Re: computer science as a complex adaptive system

From: gswork (gswork_at_mailcity.com)
Date: 10/03/03 

Date: 3 Oct 2003 00:35:41 -0700

"Jochen Fromm" <Jochen.Fromm@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<blha67$cbeqa$1@ID-177680.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >
> > How about distilling a 'discussion' version for the benefit of usenet
> > folk. I'm sure a few comp.programming people would like to talk about
> > it
> >
>
> The idea was to examine the evolution of computer science, and
> especially the evolution of programming languages. It is difficult
> to describe the evolution of something in words. Usually you
> try to draw a tree or a graph to visualize the evolution of something.
> Sometimes it is easier to draw a picture than to explain it
> in complicated words. You can't do that in usenet postings.
> And I guess everyone of the comp.programming group is able
> to download and read a PDF-file. Or he would be in the wrong group.

Usenet is a forum for discussion though, as you recognise later.

> Of course everyone likes to get feedback, but I don't wanted to
> start a great discussion. I only wanted to pass on the information
> and explanations I discovered while writing this article. Getting a lot
> of responses and starting a big discussion is easy, you just have to
> post something stupid, wrong or provocative, something likely to
> cause anger or argument. If you say for example "AI is brain dead"
> or "AI is solved", then you get dozens of responses and a big discussion.

But you like the idea of a smaller quality discussion? You can start
such here at comp.programming.

>
> To distill a 'discussion' version which evokes some responses
> before it drowns in the archives, I have to write something exaggerated
> like 'Assembler is dead' or 'the problem of understanding natural
> language with computers has been solved'.

you don't have to do that here, check some of the subject titles.

> I know the purpose of
> usenet is to discuss things, but if discussing alone becomes the
> main purpose, it becomes useless. In my opinion, discussing is
> useful to solve problems, to find out new things, to discover new
> explanations, to understand s.th. from a new, different point of view.

Non of this is especailly inhibited here.

> I don't know why I should make a special 'discussion' version for
> those who are too uninterested, too dumb or too lazy to view a
> simple PDF-file. Seems a bit useless to me.

Then, if you presume a great many readers to be likely to fit the bill
(being too dumb etc) why post link to a pdf?

> Sometimes I think posting in newsgroups, and esp. usenet
> newsgroups, is like casting pearls before swines. You don't
> get many useful responses, instead you are flooded with
> SPAM because you are publishing your e-Mail address.
> In the unmoderated groups there is so much stupid and dumb
> argument, that every good and useful posting of high quality
> drowns in the rubbish, mud and noise of all the low quality
> postings.

Comp.programming has a reasonable ratio of good to bad, as do many
other comp.* hierarchy groups.

> If there is no mechanism that promotes quality, people who
> post quality and useful results are discouraged, whereas people
> who write crap are encouraged. I don't want to say my article is
> of the highest quality, but it took me some weeks of hard work
> to write. Writing a distilled discussion version without graphics
> in plain text just for the purpose of discussion seems to me
> like extracting the pearls from the article and throwing it in the
> swine cage.

You seem to have such a low opinion of usenet readers i'm suprised you
posted anything!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Love, a problem for evolutionists
    ... This quality is called "sacrifice." ... Animals, too, show this quality. ... How does this shut down evolution in arthropods, ... it make you doubt the creation myth? ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Challenge to Evolutionists...
    ... YOU do not understand evolution, therefore you are dumb and any questions ... Not dumb, just willfully ignorant. ... threat of eternal torture or worse. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray is right. And you know it.
    ... the truth and accept it long ago. ... to stand proud behind Ray and call these orangutan-spunk ... society that is the "Theory of Evolution" (or as I like to call it, ... This USENET hides behind the cross? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: With Israel
    ... As foreign countries I think we should not be choosing sides because ... Ultimately it comes down to 'choosing sides', ... way evolution works - the dumb die out eventually... ... Evolution is an interesting subject. ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Like Darwin Harshman points to the similarities on either side of
    ... an Evolutionist, Peter? ... Both Forrest and Stockwell argue evolution the same way you argue ... is not seen in the paleontological crust of the Earth. ... More to the point, are you going to judge the quality of animation, ...
    (talk.origins)