Ok, your Pagan rants have gotten my dander up. I must object to this crap
just as I would if some other religious zealout or nutball came on here
and tried to espouse their religious views.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> 1. Every person on Earth must be required to know the fundamental principles of
> Computer Science, including the principles of character coding.
WHY? Why "must" everyone be required to know this? Is it not enough that
child slaves have to endure their exploitation, but now they must also be
required to study and memories the fundamental principles of a science
that they will probably never utilize in any practical sense?
> 2. People must realise (just like ancient pagans did) that codes are more
Why the hell do we care what the ancient pagans realized in relation
to computer science? Are you suggesting we also sacrifice a virgin upon
our keyboards whenever we begin a new project?
> primary and more fundamental than character shapes. To illustrate my point:
> most people believe that letter 'A' is fundamentally a tent with a bar
> between the slopes, and that 1000001 is one computer representation of it.
> This is what I am challenging, I argue that letter 'A' is fundamentally
> 1000001 and that the shape with two slopes and a bar between them is merely
> one possible representation of this fundamental 7-bit code, a representation
> that is a passing fad of a society that uses handwriting, printing, paper,
> and other barbaric antiques like this instead of directly transmitting binary
> codes from one computer or brain to another.
Ok, until you're able to fund and develop a program to implant binary
communication transmitters in the head of every living being on Earth, and
furthermore somehow either convince every living being that this will be
good for them or have enough power to enforce this modification, then
perhaps your kooky premises are better left to the realm of science
fiction. In summary, you've been watching too much Star Trek.
> 3. Keyboards, just like all other tools, need to be viewed in this light: it is
> not a device for entering a certain set of graphic characters, it is a device
> for entering a certain set of codes in some charset. This is what the IFCTF
> keyboard definition is all about.
That's just fine and dandy and magical and mysterious, but of what
practical use is it spending your time trying to enforce this definition?
Wouldn't your time be better spent dancing amongst the trees under a full
moon and building large, incomprehensible stone structures?
The only people that like zealots are other like-minded zealots.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Received on Sun Feb 22 2004 - 15:57:21 GMT