Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor

Reply
Thread Tools

First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>And now I suppose you will try to argue that CERN was not a scholarly
>>environment.


> People at CERN read MAD magazine too, does that make it a scholarly
> venue?


Was the MAD magazine invented and first printed at CERN?

According to you it surely originated from there and was first
used to connect researchers to each other.


>>>Granted that Usenet was a lot more gentlemanly to begin with, but...


>>... things have changed.


.... Floyd joined the Usenet.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:07:29 -0700 (PDT), DanP <(E-Mail Removed)>


>>>No, it was you with
>>>"Bullshit The term is well defined and in common use by
>>> virtually everyone who has sufficient academic background."


>>Yes, but give Floyd credit...he spelled "Bullshit" correctly.


> And targetted the use appropriately too.


So the poo you fling around is your own?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> You did get that right! And I said that specifically because it is
> irrefutable!


Yes, master, as you say, master, 1+1=36, as you say, master.
It's irrefutable.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> --- determined drivel snipped ---


> I did the snip you suggested. It didn't leave anything at
> from you.


Do you have arguments or do you just enjoy slinging ****?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2012
In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2012-06-26 08:13:31 -0700, Andrew Haley
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>> What you've done is to break the name of the discipline you claim to
>>>>> have some expertise into two separate words, capitalising
>>>>> both. That's clearly deliberate. There's no typo involved. That's a
>>>>> clear elementary misunderstanding of the name of the discipline. A
>>>>> name that features prominently on the spine of every textbook on the
>>>>> subject, every chapter heading of the more general textbooks which
>>>>> cover it.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Can I mention the "Van De Graph particle accelerator" ? It'd
>>>> be a shame not to.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew.
>>>
>>>"Van De Graph"??
>>>
>>>I always thought the MIT/Princeton physicist, was Robert J. Van De Graaff.

>>
>>If we're being pedantic, it was Robert Jemison Van de Graaff.
>>
>>(lower case d in de)


> So it seems those who post spelling flames... can't spell
> correctly! That is not uncommon. Words are just symbols, and
> using various symbols to communicate the meaning for the same
> object shouldn't cause an intelligent person any significant
> difficulty. Unless of course the actual need is to obfuscate
> one's ignorance of the object...


With which irrelevant digression about spelling you have cleverly
distracted attention from the point of mentioning the van de Graaff
generator. That's why spelling flames such as yours above are
deprecated in newsgroups.

> But none of you seen able to discuss the functionality and
> theory involved in the machines named after the man in terms of
> what it means about Chris Malcolm's gaffe, who claims his
> academic standing trumps all,


Interesting that you're eliding my mention of practical experience in
research labs. The term "academic" is obviously a red rag to the
bovine male.

> made when he said the shutter and
> the mirror in a DSLR would generate static electricity, and then
> said:


> "There are conductive and insulating parts moving in proximity
> to one another in both the focal plane shutter and the mirror
> box. Don't you remember how the high voltage generators in your
> school science lab worked??"


> He worked on one in a high school science lab, which must have
> been thrilling.


It was. As was later employment in research labs making and testing
experimental electromechanical gear liable to being zapped now and
again by static discharges.

> My experience (almost 50 years ago now) was
> maintaining the operational functionality of a large research
> machine co-located with a nuclear reactor for which I also did
> maintenance on all of the associated electronics.


> "There are conductive and insulating parts moving in proximity
> to one another ..." Indeed! Giggle snort.


Indeed. You said you maintained a large van de Graaff
generator. Didn't they tell you how it worked? It worked by moving
conductive and insulating parts in proximity to one another.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 2012-06-26 08:13:31 -0700, Andrew Haley
>>>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>>>> Indeed. Can I mention the "Van De Graph particle accelerator" ? It'd

[That was Andrew Haley]

>>>>>"Van De Graph"??
>>>>>I always thought the MIT/Princeton physicist, was Robert J. Van De Graaff.

[That was Savageduck]

>>>>If we're being pedantic, it was Robert Jemison Van de Graaff.
>>>>(lower case d in de)

[That was Bruce]

>>> So it seems those who post spelling flames... can't spell
>>> correctly! That is not uncommon. Words are just symbols, and

[Spelling flame by Floyd]

>>With which irrelevant digression about spelling you have cleverly
>>distracted attention from the point of mentioning the van de Graaff
>>generator. That's why spelling flames such as yours above are
>>deprecated in newsgroups.


> Nice work Chris, first you post spelling flames


Floyd can't keep his attributions straight.

> and when I
> discuss your gaffe(s),


You mean "When I spellflamed Savageduck". You're not discussing,
you're dissing. And you still can't keep your attributions right.

> you claim I'm the one posting a spelling
> flame.


But you did.

> That lacks integrity...


A word that has no meaning for you.

>>Indeed. You said you maintained a large van de Graaff
>>generator. Didn't they tell you how it worked? It worked by moving
>>conductive and insulating parts in proximity to one another.


> How do you produce static with something like a comb and a
> balloon? Which is the "conducting" part?


Are you really too stupid to understand that van de Graaff is
not the only generator type? How do you propose you move the




> Any "conductive" part has to have something else, that doesn't
> exist with a camera's shutter or mirror. Just any conductive
> part in proximity to an insulator is much more likely to
> *eliminate* any static charge rather than generate one!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_Machine :
Conductive parts in proximity with an insulator.

Oh, BTW, the
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/vandeg.html
van de Graaff generator is conductive parts in proximity to
an insulator. Believe it or not!


> The build up of a static charge requires a *source* of electrons.
> And that is what the electric circuits associated with the
> sensor provide, but nothing associated with either the mirror or
> the shutter does.


To elevate said electrons to ten-thousands of volts requires
some power, mechanical or electrical. Where do you say does
that come from inside the sensor? Is there a 100.000V line?
Or some mechanical movement? (no, not the anti-dust shake
--- the problem was known before that arrived on the scene.)

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Tuesday, 26 June 2012 01:00:23 UTC+1, Trevor wrote:


>>Use any street language you want, just don't claim the
>>term is used in academic circles. Or ask the scholars to
>>use it.
>>
>>Floyd messed up big time. Are you reading what you are
>>replying to?


> Not really. The only one trying to connect all this to
> "scholars" is Chris, who does that because he has not real
> experience. Usenet is *not* a scholarly venue...


You seem to have a bad memory. The first person to bring up the topic
of education in the topic of static electricity was you. You said I
didn't have any and ought to get some. So I naturally replied with
some details of my education in the topic. I also assumed that you
brought up the topic because you had some education in the topic
yourself. Interesting that as soon as I mentioned having some
education in staic electricity you switched to claiming that practical
experience like yours trumped the impractical book learning.

Secondly I do have practical experience as well as education in the
topic, as I've explained in more than one post in this thread. I note
too that the only practical experience you've mentioned so far has
been wearing a grounding wrist strap.

I guess you're not old enough to remember when and how usenet
newsgroups were first started. They began as scholarly venues, and
continued successfully as such for some time. There's a particular
legendary date often quoted as the time when newsgroup quality and the
education of its participants really plummeted down.

When did you first start posting to newsgroups, Floyd?

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 03:54:16 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:46:03 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:40:59 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L.
>>>>>>Davidson) wrote:


>>>>>Did you miss the point again Eric? What you said previously was
>>>>>not even close to correct. What you say now has nothing to do
>>>>>with anything. You and Chris have claimed there was some
>>>>>fundamental change in how Usenet was used (from "scholarly" to
>>>>>otherwise).

>>
>>It wasn't instantaneous. It was progressive.


> It never happened! I've shown rather conclusively that it was
> not scholarly to begin with.


Important parts of it were. That's why most of the original usenet
newsgroup backbone was university servers. That's where the newsgroup
quoting conventions and netiquette ideas came from, which still
haven't been bettered as a way of conducting complex discussions in
text between numerous participants without expensive computer
resources. There were also as you mention the jokey bizarre
pornographic etc newsgroups, which as soon as the general non-academic
public got easy access to became high traffic.

> Because Usenet is not a scholarly venue now any more than it
> was to start with.


The "comp" hierarchy was probably the first technical and scholarly
section because computer scientists were the first to start using
newsgroups as they were the first "scholars" to be using
computers. The "sci" hierarchy followed soon after because scientists
in general took to using computers before non scientific scholars.
The first drafts or ideas of later published papers would often be
chewed over first in the appropriate newsgroups.

Are you familiar with the "eternal September" concept? That was a back
reference to the annual September influx of new university students to
newsgroups who weren't familiar with the established netiquette of
newsgroup behaviour, i.e. an annual inrush of bad behaviour. Which in
the early 1990s stopped being an annual inrush as AOL etc. started
allowing easy access to newsgroups to the general public. The sci.med
hierarchy, which among other things had been a venue in which medical
research scientists discussed the latest research, rapidly became
seriously polluted by people wanting doctors to diagose their medical
problems, people who thought all doctors were criminals intent on
poisoning their patients for profit, lunatics pretending to be
doctors, spammers, etc..

Most of the scholarly contributors to newsgroups soon left for private
better policed discussion forums. A few stalwarts held out in much
diminished numbers. Some newsgroups became moderated to try to control
bad behaviour and exclude the determinedly ineducable.

>>>Turns out you were wrong about that, and now you even admit your
>>>discussion proves your original claim of a scholarly Usenet was
>>>wrong.

>>
>>Where do you get these ideas from? I never made such an admission.
>>It's yet another of your wrong conclusions at which you have leaped.


> You have now twice admitted it didn't change!


> That of course is because what it is now isn't any different
> than what it was to start with in that respect.


For those who originally participated in the scholarly newsgroups it's
hugely different. Almost all of those newsgroups have been laid waste
by barbarians. I've never paid any attention to such non scholarly
areas as net.bizarre and I'm quite happy to accept your expert word
that they haven't changed at all.

>>>>>Yet, as we see... net.bizarre, net.joke, and net.flame were
>>>>>some of the very first of these supposedly scholarly newsgroups!


No, they were the first of the non-scholarly newsgroups which were
started around the same time as less formal less scholarly venues.

>>>>>The fact is, Usenet was *never* anything close to a scholarly
>>>>>venue.
>>>>
>>>>How on earth would you know? You weren't even connected when it
>>>>started.
>>>
>>>How on earth would *you* know! You not only weren't connected
>>>then, but weren't until many years later.


I know because being at the time an academic computer scientist of
sorts I was an early user. Hard now to find out how early. Dejanews
was the first general archive, started in 1995, and pulled together a
lot of earlier archives. Incorporating them into its general
searchable archive required work so it always had more archive
material than could be searched. Its search engine was never entirely
bug free, and sometimes posts disappeared, later appearing again as
bugs were fixed.

Deja then started using its search engine more generally and losing
interest in newsgroups. I think it wanted to become a commercially
profitable shopping comparision site. It seemed to stop work on old
archive incorporation and newsgroup search bug fixing. By the time
Google acquired Deja's newsgroup archives in 2001 Deja had relocated
its servers and in the process lost some of its older archive
material and its indexes and searches were a mess.

Google originally said it would do what it could to incorporate some
of the unfinished incorporation of Deja's archives, and to try to
locate and incorporate some archives from elsewhere. But they didn't
do this with much enthusiasm. Early material was often difficult to
integrate into their indexing systems without cross referencing
problems, and I get the impression they found it easier to "lose" the
troublesome archives than fix them and their search bugs. As the years
have passed the earliest findable posts have got later and later.

So the documentation of the early history has become poorer as time
has passed. At the same time of course the amount of detailed history
accounts you can find on the web has multiplied. But the increasing
difficulty of accessing earlier material as the years have passed
means that most of it has been written by people who weren't using it
or were even alive at the time and who are relying on the memories of
people who were. Those memories will naturally be strongly coloured by
what they were doing with newsgroups at the time.

Such as the considerable difference between your memories and mine.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>> It never happened! I've shown rather conclusively that it was
>>> not scholarly to begin with.

>>
>>Important parts of it were.


> No part of it was, or even came close. You have shown
> absolutely nothing other than an opinion, based on the false
> logic that because the inventors where scholars that it was
> therefore scholarly.


I agree that's a stupid argument. That's why I didn't use it.

> Non sequitur. Those scholarly inventors did many non scholarly
> things. Being scholarly does not imply that everything they do
> is therefore scholarly.


I agree. If you want to argue with me, why not try disputing my
arguments rather than your own inventions?

> Worse yet, farther down in your argument to absolutely admit
> that it was not so at the beginning, and it wasn't until several
> years later that what you claim was the first scholarly
> newsgroup even existed!


You're obsessed with the minutiae of specific dates and specific
names. The general truth of the matter is that in its early years,
i.e. before 1990, there were a lot of newsgroups devoted to scholarly
purposes by scholars, i.e. the staff and students of universities and
those working in large govt and commerical research institutes and
departments. Don't forget that as newsgroups went US national they
merged with Arpanet and inherited that scholarly traffic, and as they
crossed the Atlantic to Britain they merged with the existing JANET
(Joint Academic Net) and that scholarly traffic.

>>That's why most of the original usenet
>>newsgroup backbone was university servers.


> Non sequitur. What possible connection could that have?


Why should universities devote funding to supporting national public
chat facilities? There was a reason universities put effort and
resources into newsgroup traffic. Didn't you work for one? Why did
they do that?

> (Most frat house drunken brawls happen at universities... does that
> make a drunken brawl in a frat house a scholarly event? Great logic
> you use, Chris!)


Your logic is pathetic. University students are well known to engage
in lots of non-academic activities. The same is true of the staff. But
that doesn't mean a university is not an academic institution.

> And the fact that the other "original usenet newsgroup backbone"
> sites were not at universities... by that logic would suggest
> that it wasn't at all scholarly.


I didn't say they all were universities. That doesn't mean they
weren't institutions which hosted scholarly activities and put
resources into newsgroup admin and propagation in order to support
those activities. If you want to dispute that just name one of the
backbone supporters of which that wasn't true.

> In fact AT&T relatively early on became a major player by
> providing transcontinental transport, while major research
> centers with deep pockets for telecommunications provided
> regional transport, and most universities provided local
> transport.


Exactly what I've been claiming. AT&T abd major research centers. You
don't think research is a scholarly activitity? You don't think the
researchers in those places didn't use newsgroups for scholarly
purposes?

> Your understanding of the facts isn't deep enough to allow
> anything other than superficial analysis apparently.


I used newsgroups for scholarly purposes as soon as they became
available, and continued to do that, and to teach students how to do
that, until I retired. So did most of my colleagues. What's
superficial about that?

>>That's where the newsgroup
>>quoting conventions and netiquette ideas came from, which still
>>haven't been bettered as a way of conducting complex discussions in
>>text between numerous participants without expensive computer
>>resources. There were also as you mention the jokey bizarre
>>pornographic etc newsgroups, which as soon as the general non-academic
>>public got easy access to became high traffic.


> So you claim that netiquette, which is very clearly aimed at
> a non-scholarly venue (for example spelling errors are to be
> ignored),


Here we go again! You're fixated on the idea of a "scholarly" venue
being like a school classroom where kids are smacked over the knuckles
with a ruler for spelling mistakes. That's not true of
universities. True, universities care a lot about spelling where
papers being submitted for publication are being concerned. But they
don't give a damn about spelling in online discussion groups whether
newsgroups, email groups, web forums, whatever. You forget that
research is international, and many university staff and students are
not native English speakers. Bothering about spelling in such
circumstances would not only be a wasteful diversion, it would be
rude.

The only scholarly newsgroups where spelling is important is in those
language related newsgroups where issues related to spelling, such as
etymology, are important.

> came from Usenet (actually though, all of that had
> it's origins in mailing lists on the ARPANET, not Usenet).


Of course it did, plus similar origins in the UK's JANET. As I've
pointed out those were also scholarly forums. Usenet newsgroups
inherited and developed those scholarly forums and customs.

> And if you recognize that several of the *first* newsgroups were
> "jokey bizarre pornographic etc", then just as clearly you have
> to recognize that it was not a scholarly venue.


You'll be telling me next that because University libraries have
pornographic graffiti in their toilets that they too can't be
scholarly venues.

> You can't describe significant parts that are exactly the
> opposite of scholarly and then claim that it was as a whole
> scholarly.


Of course I don't claim that it was wholly or even largely
scholarly. I claim that in its early years its primary purposes were
scholarly. It wasn't invented to carry jokes and pornography round the
world, and the reason universities and organisations like AT&T
invested resources into newsgroups admin and propagation wasn't
because they wanted access to jokes or net.bizarre, it was because
they valued the scholarly traffic. That was its original primary
purpose.

> Particularly when the next comment, just below,
> clearly says that it was years later before the first thing
> you claim was scholarly even existed!


No idea what you're talking about. Scholarly text based discussion
groups had started in various places in various ways (such as Arpanet)
before newsgroups were invented. Newsgroups inherited and developed
them.

>>> Because Usenet is not a scholarly venue now any more than it
>>> was to start with.

>>
>>The "comp" hierarchy was probably the first technical and scholarly
>>section because computer scientists were the first to start using


> Lets also start by noting that you've just contradicted yourself
> factually. The comp.* hierarchy came along several years after
> Usenet was established.


True, but at that time, and for some time afterwards, it carried the
largest traffic of the "scholarly" newsgroups for the reasons I've
suggested. But the discussions in the comp.* hierarchy didn't spring
into existence when those hierarchies were set up. The discussions had
not only been going on before the hierarchical organisation was set
up, they'd been going on before usenet was invented in such as
Arpanet.

> It was part of the Great Renaming in
> 1987, and if it was "the first technical and scholarly section"
> then you entire claim that Usenet began as a scholarly venue is
> bogus.


I hoped I've managed to clear up that misunderstanding.

>>newsgroups as they were the first "scholars" to be using
>>computers.


> Another gaffe. The first scholars to use computers were in the
> 1950's and 1960's and 1970's... The ones using Usenet came
> along 30 years later!


I should have been more specific. I didn't mean the first scholars to
use computers per se. That began in the 1940s. I meant the first
scholars to use computers and their unter connections for text-based
collaborative research and discussions.

> What they were however might well be described as including the
> first group of scholars to use computer *networking* as a
> routine part of their work, as opposed to those whose work was
> the development of computer networking. (Except that in fact
> most of them were indeed developing networking, and not just
> simply using the network for other work.)


That's what I meant.

>>The "sci" hierarchy followed soon after because scientists
>>in general took to using computers before non scientific scholars.
>>The first drafts or ideas of later published papers would often be
>>chewed over first in the appropriate newsgroups.


> Again, this clearly denies your claims that Usenet began as a
> scholarly venue. Once again you are discussing history that
> took place well after the beginning, well after any time that
> could be described as a scholarly start.


Going on to describe how newsgroups developed is not denying that they
had an earlier start, or indeed that the discussions predated the
later Great Renaming of newsgroups which organised those discussions.

> (Keep in mind that
> in 1987 Usenet was on the *third* generation of software, and
> the forth generation, C News, was released 1987.)


> Regardless, those newsgroups were not technically scholarly.
> The fact that scholars were the most significant users is not
> what makes something scholarly. Even the fact that a lot of
> material posted may have been scholarly does not make something
> scholarly.


> It would be scholarly if and only the rules for posting were
> indeed scholarly. If non-scholarly posts were not allowed, or
> at least severely frowned upon as a rule.


Your concept of "scholarly" appears to be based neither on education
nor experience.

>>Are you familiar with the "eternal September" concept?


> Do you read much? I not only provided you with more background
> about that than you seem to have understood, but in the process
> should have embarrassed you into putting your discussion of that
> away for good.


> Long before there was "eternal September", first there was the
> September inrush of new users, most of whom did happen to have
> edu suffixed addresses.


As I went on to say, and as you quote me as saying several lines down.
So now you're trying to tell me I'm ignorant because I obviously don't
know something you go on to quote me as saying. You're obviously a lot
more stupid than I thought.

> But the fact is that that particular
> phenomenon, whereby new users were derided by those who had
> arrived in the wave just before them, actually preceded the
> connection to September by more than a couple of waves.


>>That was a back
>>reference to the annual September influx of new university students to
>>newsgroups who weren't familiar with the established netiquette of
>>newsgroup behaviour, i.e. an annual inrush of bad behaviour.


> As in, "What do you expect from an EDU domain!"


You do realise that I'm posting from the UK equivalent of an edu
domain?

> But as I pointed out previously, pointing fingers at new
> arrivals started when the 4th site was added to Usenet. It had
> a long history by the time you arrived with the eternal
> September wave.


I thought I'd made it clear that I was using newsgroups as soon as
they arrived in the UK. In fact I was part of a group using JANET for
interuniversity research collaboration before newsgroups arrived.

[snip]

>>For those who originally participated in the scholarly newsgroups it's
>>hugely different. Almost all of those newsgroups have been laid waste
>>by barbarians. I've never paid any attention to such non scholarly
>>areas as net.bizarre and I'm quite happy to accept your expert word
>>that they haven't changed at all.


> So, once again you clearly admit that Usenet was in and of
> itself a "non scholarly area".


Can't follow your logic there at all. But perhaps that's because I
don't understand what the American phrase "in and of itself" means. I
think usenet newsgroups were definitely at an earlier time scholarly
as I understand it. But by your definition of "scholarly" which must
involve attacking bad spelling it clearly isn't scholarly, nor are
universities.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2012
Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>Neither does the doing of non-scholarly things mean that nothing you
>>do is scholarly.


> Logic never was easy for you Eric, eh? If a non-scholarly thing
> you are doing is called Usenet, then Usenet is non-scholarly even if
> you are a scholar.


I see what you mean. So the only university professors whose published
writings can be said to be scholarly are those who have never
published anything in a non-scholarly publication. And any supposedly
scholarly journal which also publishes non scholarly material is
therefore not a scholarly journal. Universities and schools are
not scholarly venues.

>>It strikes me that one of the key differences between you and Chris
>>Malcolm is that you were primarily interested in building the system
>>while Chris was more interested in using it.


> That is indeed a good observation. I'm a bit astounded that you
> actually have noticed something for once have accurately realized
> what it is. To bad the significance isn't something you grok...


> People who build things are much more aware of exactly what they
> build...


Not necessarily. Depends what you mean by "knowing what they're
building", which is not necessarily either simple or necessary.

For example the history of science has a number of examples of cases
where an ingenious engineer tried to make something work which
scientists of the time had proved to their own satisfaction was
impossible. The ingenious engineer succeeded in making it work. Which
led to a revision of the science.

Did the engineer know exactly what he was doing? Depends what you mean
by "knowing what he was building". In some cases it's generally
accepted that it took years of research before anyone knew what he'd
built.

> You repeatedly miss the point. Claiming that something was a
> certain thing "to start with" or "from the beginning", when you
> can't seem to get a grip on what was the beginning is absurd.


It isn't absurd. Deciding what was the beginning of something that
evolved from tiny beginnings into something big and important isn't
always easy. For example when does a fertilised cell in a woman's womb
become a human being? Is taking a "morning after" pill murdering a
person? These are well known highly debatable issues.

Usenet newsgroups evolved. They started with ideas, which progressed
to the first experimental implementations, which progressed to the
first usable implementations, which progressed to the first
communication between two sites, four sites, a nationally available
network, and so on. It's not just a question of dating a specific
event. A decision has to be taken about which event in a progressive
evolution counts as the real beginning.

The same goes for the much disputed question of which was the first
computer. THe history isn't in doubt. The problem is what device has
enough of the important characteristics of modern computers to count
as the first real computer.

> Neither you nor Chris seem to be able to separate the time that
> *you started using Usenet* from the time that Usenet actually
> began. Usenet was not what you claim when it began, and it
> evolved hugely between it's beginning and when you came along.


IT could equally well be claimed that we know what we're talking
about, and the problem is that you inists on talking about something
else, then claiming that's what we're talking about and clearly
getting it wrong.

That's why I've never talked about The Beginning Of Newsgroups because
I know how disputable is what counts as the beginning of something
that took time to evolve. That's why I've referred to the early years
of newsgroups rather than The Beginning.

My own use of newsgroups started when they crossed the Atlantic and
joined up with the UK JANET of which I was already a user. By that
time they had already incorporated Arpanet, and the reason for the
resources beeig supplied in both the US and the UK to join up with
JANET was purely because of the important scholarly content.

>>>Regardless, those newsgroups were not technically scholarly.
>>>The fact that scholars were the most significant users is not
>>>what makes something scholarly. Even the fact that a lot of
>>>material posted may have been scholarly does not make something
>>>scholarly.
>>>
>>>It would be scholarly if and only the rules for posting were
>>>indeed scholarly. If non-scholarly posts were not allowed, or
>>>at least severely frowned upon as a rule.

>>
>>That seems to be your problem. You use a unique definition of
>>'scholarly'. I won't say that you have chosen it to suit your
>>argument.


> I chose it because that is what a scholarly venue is. It isn't
> a scholarly venue if it is not limited to pretty much only
> scholarly uses.


So schools and universities aren't scholarly venues. I'm struggling to
think of something that counts in your eyes as a scholarly venue.

[from Chris]
>>>>Most of the scholarly contributors to newsgroups soon left for private
>>>>better policed discussion forums. A few stalwarts held out in much
>>>>diminished numbers. Some newsgroups became moderated to try to control
>>>>bad behaviour and exclude the determinedly ineducable.


>>>Moderated newsgroups were instituted in 1984, so your awareness
>>>of that problem is historically not significant.

>>
>>You are referring to the *.moderated format. However there was the
>>earlier mod.* which go back into the dawn of history.


> No. Once again you are spouting off nonsense that you've made
> up in your head to support what you thing must have been.


> Get it straight: the mod.* hierarchy was instituted in 1984.
> That is a well known fact that is not open to your silly
> interpretations.


> Chris was claiming that the *.moderated suffix added a new
> format, the moderated newsgroup, to Usenet.


No I didn't! I wish you'd stop inventing stuff! You've already quoted
what I said above. I simply pointed out that at the time when
scholarly newsgroup pollution by bad behaviour became so serious that
the scholars started leaving in droves then moderated groups were one
of the defences used by those who remained. I said nothing about when
moderated newsgroups first started.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
d600 can see network, can't connect CTS Wireless Networking 5 01-03-2009 10:06 PM
dell latitude d600 Sab Computer Support 7 11-28-2007 10:49 PM
Samsung D600 and B tYahoo e-mail Paul Computer Support 0 05-15-2006 06:16 PM
802.1x D600 Broadcom Jay Cisco 2 12-17-2004 09:02 PM
keeps losing my wireless connection linksys WRT54GS dell lat d600 =?Utf-8?B?UGF1bCBN?= Wireless Networking 2 10-29-2004 03:43 PM



Advertisments