Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] PIC based ASP.NET/SQL client.'
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:09:51 -0400, Sean Breheny wrote:
> :: I wonder who "Mongol Herdsman" is....?
- Is very obnoxious
- Holds a serious grudge against Olin
- Has an interest in things Asian
- Made a blunder by saying that Mongolian oxcarts can't cross the Atlantic
to get to America
- Comes up with ridiculous "inventions"
- Thinks he is smarter than everyone on this list
Based on other bits of evidence, I know with a high degree of certainty who
>> You seem to be responding to your own response.
>> Is this meant to be a recursive troll?
> No. Russell, you seem to be a reasonable person. Why, the
> hell, do you
> take it that negatively?
Oh that wasn't meant to be negative - recursion is a
perfectly respectable subject. True it may have lost it's
shine of yesteryear amongst the social elite and the
cognocenti, but it is still OK 'in the ranks', as it were.
> I just reminded that I told I won't be available to reply
> for 2 days
> or so and cited that message.
That's one of the problems with recursion. Initial
conditions can be fatal. You start up with a boundary
condition that isn't quite what you mean it to be and the
algorithm 'walks' away into some unintended locus of
operation, if it doesn't just go into wild oscillation or
tend to infinity. An IIR is a good real world example of
recursion that's masked as such in most perceptions by the
contexts its usually used in. FIR are far more mundane but
usually safer. What we have in this thread so far is an IIR
of sorts, although arguably it somewhat resembles a Kalman
filter. Either way, it's likely that the forced response we
are now seeing isn't what was originally envisaged by most.
eg / ie
> Sorry guys, did not I say, "Give me a couple of days or so
> to reply, please."
> I'm quite busy these weeks. Give me a day or so to reply,
Is non self consistent within the wider context that you
were employing. You DID say 'a couple of days or so' on a
prior iteration, but you then say a day or so, and while the
'or so' does allow the potential for overlap between these
two bounds, the fact that a couple of daze or sew have
already passed make this response quite forced. As with the
filter function. A couple is explicitly two, and or so
implies, quite strongly to most, a perturbation not
exceeding 100% or even far less than 100% of the stated
amount. So 'a couple of days or so' would almost always be
taken as <4 and almost invariably be taken as <= 4.
Similarly 'a day or so' would hardly ever be reasonably be
assumed to exceed 2, and 3 at the outside. This example
where "or so" allows of excursion greater than the stated
amount occurs because the original value of unity is smaller
than "or so" may typically be so customary usage may
predominate. So, as a day, or so, has elapsed since you said
a couple of days or so and you now say a day or so then the
expectation is that your response would almost certainly be
forthcoming by tomorrow, which is today as I write. So?
On 7/20/08, Apptech <paradise.net.nz> wrote: apptech
This thread was closed by Bob. The reason I posted after that was
important enough. Now I don't see why I should break rules replying to
your "So?" publicly. No problems with private messages though, let me
> This thread was closed by Bob. The reason I posted after
> that was
> important enough. Now I don't see why I should break rules
> replying to
> your "So?" publicly. No problems with private messages
> though, let me
1. That was due to, as he said, material not suited either
to PIC or to PICList. It was getting unacceptably profane
and questionably abusive. (Humour and abuse tend to overlap
2. My post and your response and this follow on are all
tagged [OT]. This is not the same thread that raised Bob's
ire (and mine too - I, you may have noted, also commented in
similar sense to Bob but in different tone).
You may decide whether either of the above is pertinent (and
/ or correct)
I am ALWAYS happy to entertain offlist input on almost
anything. I'm variably bad at getting back to people on
important answers - but, that's my fault, not theirs.
Personally I think this is just a marketing trick - well known and used by
big names like Microsoft. OP said he has a 'proposal' giving as little
information about it as possible but still to get some attention, then let
people guessing what is that for a while, and then when everyone is
wondering now what the heck is the OP talking about that's the right moment
to say something. That way you get the biggest attention, and this type of
marketing works the best - as we can see from Microsoft when they announce a
new product years before it comes out. And then of course they did not come
out with the product in time, so everyone desperately wants to see that
thing that they think will change the world completely - so Mongol did not
come up with the idea in time so everyone is waiting for that desperately to
see how it will change the world... it would not but then everyone wants to
believe that it would as was waiting too much for it. Very clever indeed :-)
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Apptech <paradise.net.nz> wrote: apptech
> Personally I think this is just a marketing trick - well
> known and used by big names like Microsoft. OP said he has a
> 'proposal' giving as little information about it as possible
> so everyone is waiting for that desperately to see how it
> will change the world... it would not but then everyone wants
> to believe that it would as was waiting too much for it. Very
> clever indeed :-)
Marketing / vapor / wind-up / joke.
Plenty of suckers to go 'round regardless.
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008
, 2009 only
- New search...