Home > Archive > Cobol > May 2007 > The Relative Importance of Web Development
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The Relative Importance of Web Development
|
|
| martinig 2007-05-24, 7:55 am |
| If you follow the evolution of software development on Internet, you
may have the impression that every new development is Web based and
that the main areas of concern are whether you should develop new
application with Ruby on Rail or if you should choose Flash rather
than Ajax for the interface. However, if you ask developers, you may
find that the Web is not as ubiquitous in their work as you may think.
Even if 66% of the participants develop the majority of their new
applications with a browser as the interface, there is still a large
portion of developers that are working today for operating contexts
that are outside the Web world, like embedded software or Windows
applications.
Get the full results of this poll on http://www.methodsandtools.com/dynp...oll.php?WebDev2
| |
| Rene_Surop 2007-05-25, 7:55 am |
| >
> Get the full results of this poll onhttp://www.methodsandtools.com/dynpoll/oldpoll.php?WebDev2
Reluctance is coming from the following factors;
1. security issues
2. connectivity assurance
3. interface updates/upgrades
On my side, reluctance is coming from the interface itself (browsers).
Several web applications are even customized by way of invoking
certain keys (say Fn/function keys, ESC, CR, tabs).... but due to the
browser updates, previously built web applications tend to crash. It
is because the new browsers came with several key combinations (and
even tabs) that it is using "already used" customized function keys.
I think that customization of function keys within your application is
not an advantage.... browser vendor will tend to use it in their later
version/upgrades.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-27, 9:55 pm |
|
"Rene_Surop" <infodynamics_ph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180097277.444096.272730@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Reluctance is coming from the following factors;
> 1. security issues
> 2. connectivity assurance
> 3. interface updates/upgrades
>
> On my side, reluctance is coming from the interface itself (browsers).
> Several web applications are even customized by way of invoking
> certain keys (say Fn/function keys, ESC, CR, tabs).... but due to the
> browser updates, previously built web applications tend to crash. It
> is because the new browsers came with several key combinations (and
> even tabs) that it is using "already used" customized function keys.
>
> I think that customization of function keys within your application is
> not an advantage.... browser vendor will tend to use it in their later
> version/upgrades.
>
Reluctancy to move to the Web, (for whatever real or imagined reason), is
like standing in front of a charging elephant and being reluctant to
move...:-)
As programmers we can get all too involved in the technology and only see
that.
The fact is that the web facilitates data interoperability, and that trumps
any technical or security objections. Security can (and is being)
implemented by many and various measures, being able to instantly share data
and have access to a mass market of over a billion people, is just too good
to resist.
I predict that companies which DON'T deliver a web presence, and are in
competitive businesses, won't be around too long...
It's a technology that has already changed the way we do business and is
likely to further do so in ways we can't currently imagine. The landslide is
starting; the pebbles don't get to vote...
Pete.
| |
| Paul Raulerson 2007-05-28, 3:55 am |
| Perhaps Pete - but I sure don't see the backend processing moving to the web
or web-like technologies any time soon. :)
But speaking of new technologies, what do you think about the
MicroFocus/AcuCobol merge? Any possiblity something really good will come
out that?
-Paul
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5but5nF2u16ckU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Rene_Surop" <infodynamics_ph@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1180097277.444096.272730@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Reluctancy to move to the Web, (for whatever real or imagined reason), is
> like standing in front of a charging elephant and being reluctant to
> move...:-)
>
> As programmers we can get all too involved in the technology and only see
> that.
>
> The fact is that the web facilitates data interoperability, and that
> trumps any technical or security objections. Security can (and is being)
> implemented by many and various measures, being able to instantly share
> data and have access to a mass market of over a billion people, is just
> too good to resist.
>
> I predict that companies which DON'T deliver a web presence, and are in
> competitive businesses, won't be around too long...
>
> It's a technology that has already changed the way we do business and is
> likely to further do so in ways we can't currently imagine. The landslide
> is starting; the pebbles don't get to vote...
>
> Pete.
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-28, 6:55 pm |
|
"Paul Raulerson" <Paul.Raulerson@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:465a6e92$0$4016$bbae4d71@news.suddenlink.net...
> Perhaps Pete - but I sure don't see the backend processing moving to the
> web or web-like technologies any time soon. :)
Yes, I agree it's hard to imagine that. Nevertheless, I see a time (and
within my lifetime) when batch processing will be as relevant to data
processing, as collating punched cards into separate hoppers is today.
There would BE no backend processing if everything currently done in the
back end office was done online when the transaction occurred. The main
reasons we developed backend processes was to ensure that the performance of
the highly visible front end remained acceptable. This meant hiving off the
accounting functions to "overnight" and batch. IF these functions were
acrrued as transactions occurred, there'd be no need to do this...
The new systems being designed are transaction oriented and most of them
have a web presence.
Batch is primarily a sequential process and we are coming into an era where
data will be retrieved instantly in any required sequence without batch
processing. The argument that batch is necessary for huge volumes doesn't
stand up to careful inspection. The distributed nature of networked
processing means there is no need to queue data on files; simply split it up
and process it wherever available capacity exists. If a million transactions
occur "now", then process them now.(Hey, you might need a million
processors, but so what? With a network, you have almost unlimited capacity
for processing. (Bandwidth is another story, but that is being solved even
as you read this...))
Consolidations and summarisation are things that can occur as background
processes, and some of the new data retrieval methods wouldn't even need to
do that; you want the total widgets sold in the last x days? Retrieved
instantly and summated on the spot by distributed processors and lambda data
functions. (No "sequential" scan of records in the sense we understand for
batch rocessing.) There are facilities on the horizon that will cause major
rethinks in the way we process data. I know it won't happen next w , but
it WILL happen. The separation bewtween front and back offices will first
become blurred, and then disappear altogether. And the Net and the company
intranet will be the transport mechanism.
If Jimmy in Canada, and myself in NZ, can both access a function in San
Franscisco, over thousands of miles, exactly as if it was simultaneously on
both our machines, in under 2 seconds today, how long do you think it will
take in 5 years time? How long will it take before components runnning as
web services provide everything you need to run a business? Eventually you
will only need data storage (more for your own peace of mind than as an IT
necessity) and access to the Network.
Access to the network; no IT department (other than to service your own
network nodes and keep everything running) and within 10 years most of the
Western world will have general coverage on wireless networks running at 10
times the speed of broadband today. I'm using a 7MB broadband connection to
write this, and that is considered fast here, where most broadband is still
under 5MB, but a local provider here in Tauranga is covering the whole of
the Bay of Plenty with 54MB wireless broadband and getting a very good
takeup on it. (Unobtrusive small antennas are springing up on hilltop farms
around the area; for rural people this a major service.)
>
> But speaking of new technologies, what do you think about the
> MicroFocus/AcuCobol merge? Any possiblity something really good will come
> out that?
Depends what you mean by "good" :-)
For COBOL it could be an extension for a few years (I still stand by 2015 as
the end of it for serious commercial processing). As I've said here before,
COBOL just isn't the right paradigm for todays processing. It's not the
fault of the language or the people who sell it; it's just reality. You
COULD write all your components in COBOL but why WOULD you when you can do
it in C# or Java for nothing, with no runtime fees, have total
interoperability of your objects using DotNET, and free training and
support?
For me, it's a no-brainer. The main thing that kept me with COBOL was the
huge investment in it over many years (and my affection for it :-)). I can
leverage all of that with C# so that was the final clincher.
COBOL is predicated on the assumption that programs will be monolithic and
maintained. Source code is everything. That is not the modern approach. I
use object code I didn't write, and I share my objects with other people.
None of us has any problem with that. Stepping up to web services means it
can be done globally.
In the next w or so I will be publishing a downloadable desktop app that
uses the AVS web service to process a sample database of addresses (in
batch, ironically enough :-)). Normally, I would be sweating it, building a
distribution disk, copy protecting it, and then writing a CD for everyone
who wanted to use it. No more. Now it is a simple DotNET application
(written in C#) downloadable in seconds, that can automatically upgrade
itself without intervention from me or the user (if I want it to do that)
and I only have to ever keep ONE copy of it current.(The one on my web
server).
Both AcuCOBOL and MicroFocus are reputable companies who produce good
products. There were probably some stables around who produced good working
horses when Henry Ford started his first production line. I'm sure they
weren't bothered by the first machines that rolled off the line. But where
are they today? Early automobiles were hideously expensive, the highway
system was virtually non-existent, and there was no network of nationwaide
gas stations. I remember a quote from Agatha Christie in the early 20th
century who said she would never be rich enough to buy an automobile nor
poor enough not to have servants...
The fact is that cars are a different paradigm from horses. So is the
Network different from the COBOL paradigm.
Cars inherited the Earth; time will tell whether the Network gets to do so
(although I believe it already has; for instance I can't see me developing
any new systems that don't have a network presence) Why lock yourself into a
desktop (and limit your market by doing so) when you can have true platform
independence and access to a full market? My new apps will run on Linux,
Unix, Windows or Mac (As long as they have implemented the DotNET framework
appropriate to that platform); I couldn't do that with COBOL.
Pete.
| |
| James J. Gavan 2007-05-28, 6:55 pm |
| Yes the Web is important - but nobody commented about Estonia ????
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/ar...2082689,00.html
Do a google 'estonia-networks' for more info.
The impact can be frightening, and we should all be concerned. Worth
remembering what initially triggered this was the Estonians moving a
WWII Russian memorial. What would Putnin and friends have done if the
Estonians had shot russkies !
Jimmy
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-28, 6:55 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:EXE6i.231625$6m4.3122@pd7urf1no...
> Yes the Web is important - but nobody commented about Estonia ????
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/ar...2082689,00.html
>
> Do a google 'estonia-networks' for more info.
>
> The impact can be frightening, and we should all be concerned. Worth
> remembering what initially triggered this was the Estonians moving a WWII
> Russian memorial. What would Putnin and friends have done if the Estonians
> had shot russkies !
>
> Jimmy
Didn't know about this (I don't read newspapers, they depress me :-)), but
it is not the first time this has happened. There was a major attack on
Israel a couple of years back.
Rather than being frightened by it, I find it interesting and the counter
measures are "challenging". (there have been some very innovative and
imaginative methods devised for countering DOS attacks.)
Counter measures have been constructed and implemented effectively in the
past, but it takes a day or so for the results to be apparent. Even in
Estonia they said that most companies and departments targeted were working
normally.
I think your final sentence is significant, Jimmy. The fact is that they
DIDN'T shoot people, on either side. I'd rather see computers "at war" than
humans.
The inconvenience of having an ATM not work for a couple of days pales into
insignificance besides the horror of having a friend or loved one shot...
Pete.
| |
| donald tees 2007-05-28, 6:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:EXE6i.231625$6m4.3122@pd7urf1no...
>
> Didn't know about this (I don't read newspapers, they depress me :-)), but
> it is not the first time this has happened. There was a major attack on
> Israel a couple of years back.
>
> Rather than being frightened by it, I find it interesting and the counter
> measures are "challenging". (there have been some very innovative and
> imaginative methods devised for countering DOS attacks.)
>
> Counter measures have been constructed and implemented effectively in the
> past, but it takes a day or so for the results to be apparent. Even in
> Estonia they said that most companies and departments targeted were working
> normally.
>
> I think your final sentence is significant, Jimmy. The fact is that they
> DIDN'T shoot people, on either side. I'd rather see computers "at war" than
> humans.
>
> The inconvenience of having an ATM not work for a couple of days pales into
> insignificance besides the horror of having a friend or loved one shot...
>
> Pete.
>
>
Or every traffic light in the world turning green at the same moment. Or
every aircraft in the world being told to dive immediately to avoid a
collision. I do not think I agree with you that every computer program
should have a web interface. There are lots and lots of programs where
it would/should never be used, and it would be a huge security problem.
To assume that all code is financial is naive ... I would have thought
you more astute than that.
Donald
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-28, 9:55 pm |
|
"donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:CemdnVGkUqnSycbbnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@go
lden.net...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Or every traffic light in the world turning green at the same moment. Or
> every aircraft in the world being told to dive immediately to avoid a
> collision. I do not think I agree with you that every computer program
> should have a web interface.
That's good, because that isn't what I said. I was talking about commercial
software (Front Office and Back Office, specifically)
Read it again.
>There are lots and lots of programs where it would/should never be used,
>and it would be a huge security problem.
>
Only today. In the future the Web will permeate our lives to such an extent
that we won't even notice it. Even jewellery and clothing will be "web
aware"... imagine wearing glasses that whisper in your ear the name of the
person approaching you at a party, their spouse, children's name, their job,
the names of their cat and dog, and their hobbies and interests, all
accessed instantly from your database of contacts, via the Internet....
However, my comments were limited to commercial software.
> To assume that all code is financial is naive ... I would have thought you
> more astute than that.
>
I made no such assumption, and clearly stated what my comments pertained to.
It had nothing to do with aeroplanes or traffic lights or engine management
or anything else, other than competitive commerce in a business environment.
Thank you for crediting me with some astuteness. I'll endeavour to see that
your trust is not misplaced. :-)
Pete.
| |
| Clark F Morris 2007-05-28, 9:55 pm |
| On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:41:52 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
> news:CemdnVGkUqnSycbbnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@go
lden.net...
>
>That's good, because that isn't what I said. I was talking about commercial
>software (Front Office and Back Office, specifically)
>
>Read it again.
>
>Only today. In the future the Web will permeate our lives to such an extent
>that we won't even notice it. Even jewellery and clothing will be "web
>aware"... imagine wearing glasses that whisper in your ear the name of the
>person approaching you at a party, their spouse, children's name, their job,
>the names of their cat and dog, and their hobbies and interests, all
>accessed instantly from your database of contacts, via the Internet....
Maybe, maybe not because of privacy considerations. Do you really
want all of that information available to anyone you meet at a party.
Can you say identity theft.
>
>However, my comments were limited to commercial software.
>
>
>I made no such assumption, and clearly stated what my comments pertained to.
>It had nothing to do with aeroplanes or traffic lights or engine management
>or anything else, other than competitive commerce in a business environment.
Actually DOS is far less worrying than theft of information. The more
connected a system or application is, the more it is vulnerable to
attempts to make money off it illegitimately.
In response to another of your postings full updating of all related
tables by a transaction can introduce significant overhead and
processing. If enough transactions are involved, processing can slow
tremendously. There have been SAP installations that have had to back
off SAP for this reason. You can get away with a lot more than you
could even 4 years ago but instantaneous complex updating still can be
very resource consumptive.
>
>Thank you for crediting me with some astuteness. I'll endeavour to see that
>your trust is not misplaced. :-)
>
>Pete.
>
| |
| donald tees 2007-05-28, 9:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
> news:CemdnVGkUqnSycbbnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@go
lden.net...
>
> That's good, because that isn't what I said. I was talking about commercial
> software (Front Office and Back Office, specifically)
>
Ok, that's fair ... though I would word it *financial* software.
Commercial software, to me, is any software sold. That includes the
traffic lights of the average town, for example. All municipalities job
that sort of stuff out to commercial software houses. Currently, I am
writing commercial software for school boards, for example. I do not,
however, work for a school or a school board.
> Only today. In the future the Web will permeate our lives to such an extent
> that we won't even notice it. Even jewellery and clothing will be "web
> aware"... imagine wearing glasses that whisper in your ear the name of the
> person approaching you at a party, their spouse, children's name, their job,
> the names of their cat and dog, and their hobbies and interests, all
> accessed instantly from your database of contacts, via the Internet....
I would never want to be that intrusive into someone's life. It is like
installing a hidden camera in their bedroom. I am not interested in
being a peeping tom. That you find it desirable to be able to intrude
into my life to that extent bothers me a great deal, whether it is you
personally, or just you looking at it as a neat possibility that you'd
be willing to do for others.
>
> I made no such assumption, and clearly stated what my comments pertained to.
> It had nothing to do with aeroplanes or traffic lights or engine management
> or anything else, other than competitive commerce in a business environment.
>
> Thank you for crediting me with some astuteness. I'll endeavour to see that
> your trust is not misplaced. :-)
>
I hope so. I also credit you with a good ethical sense. Do you have
any ethical questions about the desirability of the process? If you are
going to give that amount of power away to *anybody*, I'd think you should.
Donald
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-28, 9:55 pm |
|
"donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:xoCdndU16ZboHcbbnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@go
lden.net...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Ok, that's fair ... though I would word it *financial* software.
> Commercial software, to me, is any software sold. That includes the
> traffic lights of the average town, for example. All municipalities job
> that sort of stuff out to commercial software houses. Currently, I am
> writing commercial software for school boards, for example. I do not,
> however, work for a school or a school board.
>
>
>
> I would never want to be that intrusive into someone's life.
Hmmm... but you DO have an address book with a list of friends and contacts,
and it contains their personal cell phone numbers and email addresses,
right? And you DO remember their spouses and families and pets and hobbies,
right? And, at some point, if the number of entries grew very large, you
MIGHT attach some of these details to their address book entries, right?
(Especially as the standard Outlook software allows you to...). You would
have no qualms about doing this because you know it is YOUR data and no-one
else will access it. It is Private. And, if you have stayed this far and now
have such a private address book, you MIGHT access it remotely and
wirelessly via a cell phone or similar, right?
My "party glasses" are just a logical extrapolation of what you do already.
Interesting that, simply because it is served up in a different form (UI),
it is now "intrusive in someone's life"...and provokes moral outrage.
>It is like installing a hidden camera in their bedroom.
No it isn't. At least, not unless they WANTED a camera in their bedroom :-)
> I am not interested in being a peeping tom.
As it happens, neither am I. I was simply showing a possibility. I make no
comment as to whether I would find that desirable or not; it's a whole other
topic.I do agree that we should definitely consider the wider aspects and
implications of technology, but please don't ascribe views to me unless I
have stated them. I am not reticent about stating my opinions :-) and I try
to be very clear when what I state IS opinion. Exploring options does not
mean I agree with them. Some people might very well want such a technology.
I don't personally have a Blackberry, but I don't think people who do have
one are wrong. My example was simply to show that the Web WILL pervade into
our lives. Whether that is good or bad is just like everything else; you can
use nuclear power to destroy cities, or to provide energy for them...
> That you find it desirable to be able to intrude into my life to that
> extent bothers me a great deal, whether it is you personally, or just you
> looking at it as a neat possibility that you'd be willing to do for
> others.
First off, NOBODY would be intruding into your life without your consent.
(Don't want the capability; don't buy the glasses... :-))
We are discussing technology, not my personal preferences, ethics, or
morals. (I'll happily discuss those somewhere else; start another thread...
:-)) Your statement that I find something desirable is a conclusion you have
jumped to; I made no such statement. Neither did I deny finding it
desirable.
>
> I hope so. I also credit you with a good ethical sense. Do you have any
> ethical questions about the desirability of the process?
Do you have the answers :-)?
> If you are going to give that amount of power away to *anybody*, I'd think
> you should.
Start another thread (see above... :-))
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-28, 9:55 pm |
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0m0n53d9asehjmuhkmhb1tpgr9h93h6avl@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 12:41:52 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not because of privacy considerations. Do you really
> want all of that information available to anyone you meet at a party.
It already is. It is your own private data on your own private address book.
See my response to Don, and please read carefully what I'm saying... I'm
having views ascribed to me here which are totally irrelevant to what is
being discussed.
> Can you say identity theft.
Nope. It is not now and has never been, illegal to write down (or otherwise
record) details like phone numbers and addresses of people you know,
especially where they have given you this information so you CAN record it.
>
> Actually DOS is far less worrying than theft of information. The more
> connected a system or application is, the more it is vulnerable to
> attempts to make money off it illegitimately.
So has it always been; so shall it always be. Egyptian hieroglyphics report
scribes being punished for embezzling corn by falsifying records. Do you
suppose they should have made writing illegal?
>
> In response to another of your postings full updating of all related
> tables by a transaction can introduce significant overhead and
> processing.
Oh puhhhleeeeze.... I am talking about the future. QUOTE:
"There are facilities on the horizon that will cause major
rethinks in the way we process data. I know it won't happen next w, but
it WILL happen."
UNQUOTE
The whole point about network processing (in the modern world... wasn't true
in the last century...) is that the "significant overhead and processing"
can be nullified by network capacity. The whole network can load level and
provide whatever is needed. The Internet is already doing so. I was stunned
by the results of our recent web service experiment here. I would have
expected around 6 second responses. Instead we had under a second and a
half. Obviously, the Net infrastrucure is geared to ensure that packets get
switched as quickly as possible. Leaving bandwidth out of the argument for a
moment, the network capacity gets extended by simply adding more nodes.
"Full updating of all related tables" will be viable easily within 10 years.
(It already is, for some (many?) transactions...)
>If enough transactions are involved, processing can slow
> tremendously. There have been SAP installations that have had to back
> off SAP for this reason. You can get away with a lot more than you
> could even 4 years ago but instantaneous complex updating still can be
> very resource consumptive.
No argument. I was talking about the future. (However, it could be the
"near" future for some applications.)[color=darkred]
| |
| donald tees 2007-05-29, 3:55 am |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Hmmm... but you DO have an address book with a list of friends and contacts,
> and it contains their personal cell phone numbers and email addresses,
> right? And you DO remember their spouses and families and pets and hobbies,
> right? And, at some point, if the number of entries grew very large, you
> MIGHT attach some of these details to their address book entries, right?
> (Especially as the standard Outlook software allows you to...). You would
> have no qualms about doing this because you know it is YOUR data and no-one
> else will access it. It is Private. And, if you have stayed this far and now
> have such a private address book, you MIGHT access it remotely and
> wirelessly via a cell phone or similar, right?
>
No, I do not do a single thing listed above. I have a bulletin
board(cork memory), and I occasionally post messages to myself on it.
Stuff like phone numbers and appointments get pinned to the board. I use
pencil, not ink.
I do have a list of Email address's in my mailer, but it contains
nothing beyond those address's. If I email them with a real name, then
the address contains the real name. If I do not use email to correspond
with them, then they are not there.
Dates and so on, I remember, or I forget. I never put information about
anybody else on my computer unless I am preparing a lawsuit against them
or preparing a bill for them. Yes, my data is Private, but I keep in
mind that so is theirs. I do not write about them in my diary either. I
try to protect those who are my friends.
When I buy things, I use cash. I use interact to do my banking, so I
suppose that my movements could be tracked, but what I actually spend
the money on I prefer to keep private.
> My "party glasses" are just a logical extrapolation of what you do already.
Not I. Perhaps what other people do, but I know no-one that puts all
their knowledge about their friends and family on their computer. If I
did, they would not be a friend, because I would tell them nothing about
myself, and that makes friendship difficult.
> Interesting that, simply because it is served up in a different form (UI),
> it is now "intrusive in someone's life"...and provokes moral outrage.
I do not put up with such behavior from others under *any*
circumstances. In any form or manner. Do you put up with gossip? I've
talked to you for years now, and you always strike me as the type that
would find gossip as annoying as hell. What you are proposing seems to
me like institutionalizing and computerizing gossip. An entire world of
Mrs. Grundies. How sublime.
>
> No it isn't. At least, not unless they WANTED a camera in their bedroom :-)
>
Or they want to conduct their business in private, with the parties
concerned. Third parties need not apply.
>
> As it happens, neither am I. I was simply showing a possibility. I make no
> comment as to whether I would find that desirable or not; it's a whole other
> topic.I do agree that we should definitely consider the wider aspects and
> implications of technology, but please don't ascribe views to me unless I
> have stated them. I am not reticent about stating my opinions :-) and I try
> to be very clear when what I state IS opinion. Exploring options does not
> mean I agree with them. Some people might very well want such a technology.
> I don't personally have a Blackberry, but I don't think people who do have
> one are wrong. My example was simply to show that the Web WILL pervade into
> our lives. Whether that is good or bad is just like everything else; you can
> use nuclear power to destroy cities, or to provide energy for them...
>
I have always refused to work on weapons systems. I've done embedded
control systems all my life, and have had several offers. I think
people that design atom bombs and then claim they do not drop them are
being fatuous. I find the argument "if I don't, someone else will"
equally fatuous.
I try not to ascribe views to anybody, but your's are a bit like trying
to nail jello to a tree. It certainly seemed to me like you have been
selling these ideas as desirable.
>
>
> First off, NOBODY would be intruding into your life without your consent.
> (Don't want the capability; don't buy the glasses... :-))
>
You mean do not buy from any company that you work for? ;< )
Give me a break, Pete. This is a professional forum in *my* profession.
To not speak out against what I see as a moral issue would be a
dereliction in duty. Besides, the statement is simply untrue. I have no
choice but to have a telephone or starve. If somebody in an IT capacity
decides that my calls should all be public, I'd not get much say in it.
The only way it would voluntary is if all the information was sent to
the individual that it concerns for approval. We both know there is not
a chance in hell of that happening.
Not buying the glasses prevents me from spying. It does nothing about
people spying on me.
> We are discussing technology, not my personal preferences, ethics, or
> morals. (I'll happily discuss those somewhere else; start another thread...
> :-)) Your statement that I find something desirable is a conclusion you have
> jumped to; I made no such statement. Neither did I deny finding it
> desirable.
>
>
> Do you have the answers :-)?
>
>
> Start another thread (see above... :-))
>
> Pete.
I thought I just had. And no, I do not have the answers. I do know
what questions to ask, though, and I do have a few answers.
***
A few years back, I attended a lecture by a man who had made a study of
the paperwork done during the building of Auschwitz. The most
frightening part of the whole thing was the section on building the
ovens. There was, you see, a groundwater problem with the graves. All
those prisoners dying. So they went about designing a system to prevent
it. A real problem when wells start getting contaminated. All these
probably quite civil(and probably quite moral) people set their minds to
solving a ground-water pollution problem using the best brains and ideas
they could come up with. None of the right questions ever got asked.
They designed and built the ovens that made the camp possible.
It strikes me that at least one of the answers is that the professionals
doing the work have a responsibility to ask the questions.
I will apologize in advance for such a heavy paragraph, but you Peter,
are one of the more respected professionals in here, at least by me. If
you are not asking those questions, the rest of us are XXXXed. If you
are going to lead, then you have to choose direction.
Donald
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-29, 3:55 am |
|
"donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:meadnXTn1YUuB8bbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@go
lden.net...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> No, I do not do a single thing listed above. I have a bulletin board(cork
> memory), and I occasionally post messages to myself on it. Stuff like
> phone numbers and appointments get pinned to the board. I use pencil, not
> ink.
>
> I do have a list of Email address's in my mailer, but it contains nothing
> beyond those address's. If I email them with a real name, then the address
> contains the real name. If I do not use email to correspond with them,
> then they are not there.
>
> Dates and so on, I remember, or I forget. I never put information about
> anybody else on my computer unless I am preparing a lawsuit against them
> or preparing a bill for them. Yes, my data is Private, but I keep in mind
> that so is theirs. I do not write about them in my diary either. I try to
> protect those who are my friends.
>
> When I buy things, I use cash. I use interact to do my banking, so I
> suppose that my movements could be tracked, but what I actually spend the
> money on I prefer to keep private.
>
>
> Not I. Perhaps what other people do, but I know no-one that puts all
> their knowledge about their friends and family on their computer. If I
> did, they would not be a friend, because I would tell them nothing about
> myself, and that makes friendship difficult.
OK. I accept what you say.
It means you are either going to have a very hard time in the next 15 years,
or you will simply not be involved. :-)
>
>
> I do not put up with such behavior from others under *any* circumstances.
> In any form or manner. Do you put up with gossip? I've talked to you for
> years now, and you always strike me as the type that would find gossip as
> annoying as hell.
Yes, you are right. I don't accept it and I don't relay it.
> What you are proposing seems to me like institutionalizing and
> computerizing gossip. An entire world of Mrs. Grundies. How sublime.
>
Well, I don't think it will like that for most of us, Don, but you are
correct that the Mrs. Grundies of this world are in for a good time :-)
Mind you, the telephone was an important paradigm shift for such people too,
but we haven't banned phones because of this.
> Or they want to conduct their business in private, with the parties
> concerned. Third parties need not apply.
>
>
> I have always refused to work on weapons systems. I've done embedded
> control systems all my life, and have had several offers. I think people
> that design atom bombs and then claim they do not drop them are being
> fatuous. I find the argument "if I don't, someone else will" equally
> fatuous.
So do I. I don't think we are so far apart here.
I don't see how you see this as an invasion of someone's privacy when it is
simply giving you data you already have and which you have with their
knowledge.. The whole thing would be configurable and you would only get
information that you wanted, and which was on file in your own personal
archives. It's not like the device scanned the FBI files to get you the
data... (That's an enhancement that is only available on the de-Luxe edition
:-))
>
> I try not to ascribe views to anybody, but your's are a bit like trying to
> nail jello to a tree. It certainly seemed to me like you have been
> selling these ideas as desirable.
Hmmm... I re-read my posts and I have to disagree. But then, I know what I
think and what I believe. To be completely honest (and I usually try to be
except when being mischievous, which I'm not at the moment...) I simply
haven't decided whether I think it is a Good Thing or not,... yet. I can see
great power for good or bad and it is far too early to make judgements about
it. What is certain (and this is all I was trying to convey) is that the
Internet WILL pervade our lives in ways we haven't even imagined yet. My
whimsical example with the glasses is just one of myriad ways in which it
COULD be used (and, if past history is anything to go by, when Humans COULD
do something, they usually do...)
To be fair, I DO see the Internet itself as desirable. It has already
changed the way we do business and this change is continuing. But that
doesn't mean I see all uses of it as desirable... I don't approve of SPAM,
but I don't want the Internet shut down. It is important to NOT to throw the
baby away with the bath water.
>
> You mean do not buy from any company that you work for? ;< )
Don, you are way off the beam here. I'm NOT making the glasses, my company
isn't making the glasses, nobody I know personally is making the glasses
(but I wouldn't mind betting that SOMEONE somewhere, within the next 10
years WILL make the glasses.)
Like yourself, I too have taken stands on ethical grounds (it saved my life
once), and am not someone who just "obeys orders"...
All I am guilty of is suggesting that such glasses COULD be made.
Call me old-fashioned, but freedom of thought is something I value pretty
highly. That means freedom to think about things which MAY be unacceptable
(to some people), and that is why I suggested a separate thread to debate or
discuss the moral and ethical implications of such a device.
> Give me a break, Pete. This is a professional forum in *my* profession.
> To not speak out against what I see as a moral issue would be a
> dereliction in duty.
Certainly, and whether I agree with you or not, I shall defend to the death
your right to do that :-)
The problem I have is when something which I worded carefully, is read
hurriedly, and then has meanings ascribed to it which simply aren't there.
There is no invasion of privacy in what I wrote. (I agree that there COULD
be, but that wasn't in what I said, and what I said was intended to
illustrate an entirely different point.)
> Besides, the statement is simply untrue. I have no choice but to have a
> telephone or starve. If somebody in an IT capacity decides that my calls
> should all be public, I'd not get much say in it. The only way it would
> voluntary is if all the information was sent to the individual that it
> concerns for approval. We both know there is not a chance in hell of that
> happening.
Current Data Protection Laws in most countries give you the right to know
what is on file about you and contest it if you disagree.
>
> Not buying the glasses prevents me from spying. It does nothing about
> people spying on me.
No, you took care of that in the sixth paragraph above, when you said you
wouldn't give them information :-)
>
>
> I thought I just had. And no, I do not have the answers. I do know what
> questions to ask, though, and I do have a few answers.
>
Welcome to the club :-) The problem with emerging technology is that
sometimes it isn't clear what its potential for good or evil is until after
it has emerged a bit more... :-)
> ***
>
> A few years back, I attended a lecture by a man who had made a study of
> the paperwork done during the building of Auschwitz. The most frightening
> part of the whole thing was the section on building the ovens. There was,
> you see, a groundwater problem with the graves. All those prisoners dying.
> So they went about designing a system to prevent it. A real problem when
> wells start getting contaminated. All these probably quite civil(and
> probably quite moral) people set their minds to solving a ground-water
> pollution problem using the best brains and ideas they could come up with.
> None of the right questions ever got asked. They designed and built the
> ovens that made the camp possible.
>
Some people (even here in CLC) would say you take the money, you do whatever
the person signing the timesheet requires. I don't personally subscribe to
that, but I have to admit it is honest. I think an exception needs to be
made for cases where people really have no choice. If you are faced with the
option of having yourself or your family end up in one of the ovens, you
might consider designing a system tp prevent groundwater contamination. The
SS were not renowned as employee friendly overlords. I don't know what I
would do in that situation and I cannot make judgements about others who
were.
> It strikes me that at least one of the answers is that the professionals
> doing the work have a responsibility to ask the questions.
I agree and practise such.
>
> I will apologize in advance for such a heavy paragraph, but you Peter, are
> one of the more respected professionals in here, at least by me.
The respect is mutual and no apology is necessary. Open debate is healthy
and I am not in the least offended by anything that has been said here. (I
was mildly irritated at being misquoted, but that happens all the time...
sigh :-))
>If you are not asking those questions, the rest of us are XXXXed. If you
>are going to lead, then you have to choose direction.
Fair comment but I'm not trying to lead. And I think you may be
overestimating my influence here :-)
SUMMING UP:
1. Technology, especially emerging technology, needs to be examined from the
broadest viewpoints to assess its potential for misuse. This is just plain
common sense and has nothing to do with moral or ethical considerations.
2. IT professionals should not participate in projects that are blatantly
repressive or violate the rights of the population. (Not even when thery are
paying Loadsamoney... :-) Your personal integrity should be more important
than your immediate career... (besides, you can get another job, but your
conscience is with you for life...))
3. Pete Dashwood is NOT advocating the use of the Internet to violate
people's personal privacy. Quite the opposite.
4. Donald Tees is a great guy to play music or "relax" with, but don't be
surprised when he forgets your birthday... or your name.... or your
email...:-)
Pete.
| |
| HeyBub 2007-05-29, 7:55 am |
| donald tees wrote:
.....
>
> I would never want to be that intrusive into someone's life. It is
> like installing a hidden camera in their bedroom. I am not interested
> in being a peeping tom. That you find it desirable to be able to intrude
> into my life to that extent bothers me a great deal, whether it is you
> personally, or just you looking at it as a neat possibility that you'd
> be willing to do for others.
Still, if you sold condoms, you'd appreciate being able to predict demand.
Imagine a "Just In Time" order fullfillment program...
| |
| donald tees 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
>
> SUMMING UP:
>
> 1. Technology, especially emerging technology, needs to be examined from the
> broadest viewpoints to assess its potential for misuse. This is just plain
> common sense and has nothing to do with moral or ethical considerations.
>
> 2. IT professionals should not participate in projects that are blatantly
> repressive or violate the rights of the population. (Not even when thery are
> paying Loadsamoney... :-) Your personal integrity should be more important
> than your immediate career... (besides, you can get another job, but your
> conscience is with you for life...))
>
> 3. Pete Dashwood is NOT advocating the use of the Internet to violate
> people's personal privacy. Quite the opposite.
>
> 4. Donald Tees is a great guy to play music or "relax" with, but don't be
> surprised when he forgets your birthday... or your name.... or your
> email...:-)
>
A reasonable summary. I answered this in more detail, then scrapped it.
Most of what I wrote was a quibble.
I will summarize *my* point though.
There are *many* financial transactions that take place that are not
wanted or required or even desirable as "net accessible". Perhaps the
only answer for those transactions is to make them cash, but I think
there is still, and always will be a need for non-net systems. Trusting
the software underlying the whole thing to be secure is a far greater
risk than simply not including net access. Sometimes the simplest
solution is the best.
Donald
| |
| donald tees 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
| HeyBub wrote:
> donald tees wrote:
> ....
>
> Still, if you sold condoms, you'd appreciate being able to predict demand.
> Imagine a "Just In Time" order fullfillment program...
>
>
Unfortunately, I am reaching the age where such points are moot.
Donald
;<(
| |
| HeyBub 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I think your final sentence is significant, Jimmy. The fact is that
> they DIDN'T shoot people, on either side. I'd rather see computers
> "at war" than humans.
>
> The inconvenience of having an ATM not work for a couple of days
> pales into insignificance besides the horror of having a friend or
> loved one shot...
Banks were targeted. If the banks shut down, commerce essentially stops.
People can't get paid, goods and services wither, people starve.
The government was targeted. If the government - or a substantial part of
it - shuts down, crime runs rampant, welfare stops, hospitals close, animal
shelters have to loose their patrons.
Even in your seemingly trivial example (ATM shut-down) is equivalent of
nation-wide bank closures.
This is an information world (see Toffler's "The Third Wave"). Disruption of
information is to today's world what the disruption of oil was to the
Japanese in 1941.
| |
| Alistair 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
| On 29 May, 03:12, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
> Nope. It is not now and has never been, illegal to write down (or otherwise
> record) details like phone numbers and addresses of people you know,
> especially where they have given you this information so you CAN record it.
Which falls within the remit of the UK's DATA PROTECTION ACT. This was
originally intended for use where electronic systems held the data but
it has been extended to paper based systems too. That includes your
address book.
| |
| Alistair 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
| On 29 May, 13:28, "HeyBub" <heybubNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> donald tees wrote:
>
> ....
>
>
>
>
> Still, if you sold condoms, you'd appreciate being able to predict demand.
> Imagine a "Just In Time" order fullfillment program...
I'll give you a clue. When I did my degree in Marine Biology I walked
along the beach to Uni each day. I counted the number of used condoms
encountered and can state that they are positively correlated with the
temperature. Late March to early October the incidence of condoms
increases. Any temporary drop in temperatures will have a concomitant
drop in frequency of condoms.
No kidding.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
|
"donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:LPednUadzrOxs8HbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@go
lden.net...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> A reasonable summary. I answered this in more detail, then scrapped it.
> Most of what I wrote was a quibble.
>
> I will summarize *my* point though.
>
> There are *many* financial transactions that take place that are not
> wanted or required or even desirable as "net accessible". Perhaps the only
> answer for those transactions is to make them cash, but I think there is
> still, and always will be a need for non-net systems. Trusting the
> software underlying the whole thing to be secure is a far greater risk
> than simply not including net access. Sometimes the simplest solution is
> the best.
Agreed. Actually, I'd strengthen your last statement to "USUALLY the
simplest solution is best." :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "donald tees" <donald@execulink.com> wrote in message
> news:LPednUadzrOxs8HbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@go
lden.net...
>
> Agreed. Actually, I'd strengthen your last statement to "USUALLY the
> simplest solution is best." :-)
>
Could not resist these quotes in response:
> "Make things as simple as possible -- but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein
> "To every complex problem there's a simple solution, and it's wrong!"
> -- Turski
> "So simple, a child could do it. (Child sold separately.)"
> -- Unknown, but probably included in toy assembly instructions
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:135o73b2h1rab1d@news.supernews.com...
> donald tees wrote:
> ....
>
> Still, if you sold condoms, you'd appreciate being able to predict demand.
> Imagine a "Just In Time" order fullfillment program...
>
>
LOL!
This reminded me of when I was a teenager and had a job after school and on
Saturday mornings at the local Chemist. He was a character. I realize now
that he was gay (in those days no-one dared come out of the closet and the
word "gay" was only associated with the 1890s) and he was also quite a
devout Roman Catholic. (I'm tempted here to take a cheap shot at the
Priesthood, but have restrained myself... :-)... I can say he never laid a
finger on me or was in any way improper...we had some very interesting
conversations.)
Part of my duties involved checking incoming stock and maintaining the
inventory.
On one occasion he told me that all condom packs must have a pin through
them. I was shocked and refused. He laughed and said he was just testing me
(to this day I don't know if he was for real or not...).
I know he gave quinine and ergometrine to some of the local teenage girls
who had unwanted pregnancies. (It causes spasms of the uterus and, if
applied within a certain "window" of the pregnancy, will dislodge a foetus
and abort it. I make no judgement here about this; I report it simply as a
matter of fact...) This was in an era when abortion was illegal and carried
out with knitting needles in sordid back street rooms. Many girls died from
sepsis. (It's easy to forget that in this more "enlightened" age...)
The man I'm describing is long dead, but I remember him with affection. He
had dreamed of becoming a doctor, but, like many who fail at this, in the
end opted for Pharmacy. I know he struggled with his conscience on a number
of occasions because we had frank, confidential, and honest conversations. I
think he knew he could trust me not to betray his confidence, and I never
have, until now :-)
He once remarked: "I never thought my life would be dispensing condoms and
aspirins so I can scratch a living...". I replied: "Well, if you didn't, the
quality of life around here would be lower, and it's already pretty bad..."
(It was not one of the "better neighbourhoods" in our town...).
I like to think my comment helped him... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180473973.316108.137080@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 May, 13:28, "HeyBub" <heybubNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll give you a clue. When I did my degree in Marine Biology I walked
> along the beach to Uni each day. I counted the number of used condoms
> encountered and can state that they are positively correlated with the
> temperature. Late March to early October the incidence of condoms
> increases. Any temporary drop in temperatures will have a concomitant
> drop in frequency of condoms.
>
> No kidding.
>
Interesting. Thanks for that, Alistair.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
|
"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:135oficr65sipf2@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Banks were targeted. If the banks shut down, commerce essentially stops.
> People can't get paid, goods and services wither, people starve.
Not in my country they don't. Kiwis can live off the land, which is
abundant. Fish, game, deer, pig, fowl, nobody here need go hungry. Banks
closing would be a temporary inconvenience.
In fact, up until quite recently, the whole country used to close for two
ws at Christmas so everyone could go the beach and enjoy time with their
familes. Your car breaks down? No worries, you have friends who can help you
fix it. The power goes off and your freezer food is ruined? No worries..
here's a haunch of venison that Trevor shot at the wend with his bow and
arrow... and Bob's having a hangi of the wild pig he got last w, with
some friends this evening. Bring the kids, some vegetables from your garden,
and a few beers. Power'll be back soon, and if it isn't... we're going
fishing tomorrow.
(Now, if the beer runs out, that would be more serious.)
We actually have a precedent where, in a remote South Island town the power
DID go out for several ws, the Internet was not available and commerce
came to a stop because cash registers weren't working. The community was
isolated due to heavy snow. Supermarkets stayed open and sold essentials to
the populace on credit, with transactions being written in notebooks. When
normalcy returned everyone settled up and, as far as I know, there were no
problems.
On the other hand, it has been established that people suffering from
gunshot wounds have a much harder time...
>
> The government was targeted. If the government - or a substantial part of
> it - shuts down, crime runs rampant, welfare stops, hospitals close,
> animal shelters have to loose their patrons.
Possibly. It depends on the community. There was no increase in crime or
mayhem in the town I noted above. Sometimes adversity brings people
together.
(I have not forgotten the community spirit and assistance rendered to me
when Tauranga was hit by severe floods a few years ago. It was humbling and
inspiring. People have a propensity to be good, as well as bad...)
>
> Even in your seemingly trivial example (ATM shut-down) is equivalent of
> nation-wide bank closures.
>
> This is an information world (see Toffler's "The Third Wave"). Disruption
> of information is to today's world what the disruption of oil was to the
> Japanese in 1941.
>
I didn't say that Internet attacks are not important, or that disabling a
country's infrastructure doesn't matter; I simply expressed my opinion that
I'd rather see this than see a friend or loved one shot. Infrastructure can
be repaired and all of us can live without cash for a short period of time.
(Some people live their whole lives without it.)
However, death by shooting has been shown to be irrevocable.
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-29, 9:55 pm |
|
"CG" <Carl.Gehr.ButNoSPAMStuff@MCGCG.Com> wrote in message
news:1754a$465cca59$d06620ed$2739@FUSE.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Could not resist these quotes in response:
>
LOL! Good stuff, Carl :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <5c42n3F2uv4srU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:135oficr65sipf2@news.supernews.com...
>
>Not in my country they don't.
In case you've not been able to observe it, Mr Dashwood - either through
the interactions here or by gathering data via other methods - there just
might, possibly, be a bit of... 'something else' to the Rest of the World
than what you are able to see in your own country; that sort of
back-yardism is something I've seen criticised when demonstrated by
residents of the United States of America.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-30, 7:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:f3j2ge$pcm$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <5c42n3F2uv4srU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> In case you've not been able to observe it, Mr Dashwood - either through
> the interactions here or by gathering data via other methods - there just
> might, possibly, be a bit of... 'something else' to the Rest of the World
> than what you are able to see in your own country; that sort of
> back-yardism is something I've seen criticised when demonstrated by
> residents of the United States of America.
>
> DD
Not in my back yard...:-)
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <5c4vjsF2v3ah4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:f3j2ge$pcm$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>Not in my back yard...:-)
Not being familiar with that particular bit of land, Mr Dashwood, I can
neither agree nor disagree based on my experience.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-05-30, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:f3jnf3$hi3$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <5c4vjsF2v3ah4U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Not being familiar with that particular bit of land, Mr Dashwood, I can
> neither agree nor disagree based on my experience.
>
> DD
Yeah, I know... :-)
I'm sorry you took one line of my post (and that out of context) and ignored
the rest. I guess you're sensitive to accusations of American insularity...
(Which, by the way, I have never made...)
My intention here was not to show what a great place NZ is (that's way too
easy, and our Government Tourist Ministry do a far better job than any
humble attempt on my part...), rather it was to suggest that people can be
good as well as bad, adversity can sometimes be a unifying force, and
attitude can matter a lot when things go wrong... You know, generally
positive ideas that suggest the glass is half full...uh, OK, now I
understand why you picked one line.... :-)
Pete.
Pete
>
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-05-30, 6:55 pm |
| On 29 May 2007 14:26:13 -0700, Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'll give you a clue. When I did my degree in Marine Biology I walked
>along the beach to Uni each day. I counted the number of used condoms
>encountered and can state that they are positively correlated with the
>temperature. Late March to early October the incidence of condoms
>increases. Any temporary drop in temperatures will have a concomitant
>drop in frequency of condoms.
That's on the beach. I would hypothesize that warm beds in the
winter vs hot beds in the summer have a different correlation.
Supporting evidence is that in the U.S., more babies are born in
September than in any other month.
| |
|
| In article <5c5hotF2u385nU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:f3jnf3$hi3$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>Yeah, I know... :-)
>
>I'm sorry you took one line of my post (and that out of context) and ignored
>the rest.
It was given the attention it was deemed to have deserved, Mr Dashwood...
an incomplete premise might lead to results which are a waste of effort
and time, and time is something that some Busy People posting here might
not have much of.
>I guess you're sensitive to accusations of American insularity...
>(Which, by the way, I have never made...)
Insofar as I am aware of my own sensitivities, Mr Dashwood, your guess is
wrong... but it *is* moderately interesting that you'd make such, in
addition to denying something of which you have not, to the best of my
recollections, been accused. Perhaps the laddie doth protest too much.
DD
| |
| donald tees 2007-05-30, 6:55 pm |
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 29 May 2007 14:26:13 -0700, Alistair
> <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> That's on the beach. I would hypothesize that warm beds in the
> winter vs hot beds in the summer have a different correlation.
> Supporting evidence is that in the U.S., more babies are born in
> September than in any other month.
The number of babies born is more likely correlated to the number of
condoms *not* used nine months previously.
Donald
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 29 May 2007 14:26:13 -0700, Alistair
> <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> That's on the beach. I would hypothesize that warm beds in the
> winter vs hot beds in the summer have a different correlation.
> Supporting evidence is that in the U.S., more babies are born in
> September than in any other month.
If they're using condoms, that's why there aren't babies, silly... ;)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:08:15 -0400, donald tees <donald@execulink.com>
wrote:
>
>
>The number of babies born is more likely correlated to the number of
>condoms *not* used nine months previously.
I suspect condom use as a percentage of occasions where they might be
used is fairly constant throughout the year.
| |
| Alistair 2007-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On 30 May, 16:12, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On 29 May 2007 14:26:13 -0700, Alistair
>
> <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> That's on the beach. I would hypothesize that warm beds in the
> winter vs hot beds in the summer have a different correlation.
> Supporting evidence is that in the U.S., more babies are born in
> September than in any other month.
The condoms were not the result of beach activity at night but the
result of the outflow from the local sewage farms. Therefore, most
likely to have come from a warm bed regardless of the time of year.
| |
| Alistair 2007-05-31, 6:55 pm |
| On 31 May, 01:28, LX-i <lxi0...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>
>
> If they're using condoms, that's why there aren't babies, silly... ;)
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ / \ / ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
> ~ / \/ o ~ ~
> ~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
> ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
> a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
Condoms have a 2% failure rate (last time I checked).
|
|
|
|
|