl 5.8.0 causes us to start getting incomprehensible # errors about UTF-8 all over the place without this. From: the source code of WebCollage (1998) http://www.jwz.org/webcollage/ by Jamie W. Zawinski (~1971-) The code is 3.4 thousand lines of Perl in one single file. Rather incomprehensible. Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ > Post-modernism, Academia, and the Tech Geeking fuckheads > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > xah@xahlee.org > ∑ http://xahlee.org/ I agree with everything you say. You should check out the following links. They will amuse and enlight you. Post-modernism, Schizo-Islamism and the world at large: http://www.rhfweb.com/mctom.html S.N.A.F.U., D.I.S.C.O. and C.R.I.S.I.S. reaching crisis proportions: http://koti.welho.com/mjack1/ The Dalai Llama is just another EVIL spitting mammal: http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/sumon-262452/ It's a pussy-eat-pussy world. Tech Geek fuckheads might beg to disagree, however: http://www.johnnydisco.com/ Secularism, homosexuality, fringe humor finally dominating occidental tech elite. End neigh, doctors say: http://www.qgeeks.org Don't mention it, at your service Tin Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody and expressing it so offen? Can you live without hate? Can you let others live without your hates? > Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody > and expressing it so offen? > Can you live without hate? > Can you let others live without your hates? A person can live without hate, living love and working towards bettering humanity. But as for people in general - I'm not so sure. I'm not sure my opinion on hate - since I value people's opinions and diversity, hate seems unbecoming, but then so does computer gaming ;) Westernization sweeps accross all countries though, and it is no longer vogue to be so self centered. This will help with the most overt types of hatred. -- LTP :) > Why do you have such a need of being hating everything and everybody > and expressing it so offen? > Can you live without hate? > Can you let others live without your hates? Xah Lee is a well-known troll. Replying to him is a waste of time. Please just ignore him. (A killfile is an effective way to do so.) SignatureKeith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst> We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. Responsible Software Licensing Xah Lee, 200307 Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods in essentially infinite quantity. All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally, just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is where is your code?, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore, every f.cking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their contributions to the world. These digital bads, including irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's opinion. The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this, that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns, eXtreme Programing, Universal Modeling Language...) will automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's stipulation. In our already established infrastructure of software and industry practices that is so already f.cked up by existing shams, we can not immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And this, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of awareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers include single individual to software houses, and consumers include not just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.) Please spread this idea. -------------------------------- This post is archived at http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ >Responsible Software Licensing > >Xah Lee, 200307 > >Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting Soft, like your head >property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying it costs to dup, dup >money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with the wrong, you can dup your bullshit evrywhere for free >invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break that you don't know what a computer is >precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become goods i bid a gigabuck for that gigabyte >in essentially infinite quantity. in a for() loop maybe >All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally, get a calculator, bad is negative and subtracts, not multiply >just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email virus and email or virus in email? >spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a "software bads" is like asian bads, dumber than dog sh.t >unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is where is whats on the morons mind anyway Zah? >your code?, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is when is mentality signified, do a cat scan do any good? >judged on how much code he has contributed to the community. Therefore, per line or content? if the dude is dumb does his software get demoted >every f.cking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their homework on the right, the 9 inch dicked moron with the genious iq, and very tall.. >net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of their free... suck my 9 inch dick, and quite proud >contributions to the world. These digital bads, including well, a big dick is a gods gift to women (or did u mean digitial dick) >irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses every program i ever met was irresponsible and never wore condoms (i never f.cked with them so "i" don't know) >until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST yup, down south we call them the "John Henry", definetly the standard >POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are nah, superior "dick size" doesen't mean mind >C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost oh, u name dropper your so intelligent >anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of a "virus" is a physical ailment, not a mind doodoo >irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the i never knew a responsible software, can u name one? they don't talk to me, maybe cause i just curse them out...... hahahaaaaaaaaaaa >creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The i think you mean monkey jakkingoff, which usually leads to bad thinking, i mean really man step away from the gun and put your hands in the air... >scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus you mean surgically, i never saw one "put" in there. anybody seen this happen? >creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. omg, bring the jews into into it..... >Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law so sh.t flows downhill eh... >that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for keep the software bads to yourself (whatever that is) >garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty nothin wrong with garbage, its a 3 billion dolla industry >of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i can we leave good/bad up got god, or at least anybody with a brain? >think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called education; i think toilet paper helps alot better, edu is a mind fuk divorced from reality ... like u >I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i spoke of, then awareness comes when you "find" your navel >irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any individual's >opinion. i never knew a "mind" software that considered itself irresponsible >The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that is the epa >irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with can't we all agree "software" is not people ... >responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be can't we all agree licenses were made for marriages and dog tags .. >liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's your software killed my country, i want 1 trillion in damages >software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the i wish marriage license did >software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any software is sold. i think you should be instead, we know what u can do >damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is this, software functions as it was programmed, not as your conception of its use ... you should find out what "it" doess first >that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to rampage sounds like the internet and "blogs" ... lots to waste time on there >and survive in the software industry. Once when software producers are you won't live long enough to survive it >liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or transportation hey, lets start with the automotive industry first, eh.,, you want to survive "their" software first don't ya? >or house builders are responsible for the things they build, then hahaaaa, hurricane andrew destroys 50,000 homes ... when the "wind" gets big u know .. >injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing Patterns, i'm all wadded up in injuries, send the chiropractor .. >eXtreme Programing, Universal Modeling Language...) will backticks ? errr, ahhh, jeez....... >automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's >stipulation. man, you better switch to vegatables, i think your health will deteriorate if you keep swallowing the software sh.t you are dishing out ... >In our already established infrastructure of software and industry i just can't, i mean i could but, its so close to the bottom and jeez, i'll just summ up on the bottom . >practices that is so already f.cked up by existing shams, we can not >immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > xah@xahlee.org > ? http://xahlee.org/ "mom & pop but from IT corps to military" Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of physocopic drugs! This hurt me to do this to you man but, and I respect you but, you need some serious, serious evaluation by a shrink. You can redeam yourself if you post some original dynamite, earth shaking code that a phenom such as yourself in criticism really shows he knows what he is talking about. That will only add credibility to your words (as disjunctive as they are). Show us how good your really are man, post those genius words into some God code so we can all really believe in what your saying! Thanks >> <snip> > > <snip> So, at last they found one another. :( SignatureGunnar Hjalmarsson Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl >>> <snip> >> >> <snip> > >So, at last they found one another. :( Thanks for the coaching Gunnar !!! > Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of > physocopic drugs! He could be schizophrenic. Seekers of all things wierd on the internet can do no better than Gene Ray's Timecube: http://www.timecube.com/ His outpourings are so well known that he even gets a mention in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray And once you've fully absorbed the fact that "You are educated as a stupid android slave to the evil Word Animal Singularity Brotherhood", why not play the game of the theory over at: http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html >> Xah, please admit to me that your under the influence of >> physocopic drugs! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >why not play the game of the theory over at: >http://atrocities.primaryerror.net/timecube.html what would Einstien do? take a trip on a beam of light.... > physocopic drugs! Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. Matt On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish" <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : >Please do us all the favour of taking a basic literacy course. You aren't >even close half the time, which just confirms you're a halfwit. are you bawling out robico or Xah? Attributions are necessary for personal attacks. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:21 -0500, "Matt Garrish" > <matthew.garrish@sympatico.ca> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > are you bawling out robico or Xah? Does it really matter? SignatureGunnar Hjalmarsson Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl >>Responsible Software Licensing I worship you, Xah. SignatureEric `$=`;$_=\%!;($_)=/(.)/;$==++$|;($.,$/,$,,$\,$",$;,$^,$#,$~,$*,$:,@%)=( $!=~/(.)(.).(.)(.)(.)(.)..(.)(.)(.)..(.)......(.)/,$"),$=++;$.++;$.++; $_++;$_++;($_,$\,$,)=($~.$"."$;$/$%[$?]$_$\$,$:$%[$?]",$"&$~,$#,);$,++ ;$,++;$^|=$";`$_$\$,$/$:$;$~$*$%[$?]$.$~$*${#}$%[$?]$;$\$"$^$~$*.>&$=` <cut> Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. Signaturemph > <cut> > Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not > withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what > the disclaimer says. The law is the leading authority and not some > Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. Actually most EULAs are unauthoritative in both the USA and (parts of) the EU, because the customer usually doesn't know or sign the EULA before he buys the software. At least that's what I heard. The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me. SignatureIf you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know. Louis Armstrong <cut> > The piece that a European programmer can never withdraw responsibility > could be a big problem to open-source software, though. I'm not sure > I'd want to freely publish anything that could result in liability for me. Not that big of a problem, in EU a user is still primary liable for his own action unless he's deliberately been mislead without any possibility to know that, think in terms of trojans and viruses. So no suing over spilling hot coffee here unless the container it's carried in is faulty Signaturemph ><cut> >Nice rant, btw in most EU countries the software creator can not >withdraw the responsibility of his/her/it creation, regardless of what >the disclaimer says. Pretty big damned statement there boy! As about a coverall generalization for all faults if I ever heard! > The law is the leading authority and not some >Disclaimer/EULA, that's why most US EULA's are unauthoritative in the EU. If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? robic0 wrote about software liabilities: > If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, > then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to > reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the > liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the > law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? This question is hardly unique to software. All manufacturers and suppliers have to deal with the question of what is covered by warranty. But it is possible to code defensively. For instance, instead of writing directly to the user's file, you should write to a temporary file, then when the write is complete, you rename the temp file to the "real" file. On some OSes that can be an atomic operation, but even if it is not, your danger zone where a power failure can cause the user to lose data is strongly reduced. As a general rule, closed source software suppliers have a terrible reputation for responding to bug reports quickly and in good faith. It sometimes seems that the bigger and more successful the software supplier is, the more likely they are to sit on bug reports, doing nothing to fix them, and threaten to sue if you disclose -- all the more so if it is a security exploit. Follow-ups to comp.lang.python please. SignatureSteven. >If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, >then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to >reformat, thereby losing all his data, at what point does the >liability stop? And how is fault proven or dished out? Does the >law specifically state "repeatability" in its language? It would expect it to work much the way a car works. If you have an accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >>If the software opens a file and is in the middle of writing to it, >>then the user dumps the power to the machine and ends up having to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >accident, that is your fault. If the fuel pump is badly designed so it >catches fire, that in the manufacturers fault. You'ld have to prove the fuel pump caused your accident wouldn't you? I'm reversed when it comes to engineering. I always assume defects when buss loads of people are killed. If software ever guards lives that isin't certified then its a manufacturing defect. That is imbedded software though. Not the for public consumption. I know that fly-by-wire military software has 100 levels of precaution. Hey but its a 7 million dollar plane and a 700 billion dollar budget. The written requirements for a single design is a book 5 inches thick. Ever see that for Joe bullshit software designer? Responsible Software Licensing & Free Software Foundation Xah Lee, 2005-07 Dear Programers, I have always respected the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its community. when i wrote the article a couple years ago on Responsible Software Licensing, i thought it might not be welcomed by the free software community, because in a way responsibility is implicitly a antithesis against the free software community. I have high respect for the Free Software Foundation, even though i do not believe their tenet and dedication that ALL software MUST be Free. Nevertheless, i respect its founder Richard Stallman and the community on the whole. I think it is a very good group in a capitalistic software environment, as i'm also a strong advocate and believer in the goodness of laissez-faire system. So, as i was thinking that a movement towards Responsible Software Licensing may be opposed by the free software community in general, in principle and in practice. In principle because FSF's ethics focuses on the goodness of individuals, as opposed to some forced regulations such as licenses and contracts. In practice because most people in the free software camp are there because they are poor students and are totally ignorant of sociology, economics, business, law. As a class of the young, they are OpenSourcing fanatics for the thiefing and gratis and noise-making parts. In a commpercial software, where money are paid to acquire, it is reasonable to demand workability from the sold goods. However, in Free Software, almost always it is never a commercial item (i.e. practically it is always free of charge), therefore demanding that the software hold some responsibility for its consumers may seem inappropriate. We cannot stipulate warranties and insurances from gifts. (Nor can we, for some conceived ethics, to force some behavior by law, as history shows us that is not going to work well.) However, i think the free software community can in fact advocate responsible software licensing, and be a pioneer in this movement. As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not liable even if the software don't work at all. It will be hard to change this zero responsibility stance to a 100% responsibility stance. However, we can start in small ways. Suppose, if you write a piece of email program, although there are a myriad scenarios that it will have problems sending email and in reality such problem happens often, but a responsible software programer can at least GUARANTEE, that the software WILL work to some extent of its described utility. In the email program example, a responsible author can say We GUARANTEE that this software will send out emails in a normal setting. If not, we will refund the money you have paid, or, send you $1 USD. Although this may seem fuzzy and silly, but it is a start. By giving a very safe minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_. The Free Software Foundation's GNU project has been a pioneer in many aspects. It is a pioneer in the concept of Free Software with its GPL license, which is the main force behind the success and ubiquity of Linux and a massive collection of freely available software and components. It in fact has made a major impact in society, even beyond the realm of software industry. (for instance, the massive grass-roots online info-encyclopedia Wikipedia.org is a indirect consequence FSF and GPL) Free Software community also has done pioneering leads in software technology. For example, its emacs text editor, is a all-encompassing, self-documented, self-sustaining software, and a quality work at that. It embodies the LISP programing language, and in fact emacs is mainly responsible for spreading the quality concepts that is functional programing to most industrial programers. The GNU C Compiler (now GNU Compiler Collection), is critical in starting Linux and a massive collection of software in the unix industry. This is why i think Free Software Foundation can be a leader towards responsible software licensing. There are a huge number of Free Software followers. Many of us also publish our programs, big or small. By starting with a very small, nominal statement in the license, we can spread the attitude of responsible software. Gradually, this practice can spread to commercial software, and to such a degree of competing offers of liabilities and guarantees as we have in for example USA's consumer products. Please think about this. If you agree, please spread the idea. ---------- This post is archived at: http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license_FSF.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ > As i've indicated in the Responsible Licensing article, that today's > software come with disclaimers that essentially say the producer is not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > minimal guarantee of functionality, possibly with a nominal liability > assurance, the author will have made a _Responsible License_. You have a problem of definition of the meaning of "normal setting". This problem is easily resolved with the source of the program: the source of the program IS the CONTRACT. If you respect the language (the semantics, or underlying virtual machine expected by the program), and if you respect the pre-conditions embedded in the program, then you get the guarantee plainly written in the program as post-conditions. You cannot get it more explicitely than from the sources of the program (and the specifications of its programming language). So wanting more than the mere sources, you are wanting to reject programming language not formally specified, and programs provided without the sources. We can do better on the programming language formal specifications side, but on the program sources side, I don't know what we can do more than GPL or BSD... Actually, the whole point is to let the _user_ of the program to take _responsibility_ for the program he uses, and not to cowardly discharge his (the user's) responsability to somebody else. When you compute the tip to add to your invoice at the restaurant, you don't ask the inventor of the multiplication algorithm or your teachers to take any responsibility for your wrong or right application of the operation. Let the users be responsible! Signature__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. -- Georges W. Bush His usual clap trap. ___________________ /| /| | | ||__|| | Please do | / O O\__ NOT | / \ feed the | / \ \ trolls | / _ \ \ ______________| / |\____\ \ || / | | | |\____/ || / \|_|_|/ \ __|| / / \ |____| || / | | /| | --| | | |// |____ --| * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ // | / _ \\ _ // | / * / \_ /- | - | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ SignatureRich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member . * * . * .* . . * . .* President, * . . /\ ( . . * Rite Online Inc. . . / .\ . * . .*. / * \ . . . /* o \ . Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 * '''||''' . URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich ****************** The Bug-Reporting Attitude Xah Lee, 2005-02, 2006-01 People, There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by go file a bug report as if it is the duty of software consumers. When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to fawn up to their a.s as in filing a bug report, and that is also the least effective in correcting the software. The common attitude of bug-reporting is one reason that contributed to the tremendous egregious irresponsible fuckups in computer software industry that each of us have to endure daily all the time. (e.g. software A clashed, software B can't do this, C can't do that, D i don't know how to use, E download location broken, F i need to join discussion group to find a work-around, G is all pretty and dysfunctional... ) When a software is ostensibly incorrect and when the organization behind it is irresponsible with its licensing, the most effective and moral attitude is to do legal harm to the legal entity. This one can do by filing a law suit or spreading the fact. Filing a law suit is appropriate in severe and serious cases, and provided you have such devotion to the cause. For most cases, we should just spread the fact. When the organization sees facts flying about its incompetence or irresponsibility, it will immediately mend the problem source, or cease to exist. Another harm sprang from the f.cking bug-reporting attitude rampant among IT morons is the multiplication of pop-ups that bug users for bug-reporting, complete with their privacy legalese infomercial intrusion. 2006-01 Addendum In early 2005 or late 2004, OS X's Safari browser contains a button on the top right that is use to send bugs to Apple. As late as 2006-01 in Safari 2.0.2, one can turn on the send bug button by right clicking on the toolbar. (screenshot). In about 2004-2005, every Mac OS X's tool bar has a Quality Feedback button for user to report problems and suggestions to Apple. Mac fanatics are fanatical about reporting bugs back to Apple. In 2004-2005, the Adium multi-chat client for OS X will popup a dialogue box whenever it crashes, and ask the user whether if he wishes to report the bug. In 2005, Microsoft Windows XP will popup a dialogue box when a program crashed, and will ask the user about whether she want to report it back to Microsoft. In 2005, the Open Sourced Netscape/FireFox browser will auto-start a separate bug-report program whenever it crashed, and will bother the user about whether to report the bug. Much of these harassment come with technical notices and or privacy legalese, that assures the user nothing personal is being sent or collected. Some will also contain an option to turn this user-contribution auto-solicitation off for good, but not all. These bug-reporting phenomenon didn't start until early 21st century. Such direct user intrusion was unknown or unthinkable in 1990s. Part of the reason of their rise can be attributed by a few factors: (1) the mainstreaming of the internet. (2) The collectivism and fanaticism ushered by Open Sourcers. (3) The fanaticism ushered by Mac fanatics. Group (2) and (3) are largely incompatible, but each lives in their utopian vision. ---------------- This post is archived at: http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/bug_report_attitude.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ >The Bug-Reporting Attitude > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by >go file a bug report as if it is the duty of software consumers. "software" found 3 x >When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in >connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are >thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to >fawn up to their a.s as in filing a bug report, and that is also the >least effective in correcting the software. "software" 3x ... "companies" 1 x >The common attitude of bug-reporting is one reason that contributed to >the tremendous egregious irresponsible fuckups in computer software [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >discussion group to find a work-around, G is all pretty and >dysfunctional... ) "software industry" found 1 x >When a software is ostensibly incorrect and when the organization >behind it is irresponsible with its licensing, the most effective and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >irresponsibility, it will immediately mend the problem source, or cease >to exist. "software"(1x)..."organization"(2x) >Another harm sprang from the f.cking bug-reporting attitude rampant >among IT morons is the multiplication of pop-ups that bug users for >bug-reporting, complete with their privacy legalese infomercial >intrusion. > >2006-01 Addendum Since I work for a software industry, company, organization, I thought I'd offer my 2 cents here. The software industry/company/organization are run by snake-oil salesmen/marketing who discard the programmers as fast as they do bug reports. Given that, who do you think "cuts" out the problem parameters for the programmer? Think its a master problem solver programmer/manager who is not influenced by marketing? Got a bright programmer who looks at the condition then at the parameters for the fixes to implement who see's the fallicy of the fix parameters. Why yes, yes you do. Well why doesen't he jump up and down in the organization then? Because his job hangs by a thread, with seasonal layoffs and outsoursing, lessening pay/benifits, contract status, etc... Contrary to popular belief the fixer has to research his part of the code, and is forced to know more than what he is being tasked to do. The falicy is that he has control of it, he see's the big picture fopa's but can't do a thing about it. So you see, when you say "software" so many times, you imply the programmer is at fault. For simple bugs that may be true, however in the face of induced snake oil marketing induced CONCEPTUAL ERRORS, well brother, what have I got to do to just get my next paycheck? Imagine that software designed by snake-oil salesmaen/marketing, comercial ad agencies, conceptual designers without proof-of-concept. In todays world, the word "software" is a mis-nomer. Its not software anymore, its a concept of some dude on ACID !!! Any questions? The Bug-Trolling Attitude Hax Eel, 2006-01-02 People, There is a common behavior among people in software geek forums, that whenever a software is crashing or behaving badly, they respond by writing stupid essays about it and cross-post it to multiple newsgroups as if it is the duty of Usenet readers to suffer through their egocentric rantings. When a troll is full of sh.t, as is likely in connection to egregious irresponsibility as most trolls are unable to spell "thru", the thing one should not do is to fawn up to their a.s by responding to their post and treating their verbal diarrhoea with dignity, as that is the least effective method in correcting the problem. The common attitude of responding to trolls is one reason that contributed to the tremendous egregious irresponsible egotistical arrogant know-nothing adjective-over-users on Usenet that each of us have to endure daily all the time. When a poster is ostensibly incorrect and full of hot-hair about licensing, the most effective and moral attitude is to do legal harm to the poster. If you live in lawyer-happy countries like the USA, you can do this by filing a law suit for mental anguish and emotional distress against the poster. If you live in the United Kingdom, you can apply for an Anti-Social Behaviour Order or ASBO. In severe and serious cases, it may be appropriate to pop a cap in the f.cker's arse. ---------------- This post is archived at: http://www.trolling-for-you.org/FullOfCrap_dir/crap/bug_trolling_attitude.html Hax leet-haxor@trolling-for-you.org ∑ http://trolling-for-you.org/ > The Bug-Trolling Attitude > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stupid essays about it and cross-post it to multiple newsgroups as if it > is the duty of Usenet readers to suffer through their egocentric rantings. ... > This post is archived at: > http://www.trolling-for-you.org/FullOfCrap_dir/crap/bug_trolling_attitude.html That link didn't work for me. {8-o SignatureCoby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") >When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in >connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are >thru their irresponsible licensing, the thing one should not do is to >fawn up to their a.s as in filing a bug report, and that is also the >least effective in correcting the software. I think a lot of us have a problem with you pontificating in such a grandiose style when you have not first proved you know what you are talking about with participation in the discussions of day to day coding problems. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching. >>When a software is ostensibly incorrect, and if it is likely in >>connection to egregious irresponsibility as most software companies are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >talking about with participation in the discussions of day to day >coding problems. Xah Lee (1) is a write-only poster who pontificates but never reads replies, and (2) cares not a whit that the rest of us believe him to be a moron. In a sense, I envy him. I hold a number of strong and somewhat controversial opinions that I hesitate to expose in public, for fear of being laughed at and labeled as a nutcase. Xah Lee has absolutely no such fears. Signature- Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. IT Industry Predicament Xah Lee, 200207 As most of you agree, there are incredible wrongs in software industry. Programs crash, injurious tools, uninformed programers, and decrepit education system. Over the years of my computing industry experience since 1995, i have recently gradually come to realize the cause and plan a solution. I wanted to write a cohesive account of my thoughts one day. Here's a quick beginning: Most agree that computing industry has lots of problems, including: extremely poor software quality, poorly qualified programers, and a strayed education system. One final metric is the quality of today's software, and consumer's experience with computers. In pretty much free market system of America, we can say that software quality (or software related things) being the way it is is out of natural selection. In other words: driven by economy, or, a result that evolved naturally from competition. This naturally evolved result, does not mean it is the best outcome. Simply put: outcome does not mean desired outcome. Think of it this way: the solutions from genetic algorithms arn't best solutions, but best outcome from a given set of criterions and gene pool and the coupling environment. We can see now that the state of software or industry is not determined by idiotic and simplistic expectations such as quality of design or intelligence of programers. How things come to be in society do not have simplistic explanations, but sensible understanding is not impossible. In a commercial software world, software's popularity or trend is determined by the choices consumer makes. How consumer ends up purchasing a software has a myriad of factors among them awareness, but most responsible being the price/performance ratio, or just price. Also, the majority of consumers are morons with respect to evaluating software for their own good. This is why, the inept and FREE unixes and Perl and C are everywhere. It is also why, the f.cking incompetent unixes though $free$ but has little place to stand in comparison to a charging Microsoft when performance also enters the equation. This also explains, the exorbitantly priced fashion-statement Apple software/hardware combo are no more populous than those affluent. (not because some f.cking fashionable chant about how good-things-are-always-unpopular f.cking f.ck chant loved by vain above-it geeks.) The reason f.cking languages like C and family mask technically superior ones like lisp are in large part due to the unix phenomenon as explained above. C + Unix, incompetence + irresponsibility bootstrapping each other $freely$. The unix things teach programers to unthink. With their greed-based speed-based freely-distributable popularity-based iconoclastic irresponsibilities spreading like corruption do. Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good software with responsible licenses will emerge. Eventually software vendors will compete for more responsible software, one's that offer to be penalized for every bug or crash or misfeature. In turn, this will eliminate all f.cking fashions and idiots in the software industry such as the Design Patterns and eXtreme Programing or the TIMTOWTDI Perl f.ck or the OOP fad or the f.cking Universal Modeling Language f.ck. Do you want software/industry to improve? Everyone want to be millionaire when asked, but when they have to pay to be a millionaire, they reconsider. -- This post is archived at: http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/it_predicament.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ > • The reason f.cking languages like C and family mask technically Contrary to popular opinion, languages don't multiply. Certainly they don't have sex. Most (human) languages merely have something called gender, and words don't interact. C has a bastard child called C++, true, but that was basically created by genetic manipulation of the original C, and indeed it's said to be 100% backward-compatible to C. > Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software > are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as > extra hands. When good programers understand this and catch on, good Yes, please go ahead. Oh, you said "good programmers." Never mind. I know, don't feed the troll. Sorry 'bout that. SignatureThe problems of the real world are primarily those you are left with when you refuse to apply their effective solutions. Edsger W. Dijkstra [ snip bait ] > I know, don't feed the troll. Sorry 'bout that. To quote Space Balls: "Don't be sorry, be *quiet*!" :) Cheers, Tim Hammerquist > IT Industry Predicament > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > solutions, but best outcome from a given set of criterions and gene > pool and the coupling environment. Doing good... > • We can see now that the state of software or industry is not > determined by idiotic and simplistic expectations such as quality of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > good-things-are-always-unpopular f.cking f.ck chant loved by vain > above-it geeks.) I'm sorry, but the $free$ Unixen are actually better operating systems than Windoze. I didn't switch because I thought it was cool or because it was free, I switched because Linux crashed less, let me build it how I wanted, and had loads of free software that actually worked. The Unixen are the best thing out there right now, but a few of us are working on (what we hope is) something better instead of just complaining (kvetching) about it. I agree about Apple, however. > • The reason f.cking languages like C and family mask technically > superior ones like lisp are in large part due to the unix phenomenon as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > popularity-based iconoclastic irresponsibilities spreading like > corruption do. Unix does teach programmers to think in C, that I must admit. I hope that an operating system based on a better language (I know two which will prominantly feature Lisp as a systems-programming language, Tin Gherdanarra's Lisp OS and my Glider) will become popular enough to solve that issue. > Solution: Understand and spread the word that writing bug-free software > are not difficult at all, and quality software can be as intuitive as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > f.ck or the OOP fad or the f.cking “Universal Modeling Language” > f.ck. So the solution is to understand and spread the word that the problem is unneccessary? Feh! Try something that will actually get the code monkeys writing better stuff! [the usual] ___________________ /| /| | | ||__|| | Please do | / O O\__ NOT | / \ feed the | / \ \ trolls | / _ \ \ ______________| / |\____\ \ || / | | | |\____/ || / \|_|_|/ \ __|| / / \ |____| || / | | /| | --| | | |// |____ --| * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ // | / _ \\ _ // | / * / \_ /- | - | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ SignatureKeith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst> We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X11_color_names excerpt: In computing, on the X Window System, X11 color names are represented in a simple text file, which maps certain strings to RGB color values. It is shipped with every X11 installation, hence the name, and is usually located in <X11root>/lib/rgb.txt. It is not known who originally compiled the list. The list shows neither a continuity in selected color values nor in color names (for example, darkgray but lightgrey), and many color triplets have multiple names. Despite this, graphic designers and others got used to them making it practically impossible to introduce a more stringent and logical alias list. f.ck the unix mother f.ckers. ----- See also: Responsible Software Licensing http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ > usually located in <X11root>/lib/rgb.txt. on AIX and Linux (SuSE 9.3) the file is in <X11root>/lib/X11/rgb.txt > neither a continuity in selected color values nor in color names (for > example, darkgray but lightgrey) On AIX and Linux (SuSE 9.3) each color name which contains "gray" is also aliased as "grey" for the benefit of both Yanks and Brits. Thus, I have: 211 211 211 LightGrey 211 211 211 LightGray 169 169 169 DarkGrey 169 169 169 DarkGray I'm curious what UNIX system does not dual-spell this color? (neutral, actually; gray is not a color). I thought these color (neutral) names were dual-homed on all reasonably modern UN*X systems. Signaturehttp://DavidFilmer.com > On AIX and Linux (SuSE 9.3) each color name which contains "gray" is > also aliased as "grey" for the benefit of both Yanks and Brits. Thus, Yankee, n. In Europe, an American. In the Northern States of our Union, a New Englander. In the Southern States the word is unknown. (See DAMYANK.) So why don't you use Windows XP then? It's just like what you are using now, but even more awesome! More of his usual bollocks. ___________________ /| /| | | ||__|| | Please do | / O O\__ NOT | / \ feed the | / \ \ trolls | / _ \ \ ______________| / |\____\ \ || / | | | |\____/ || / \|_|_|/ \ __|| / / \ |____| || / | | /| | --| | | |// |____ --| * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ // | / _ \\ _ // | / * / \_ /- | - | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ SignatureRich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member President, Rite Online Inc. Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially important predictions. I might have to enter one or two. i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually, some f.cking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not accountable. So, lots fuckhead morons in the IT industry will shout about their opinions on society and technology such as for example Microsoft will fall within a decade or linux will rule, or some technology issues such as singularity. But the problem is, any moron can sound big when there's no accountability associated with their cries. This website, at least makes it possible to do accountable opinions. (in the form of mandatory monetary donations) But i really wished for a mechanism, so that any fuckhead tech geekers with their loud cries will hurt badly when they open their mouths in public with wantonness. For more info about the longbets.org site, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Now_Foundation Xah xah@xahlee.org http://xahlee.org/ > here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially > important predictions. I might have to enter one or two. > > i longed for such a accountable predictions for a long time. Usually, > some f.cking fart will do predictions, but the problem is that it's not [...] OMG, he's back. I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come. SignatureSuffering from Gates-induced brain leakage... >> here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially >> important predictions. I might have to enter one or two. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I predict, Xah will haunt us for years to come. WTF is wrong with Xah? He posts an occasional article in good faith and leaves it at that. ignoring the insults that follow. In the end we have one good-faith article and a bunch of personal attacks from a Usenet chorus of self-appointed finger-shakers creating more pollution than he ever did. If only some of the people castigating Xah for daring to use Usenet would post as rarely as he, and show as much restraint. ken >>> here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially >>> important predictions. I might have to enter one or two. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >WTF is wrong with Xah? He posts an occasional article in good faith and >leaves it at that. ignoring the insults that follow. Apparently you've never actually read one of his articles. >In the end we have one good-faith article and a bunch of personal >attacks from a Usenet chorus of self-appointed finger-shakers creating >more pollution than he ever did. > >If only some of the people castigating Xah for daring to use Usenet >would post as rarely as he, and show as much restraint. Restraint? Now I know you haven't read it. SignatureAl Balmer Sun City, AZ >>>>here's a site: http://www.longbets.org/bets that takes socially >>>>important predictions. I might have to enter one or two. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Apparently you've never actually read one of his articles. Have you read his web page? Like I did? Get back to me after you come up to speed on Xah. >>In the end we have one good-faith article and a bunch of personal >>attacks from a Usenet chorus of self-appointed finger-shakers creating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Restraint? Now I know you haven't read it. <g> Note that I was not endorsing the content. The restraint I was talking about was in ignoring you. If you and everyone else ignored his articles there would not be this thread. Which is not being dragged out by Xah. You all dis Xah, yet he is larger than you: you cannot resist heaping abuse on him. If you could, his articles would appear and disappear without leaving a trace. Instead we get people with half his wit making lame attempts at witty put-downs, embarrassing only themselves. Xah acknowledges his problem, you clowns do not even know you have one. kenny >> Apparently you've never actually read one of his articles. > >Have you read his web page? Like I did? Get back to me after you come up >to speed on Xah. Given the aspect he presents on Usenet, why on earth would I want to go to his web page? Why should I want to "come up to speed" on him? I have him filtered, have for a long time, and I can understand that it would be better if everyone filtered or ignored him, but I don't see posted complaints about him being any worse than your complaints about the complainers. I have no idea why anyone would defend such inane, worthless, obscenity-laced articles. SignatureAl Balmer Sun City, AZ |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message