Science > Physics > "Superdeterminism" in Wikipedia; why Wikipedia is a Malignancy Encyclopedia; ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"a_plutonium" |
| Date: |
12 May 2007 12:52:08 PM |
| Object: |
"Superdeterminism" in Wikipedia; why Wikipedia is a Malignancy Encyclopedia; ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY |
Talk:Superdeterminism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In an The Illuminatus! Trilogy appendix, Robert Anton Wilson noted
this;
SUPERDETERMINISM: The approach to quantum theory urged by Dr. Fritjof
Capra in The Tao of Physics. This interpretation rejects
"contrafactual definiteness"; that is, it assumes that any statements
about what could have happened are meaningless. A consequence of this
view is that all distinction between observer and observed, or self
and universe, also becomes meaningless; I had no choice about writing
this book, Dell Books had no choice about publishing it, and you had
no choice about reading it, since there is only one thing happening
and we are all seamlessly welded into it.
Marasmusine 13:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
* So an appendix to a novel is the only verifiable reference
we currently have for this term. That helps explain "The concept has
not received widespread attention among physicists." I will look some
more ... but ... the term neologism comes to mind ... --Keesiewonder
talk 10:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
o I'm not trying to defend the article in particular,
but I'm sure there will be more references out there somewhere. For a
phrase that's been around since at least 1970, I don't think
'neologism' is entirely appropriate. On the other hand I have no
appropriate source material to hand. Maybe the article should be
scrapped for now, but I've flagged it for attention for physics
experts in the meantime. Marasmusine 10:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
o Did a quick internet search; not sure about the
reliability of these sources; but Bell and Superdeterminism are
mentioned here :[1] and there are some further references at the
bottom of this: [2], this [3] paper being the most relevent.
Unfortunately they only mention superdeterminism in passing but at
least it shows the original editor isn't making it up. Marasmusine
11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
* Ok, those look more promising. Thank you, and nice work!
I would like to see the BBC reference migrate out of the article -
until we can prove the blockquote comes from a true BBC interview -
and these other materials migrate in. Keesiewonder talk 12:56, 24
March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proof needed of the John Bell and BBC connection
Searching all of the BBC for the term "superdeterminism" yields one
hit. Near the bottom of the page with the search results is the
disclaimer "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external
websites." the sole hit points to h2g2 which is described (here) as
"an unconventional guide to life, the universe and everything, an
encyclopaedic project where entries are written by people from all
over the world." The BBC provides their own disclaimer at the bottom
of this page stating "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's
Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are
theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The
BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites
referenced." Furthermore, when you go to the h2g2 instance of
superdeterminism, neither the name John nor the name Bell appears on
the page. There's no BBC interview that I have found containing the
term superdeterminism. Please provide verifiable resources to back up
the content expressed and quoted in this article. --Keesiewonder talk
10:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, h2g2 isn't what I'd call a reliable source. But if such an
interview had taken place, it may have been pre-WWW. Hopefully the
original editor will come back with a reference. Marasmusine 10:55, 24
March 2007 (UTC)
New Scientist Magazine refers to the BBC source. I own the Bell book
but was never able to find those quotes there. I will try to find the
New Scientist reference. If I find it tonight will report it.
216.16.57.233 04:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Title: The man who proved Einstein was wrong.
New Scientist 24 Nov.1990 pages 43-45.
216.16.57.233 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool, that's this article: [4] I'll add it to the list of references.
Marasmusine 07:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Marasmusine for hunting down the reference. Now I ask of
Marasmusine (you have something to do with mice?) to forget about the
other references, because this page is about John Bell and those
quotes. Your references are oblique to those quotes. Start a page on
the concept of counterfactual whatever elsewhere for it does not tie
logically to those quotes. It does not elucidate the quotes, and does
not logically tie into them. What I have written explains the quotes
so your charge of original research or unreferenced is a bogus charge.
Under your misconception of editing, then every word in a entry has to
be referenced, which is obviously hyper-silly. The thing about a good
entry is that it explains clearly and flows together. Yours is a
cobbled mess of nonfitting three pieces. If you persist in joining
your unrelated and oblique references that never explain the Bell
quotes, would force me to take out the quotes altogether and leave you
with your garbled two references that explain almost nothing of what
this page is all about. 216.254.227.167 08:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)AP
Identify the person Ehheh in Wikipedia who uses this encyclopedia as a
game of harrassement. Bends all rules to his means of attacking
people. Finds out what ticks off certain people and then plays games
for ad hominem amusement. Editors like him cause for Wikipedia to be
never a good encyclopedia but a form of malignancy. Characters like
him have now forced me to remove myself from Wikipedia altogether for
it is a waste of my time when jerks like this play these games. And if
I return, ever, I will need the full name of Ehheh 216.16.54.147
17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "rmjon23" |
|
| Title: Re: "Superdeterminism" in Wikipedia; why Wikipedia is a Malignancy Encyclopedia; ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY |
12 May 2007 06:49:49 PM |
|
|
On May 12, 10:52=EF=BF=BDam, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Talk:Superdeterminism>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In an The Illuminatus! Trilogy appendix,RobertAntonWilsonnoted
this;
SUPERDETERMINISM: The approach to quantum theory urged by Dr. Fritjof
Capra in The Tao of Physics. This interpretation rejects
"contrafactual definiteness"; that is, it assumes that any statements
about what could have happened are meaningless. A consequence of this
view is that all distinction between observer and observed, or self
and universe, also becomes meaningless; I had no choice about writing
this book, Dell Books had no choice about publishing it, and you had
no choice about reading it, since there is only one thing happening
and we are all seamlessly welded into it.
Marasmusine 13:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * So an appendix to a novel is the only verifiable refere=
nce
we currently have for this term. That helps explain "The concept has
not received widespread attention among physicists." I will look some
more ... but ... the term neologism comes to mind ... --Keesiewonder
talk 10:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o I'm not trying to defend the article in par=
ticular,
but I'm sure there will be more references out there somewhere. For a
phrase that's been around since at least 1970, I don't think
'neologism' is entirely appropriate. On the other hand I have no
appropriate source material to hand. Maybe the article should be
scrapped for now, but I've flagged it for attention for physics
experts in the meantime. Marasmusine 10:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 o Did a quick internet search; not sure about=
the
reliability of these sources; but Bell and Superdeterminism are
mentioned here :[1] and there are some further references at the
bottom of this: [2], this [3] paper being the most relevent.
Unfortunately they only mention superdeterminism in passing but at
least it shows the original editor isn't making it up. Marasmusine
11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 * Ok, those look more promising. Thank you, and n=
ice work!
I would like to see the BBC reference migrate out of the article -
until we can prove the blockquote comes from a true BBC interview -
and these other materials migrate in. Keesiewonder talk 12:56, 24
March 2007 (UTC)
Quick correction: the citation for the Robert Anton Wilson quote is
wrong; the definition for Superdeterminism appears in his
_Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy_. My copy is the omnibus ed - the most
easily found edition - and it's on p.544.
Wilson and his colleagues from the Physics-Consciousness Research
Group (Jack Sarfatti, Fred Alan Wolf, Saul-Paul Sirag, Nick Herbert,
at times Fritjof Capra and others) are/were prolific neologizers, as
their researches were also influenced by Whorfian linguistics...It
seems likely that Wilson got the term "Superdeterminism" from one of
the surrealist/physicists mentioned above; Wilson himself was the
"resident" science fiction writer in the PCRG. My guess wd be Nick
Herbert coined that term for what Capra seemed to imply in his pop
physics book _Tao of Physics_. But Herbert is only a guess...
-misha
Berkeley, CA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: "Superdeterminism" in Wikipedia; why Wikipedia is a MalignancyEncyclopedia; ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY |
15 May 2007 01:54:33 AM |
|
|
rmjon23 wrote:
-misha
Berkeley, CA
Do I know you?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "rmjon23" |
|
| Title: Re: "Superdeterminism" in Wikipedia; why Wikipedia is a Malignancy Encyclopedia; ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY |
15 May 2007 03:36:26 AM |
|
|
On May 14, 11:54=EF=BF=BDpm, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
rmjon23 wrote:
-misha
Berkeley, CA
Do I know you?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0A. Einstein
I don't think so. Moved here from San Pedro about 18 mos ago. Did you
know Wilson when he lived in Berkeley?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: "Superdeterminism" in Wikipedia; why Wikipedia is a MalignancyEncyclopedia; ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY |
16 May 2007 01:03:18 PM |
|
|
rmjon23 wrote:
I don't think so. Moved here from San Pedro about 18 mos ago. Did you
know Wilson when he lived in Berkeley?
No, I never got that opportunity but I knew Sasha Shulgin and many of
the folks orbiting around him. Bob was often mentioned in that group.
One of the people I knew well in those days (15 years ago) who did
know Bob also had the name Misha and I was just wondering.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: defaults to the lesser intelligence of bully editors Re: "Superdeterminism" in Wikipedia; why Wikipedia is a Malignancy Encyclopedia; ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY |
12 May 2007 01:21:59 PM |
|
|
The below was my last revert of the Wikipedia page on
"Superdeterminism" and it was the very finest page for
this physics concept that there ever was a page. It was lucid and
crystal clear and flowed logically. It educated
any reader who wanted to know what Superdeterminism was. But because
of the way Wikipedia is set-up, that
any old and lousy editor can use it as a platform of ad hominem and
hate spew and game playing, that Wikipedia
will never serve as a "science encyclopedia" because it will default
to these low class bully minds and just send
real experts on each subject away. Wikipedia as science only
frustrates scientists because of this defaulting
to this mental capacity of those bully editors.
Another example is the bully editor of Arthur Rubin, who has put up a
invalid Euclid Infinitude of Primes
proof. So bad is this display that Rubin could not even write a
version, but rather had to cut, copy and
paste a Niven, Montgomery, Zuckerman version. When it was pointed out
to Rubin that his edited display
of Wikipedia's Euclid Infinitude of Primes is filled with error, he
remarked that he did not believe so. Rubin
is unable to even give a Direct method alongside a Indirect Method
proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes. So
Rubin is bright enough to pass some Putnam tests, but too dumb as a
scientist to even recognize a error free
Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof. This is what I mean that Wikipedia
defaults to the lesser
intelligence of its bully editors.
So, if you want a high class encyclopedia, you have to go to the Encyc
Britannica and the old way of doing
encyclopedia's. If you want to use Wikipedia, well, you are using the
lowest class encyclopedia.
Here is what the entry of Superdeterminism looked like before the
fleet of bully goon editors had their hands on it.
Superdeterminism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Superdeterminism is a concept of physics, put forward by physicist
John S. Bell, that everything which happens is like puppets on
strings; everything is controlled. Every thought, every action, every
feeling is ordered up by some entity, and fated to happen. In a world
of superdeterminism there is no free will. There is a distinction
between determinism and superdeterminism. Determinism is given initial
states one can predict the end state. Superdeterminism is beyond
determinism in that everything is fated to happen by some controlling
entity. For example, determinism is often analogized by a pool or
billards table where given the initial position of a ball and then
struck by the pool-stick we can determine the future position, but the
analogy of superdeterminism with these pool and billards balls is that
the owner is going to take the balls and do with them as he pleases,
whenever he pleases.
John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview 1. ^ BBC Radio
interview with Paul Davies, 1985
There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one
experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including
the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of
measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is
no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe,
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its
outcome, will be.
The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of
states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a
distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a
dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will
not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we
look at things.
The concept has not received widespread attention among physicists.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: Encyc Brittanica the PBS of encyc and Wikipedia the junk wasteland of TV Re: ALL SCIENTISTS STAY AWAY |
12 May 2007 01:36:32 PM |
|
|
Also I want to point out a feature of Wikipedia that I am sure has
caught the eye of many, not just me. And
why Wikipedia is evolving into this low class product. In that not
only do bullies degrade the science entries
of Wikipedia, but that the whole flavor and texture of Wikipedia is
towards "sports" and "entertainment". So that
say someone gets signed up to a baseball team or places last in a
Olympic sports event is then entitled to
great Notability in Wikipedia as if this were some earth shattering
importance.
One sees this lopsidedness when viewing College or High School
"Notable List". That if someone has anything
to do with sports or TV gets instant qualification as a Notable.
So, the Wikipedia phenomenon is more like a extension of the junk
wasteland of advertisement TV. And should
be avoided by scientists and by people in education.
Pull out the hard cover Encycl and skip Googling for Wikipedia
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Time is spatial, The cosmos is a 4-D rock, Immoble. |
16 May 2007 01:12:46 AM |
|
|
Wiki_Pedia is a heavily moderated forum, Mr. Plutonium.
Just edit it at your pleasure and don't expect the changes to stick.
Arguing with them is pointless.
Brittanica is often superior, but not as accessible.
Usenet is king, it rules over all, HTML can't compete.
Peer-to-Peer, Person-To-Person, that's were it's at.
" http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time " begins:
" Eternalism is a philosophical approach to
the ontological nature of time.
It builds on the standard method of
modeling time as a dimension in physics,
to give time a similar ontology to that of space.
This would mean that time is just another dimension,
that future events are ' already there ',
and that there is no objective flow of time.
It is sometimes referred to as the ' Block Time '
or ' Block Universe ' theory due to its description of
space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional ' block ',
[ i.e. time is spatial, the cosmos is a 4-D rock, immoble ]
as opposed to the common-sense view of the world as
a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time. ".
Like most serious cosmologists, Einstein knew
that phsyical processes determine absolutely everything.
He discussed this endlessly in his many books.
From Einstein's, " Ether and the Theory of Relativity " ( 1920 )
quoted at " http://TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html ":
" But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ".
From Einstein's " The World As I See It " ( 1949 )
quoted at " http://EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html ":
" But the scientist is possessed by
the sense of --> universal causation <-- . The future, to him,
is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. ".
The accelerated expansion of the known Universe
can only be observed over vast swaths of time and distance,
at truly cosmic scales, like hundereds of ( 4-D ) megaparsecs.
The Milky Way is surely expanding as well ( thanks to PseudoEntropy ),
but it's far too tiny to observe. Atoms too... Same story.
It's anti-science, unsober, metaphysical *****
to claim that nature is _ intrinsically _ random,
independent of observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Time is spatial, The cosmos is a 4-D rock, Immoble. |
16 May 2007 05:00:09 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_15_10_@Cotse.NET...
Wiki_Pedia is a heavily moderated forum, Mr. Plutonium.
Translation: Everytime RelfWit writes something he gets spnaked and it gets
changed.
Just edit it at your pleasure and don't expect the changes to stick.
Yeah sign of the KookTroll if ever I saw it.
Arguing with them is pointless.
Brittanica is often superior, but not as accessible.
And rarely does it support your nonsense.
Usenet is king, it rules over all, HTML can't compete.
Your lack of understanding noted.
Peer-to-Peer, Person-To-Person, that's were it's at.
Eh? Is USENET person to person?
" http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time " begins:
" Eternalism is a philosophical approach to
the ontological nature of time.
It builds on the standard method of
modeling time as a dimension in physics,
to give time a similar ontology to that of space.
This would mean that time is just another dimension,
that future events are ' already there ',
and that there is no objective flow of time.
It is sometimes referred to as the ' Block Time '
or ' Block Universe ' theory due to its description of
space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional ' block ',
[ i.e. time is spatial, the cosmos is a 4-D rock, immoble ]
Your "i.e. " is where you make your first mistake.
as opposed to the common-sense view of the world as
a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time. ".
Like most serious cosmologists, Einstein knew
that phsyical processes determine absolutely everything.
He discussed this endlessly in his many books.
From Einstein's, " Ether and the Theory of Relativity " ( 1920 )
quoted at " http://TUHH.DE/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html ":
" But this ether may not be thought of as
endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it. ".
You continue to conflate "spatial" with "static." This is incorrect.
Spatial, in the sense of dimensions, has a meaning of which you seem
unaware.
Do you want me to explain to you why we [tinw] think the universe has THREE
spatial dimensions and why theories which posit extra dimensions have to
stop them being "spatial" in the sense of the original three?
From Einstein's " The World As I See It " ( 1949 )
quoted at " http://EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html ":
" But the scientist is possessed by
the sense of --> universal causation <-- . The future, to him,
is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. ".
The accelerated expansion of the known Universe
can only be observed over vast swaths of time and distance,
at truly cosmic scales, like hundereds of ( 4-D ) megaparsecs.
The Milky Way is surely expanding as well ( thanks to PseudoEntropy ),
but it's far too tiny to observe. Atoms too... Same story.
It's anti-science, unsober, metaphysical *****
to claim that nature is _ intrinsically _ random,
independent of observations.
You use words of which you have no understanding. I feel sorry for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The protocol is the network. |
16 May 2007 05:17:13 AM |
|
|
If you run your own NNTP server, T_Wake, Hell yea,
Usenet is Person-To-Person ( otherwise, it's Peer-to-Peer ).
The protocol is the network.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The protocol is the network. |
16 May 2007 05:34:32 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_16_4_@Cotse.NET...
If you run your own NNTP server, T_Wake, Hell yea,
Usenet is Person-To-Person ( otherwise, it's Peer-to-Peer ).
I still dont see how it is Person to Person. I am not massively sold on it
being peer to peer either, other than the fact USENET servers talk to each
other...
The protocol is the network.
And?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lionel" |
|
| Title: Re: The protocol is the network. |
16 May 2007 11:35:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:34:32 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> boggled at how lame the Kooks are these
days, then wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_16_4_@Cotse.NET...
If you run your own NNTP server, T_Wake, Hell yea,
Usenet is Person-To-Person ( otherwise, it's Peer-to-Peer ).
I still dont see how it is Person to Person.
That's because it isn't.
I am not massively sold on it
being peer to peer either,
Nor is it that.
other than the fact USENET servers talk to each
other...
It's a rather clever flood-fill algorithm designed (mostly very
successfully, modulo various political complications) to propagate
every valid post to every independant NNTP server attached to the
network, with zero duplication of messages.
See RFC-977 & 1036 for details.
The protocol is the network.
And?
Relf's full of *****.
--
\___ Proud Cog #1 in the AUK Hate Machine
_(AUK)====:: Do *you* think that you have the Right Stuff?
/='='='='-, Apply TODAY by addressing a gratuitously cruel
(O+O+O+O+O) flame to: "Uncle Fester", C/O soc.singles & AUK.
~^^^^^^^^^~~~^~^^~'~~^'^~~~"~~'"~^~'"~~^~"~'~^'^~^~^^~^~"~^~"'~'"~^~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The protocol is the network. |
16 May 2007 02:57:58 PM |
|
|
"Lionel" <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:f2fbr2$eut$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:34:32 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> boggled at how lame the Kooks are these
days, then wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_16_4_@Cotse.NET...
If you run your own NNTP server, T_Wake, Hell yea,
Usenet is Person-To-Person ( otherwise, it's Peer-to-Peer ).
I still dont see how it is Person to Person.
That's because it isn't.
I am not massively sold on it
being peer to peer either,
Nor is it that.
other than the fact USENET servers talk to each
other...
It's a rather clever flood-fill algorithm designed (mostly very
successfully, modulo various political complications) to propagate
every valid post to every independant NNTP server attached to the
network, with zero duplication of messages.
See RFC-977 & 1036 for details.
The protocol is the network.
And?
Relf's full of *****.
I suspected as much. He is with everything else, and I never really thought
he had turned himself around this time...
I like watching him get spanked over things he claims to know though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol. |
16 May 2007 08:58:00 PM |
|
|
If you have your own NNTP server, Lionel,
then you essentially have " emails " from selected feeds ( groups ).
It's like having a copy of eveyone's inbox on your hard-drive.
Usenet is Store-And-Forward, Peer-to-Peer.
It can be Person-to-Person, hence the warz and cracks.
A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol. |
17 May 2007 07:47:15 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_16_12_@Cotse.NET...
If you have your own NNTP server, Lionel,
then you essentially have " emails " from selected feeds ( groups ).
It's like having a copy of eveyone's inbox on your hard-drive.
Blimey.
Do you go out of your way to post nonsense to USENET?
Usenet is Store-And-Forward, Peer-to-Peer.
It can be Person-to-Person, hence the warz and cracks.
A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol.
Amazing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lionel" |
|
| Title: Re: A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol. |
17 May 2007 12:59:07 AM |
|
|
On 17 May 2007 01:58:00 GMT, Jeff…Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> boggled
at how lame the Kooks are these days, then wrote:
If you have your own NNTP server, Lionel,
then you essentially have " emails " from selected feeds ( groups ).
It's like having a copy of eveyone's inbox on your hard-drive.
It's nothing of the sort.
Usenet is Store-And-Forward, Peer-to-Peer.
It can be Person-to-Person, hence the warz and cracks.
That's not "person to person".
A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol.
No, it's not. Networks are used for many things besides peoples'
conversations.
--
\___ Proud Cog #1 in the AUK Hate Machine
_(AUK)====:: Do *you* think that you have the Right Stuff?
/='='='='-, Apply TODAY by addressing a gratuitously cruel
(O+O+O+O+O) flame to: "Uncle Fester", C/O soc.singles & AUK.
~^^^^^^^^^~~~^~^^~'~~^'^~~~"~~'"~^~'"~~^~"~'~^'^~^~^^~^~"~^~"'~'"~^~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aatu Koskensilta" |
|
| Title: Re: A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol. |
16 May 2007 09:06:19 PM |
|
|
On 2007-05-17, in sci.math, Jeff?Relf wrote:
If you have your own NNTP server, Lionel,
then you essentially have " emails " from selected feeds ( groups ).
It's like having a copy of eveyone's inbox on your hard-drive.
Usenet is Store-And-Forward, Peer-to-Peer.
It can be Person-to-Person, hence the warz and cracks.
A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol.
I can understand why you might think this is on-topic in alt.usenet.kooks
but why do you think it has anything to do with physics, history or
mathematics is obscure.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol. |
17 May 2007 07:19:38 AM |
|
|
On May 16, 7:58 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
If you have your own NNTP server, Lionel,
then you essentially have " emails " from selected feeds ( groups ).
It's like having a copy of eveyone's inbox on your hard-drive.
Usenet is Store-And-Forward, Peer-to-Peer.
It can be Person-to-Person, hence the warz and cracks.
A network is a group of people conversing, using a common protocol.
Need not be people, neurons work as well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lamey Teh AUK Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: The protocol is the network. |
16 May 2007 08:46:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 May 2007 02:35:00 +1000, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:34:32 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> boggled at how lame the Kooks are these
days, then wrote:
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_16_4_@Cotse.NET...
If you run your own NNTP server, T_Wake, Hell yea,
Usenet is Person-To-Person ( otherwise, it's Peer-to-Peer ).
I still dont see how it is Person to Person.
That's because it isn't.
I am not massively sold on it
being peer to peer either,
Nor is it that.
other than the fact USENET servers talk to each
other...
It's a rather clever flood-fill algorithm designed (mostly very
successfully, modulo various political complications) to propagate
every valid post to every independant NNTP server attached to the
network, with zero duplication of messages.
See RFC-977 & 1036 for details.
I dare you to say that 3 times real fast.
And no, typing it don't count. Let me know how it goes before Blu
returns.
--
Usenet lits score:
GIT-R-DONE!
alt.usenet.legends.lamey
http://blu05.port5.com
#20 Usenet *****
#6 Lits *****
#9 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
<approved by Lionel>
#11 Most posting trolls/hunters/flonkers 2007
#1 Disenfranchised AUK Kookologist.
#1 AUK Galactic Killfile Award
Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Oh fer fucksakes. Welcome to my killfile you annoying little gnat.
<working on one of them specheel AUK awards>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Usenet is just email on steroids. |
16 May 2007 08:04:30 AM |
|
|
When I run my NNTP server, you do likewise,
and we update each other... we are running Person-to-Person.
Usenet is just email on steroids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Usenet is just email on steroids. |
16 May 2007 08:50:45 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2007_May_16_5_@Cotse.NET...
When I run my NNTP server, you do likewise,
Which NNTP server do I run?
and we update each other... we are running Person-to-Person.
Usenet is just email on steroids.
You know what? I get the feeling you couldn't be more wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Usenet is just email on steroids. |
16 May 2007 04:07:19 PM |
|
|
On May 16, 6:04 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
When I run my NNTP server, you do likewise,
and we update each other... we are running Person-to-Person.
Usenet is just email on steroids.
I'm tired of getting email from you. Stop posting ***** to sci.physics
- hurry up and get evicted, loser.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Usenet is just email on steroids. |
16 May 2007 09:54:43 PM |
|
|
On May 16, 3:07 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 16, 6:04 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
When I run my NNTP server, you do likewise,
and we update each other... we are running Person-to-Person.
Usenet is just email on steroids.
I'm tired of getting email from you. Stop posting ***** to sci.physics
- hurry up and get evicted, loser.
Humans have free will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kadaitcha Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Usenet is just email on steroids. |
17 May 2007 01:41:17 AM |
|
|
Don Stockbauer <don.stockbauer@gmail.com> Thou bawd. I say thou has
drunk thyself out of thy five senses. Ye yelled:
Humans have free will.
Bulshit on two counts. There is no such thing as free will. At best, humans
have freedom of will, which implies constraints that are beyond your
control.
On the scientific count, science says all effects have causes therefore
science says free will is an illusion. This is the case because, according
to science, everything you do is merely your response to stimuli impacting
your environment. It follows then that, according to science, you are merely
a biological robot that responds to stimuli.
On the philosophical count, free will to make free choice implies free will
to choose the opposite of a thing. This means that you could freely choose
to walk down a certain street at a certain time and choose to sit at a
sidewalk table and order a café latté; then you could choose to avoid
getting squished by the 40,000kg truck that you know will run up the curb
and make a total fucking mess of both you and your café latté. Do you
experience prescience often?
Now, you've got the counter argument to your bullshite, make the case for
your assertion or retract it.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits
"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1@registered.motzarella.org
Illegitimi non carborundum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Sh_t just happens to me. |
17 May 2007 02:23:16 AM |
|
|
In my life, ***** just happens to me.
Sure, I have some limited options... B.F.D.
Pick yer poison, money, fame, drugs, whores, computers, food, whatever.
Show me yer " rig " and I'll show you your executor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lionel" |
|
| Title: Re: Sh_t just happens to me. |
17 May 2007 02:40:45 AM |
|
|
On 17 May 2007 07:23:16 GMT, Jeff…Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> boggled
at how lame the Kooks are these days, then wrote:
In my life, ***** just happens to me.
Sure, I have some limited options... B.F.D.
Pick yer poison, money, fame, drugs, whores, computers, food, whatever.
Show me yer " rig " and I'll show you your executor.
Tell someone who cares, fuckhead.
--
\___ Proud Cog #1 in the AUK Hate Machine
_(AUK)====:: Do *you* think that you have the Right Stuff?
/='='='='-, Apply TODAY by addressing a gratuitously cruel
(O+O+O+O+O) flame to: "Uncle Fester", C/O soc.singles & AUK.
~^^^^^^^^^~~~^~^^~'~~^'^~~~"~~'"~^~'"~~^~"~'~^'^~^~^^~^~"~^~"'~'"~^~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Thanks for stalking me, Lionel... I'm touched. |
17 May 2007 03:22:50 AM |
|
|
Thanks for stalking me, Lionel... I'm touched.
( But you're useless to me, so go kick rocks )
.
|
|
|
| User: "§ñühw¤£f" |
|
| Title: Re: Thanks for stalking me, Lionel... I'm touched. |
17 May 2007 09:38:52 AM |
|
|
=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?= <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> pinched out a
steaming pile of<Jeff_Relf_2007_May_17_1_@Cotse.NET>:
Thanks for stalking me, Lionel... I'm touched.
( But you're useless to me, so go kick rocks )
Thanks for the insight into your personality Jeffy.
Why do you see people as objects to be "useful or useless"?
:(
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Usenet is just email on steroids. |
16 May 2007 09:31:17 AM |
|
|
On May 16, 9:04 am, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
When I run my NNTP server, you do likewise,
and we update each other... we are running Person-to-Person.
You think that an NNTP server is a personal thing which only receives
messages addressed to a single person?
You aren't aware that every other NNTP server in the world is
receiving the same message when it does an update?
Usenet is just email on steroids.
When something is broadcast on CNN it is received in
your TV. Person-to-person, from the CNN anchor to you.
Why, a TV broadcast is just a personal conversation on
steroids.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Time is spatial, The cosmos is a 4-D rock, Immoble. |
16 May 2007 01:21:37 AM |
|
|
On May 15, 11:12 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Wiki_Pedia is a heavily moderated forum, Mr. Plutonium.
It doesn't allow unsubstantiated assertions and original research. Two
things that block any contributions from you two idiots.
Just edit it at your pleasure and don't expect the changes to stick.
Arguing with them is pointless.
....and get blocked, just like you, eh Relfie?
[...]
It's anti-science, unsober, metaphysical *****
to claim that nature is _ intrinsically _ random,
independent of observations.
Too fucking bad, because that's what experiment shows.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Time is spatial, The cosmos is a 4-D rock, Immoble. |
16 May 2007 08:22:04 PM |
|
|
On May 16, 12:21 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 15, 11:12 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Wiki_Pedia is a heavily moderated forum, Mr. Plutonium.
It doesn't allow unsubstantiated assertions and original research. Two
things that block any contributions from you two idiots.
If by "unsubstantiated" your mean "not proven to be true", this is
not _quite_ correct. For example, WIkipedia can document assertions
about UFOs that may or may not be correct and have no proof of
their correctness, and even if it can be proven, unless the proof
is _accepted_ by everyone it cannot be asserted as fact either (Do
you suggest that the inclusion of quotations and assertions from
people about Roswell, for example, as an alien ship should be
removed?). But that does not stop WIkipedia from *including* such
assertions, it's just that *it* cannot make the assertions *itself*.
You can include your unproven/unconvincing assertion so long
as
1. it was published in some third-party source (Verifiability)
2. you don't make it seem like the article is doing the asserting in
and of itself, ie. you attribute it as your opinion, not as a fact
(Neutrality)
But I somehow think that the people you are referring to are
probably doing something that does not meet those criteria...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
