Science > Physics > What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"S. Enterprize Company" |
| Date: |
28 Jul 2003 12:16:21 AM |
| Object: |
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
I mean 10+ years, and then you stop????
DUHHHHHHHhHhHHhhHhHhH???Hhhhh
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Minor Crank" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
28 Jul 2003 04:54:13 AM |
|
|
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030728011621.18340.00000550@mb-m15.aol.com...
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
I mean 10+ years, and then you stop????
DUHHHHHHHhHhHHhhHhHhH???Hhhhh
We are sick and tired of you and your insane ravings. You never shut up, and
you are steadily growing worse.
God is -not- on your side. He doesn't appreciate idiots cramming nonsense
into His mouth.
Minor Crank
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Enterprize Company" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
28 Jul 2003 05:49:33 AM |
|
|
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030728011621.18340.00000550@mb-m15.aol.com...
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
I mean 10+ years, and then you stop????
DUHHHHHHHhHhHHhhHhHhH???Hhhhh
We are sick and tired of you and your insane ravings. You never shut up, and
you are steadily growing worse.
God is -not- on your side. He doesn't appreciate idiots cramming nonsense
into His mouth.
Minor Crank
No response. Why not put your kids and family on the line when speaking to
me? No Response.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
28 Jul 2003 10:15:49 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company
<smart1234@aol.com>
wrote
on 28 Jul 2003 10:49:33 GMT
<20030728064933.06962.00000974@mb-m06.aol.com>:
"S. Enterprize Company" <smart1234@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030728011621.18340.00000550@mb-m15.aol.com...
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
I mean 10+ years, and then you stop????
DUHHHHHHHhHhHHhhHhHhH???Hhhhh
We are sick and tired of you and your insane ravings. You never shut up, and
you are steadily growing worse.
God is -not- on your side. He doesn't appreciate idiots cramming nonsense
into His mouth.
Minor Crank
No response. Why not put your kids and family on the line when
speaking to me? No Response.
What should we respond to? Did you have a specific prediction
in mind?
Predict something and then measure it. Publish the results.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Enterprize Company" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
28 Jul 2003 06:57:04 PM |
|
|
What should we respond to? Did you have a specific prediction
in mind?
Predict something and then measure it. Publish the results.
[.sigsnip]
I did publish, on the internet using my own Alternative "Smart Science"
Journal.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
29 Jul 2003 07:42:17 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company
<smart1234@aol.com>
wrote
on 28 Jul 2003 23:57:04 GMT
<20030728195704.18197.00000527@mb-m15.aol.com>:
What should we respond to? Did you have a specific prediction
in mind?
Predict something and then measure it. Publish the results.
[.sigsnip]
I did publish, on the internet using my own Alternative "Smart Science"
Journal.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps this will help... :-)
[1] Did your experiment involve any of the following?
- electrons
- protons
- newtrons
- photons
- muons
- mesons
- etc.
[2] Did your experiment involve any of the following?
- static electric fields
- static magnetic fields
- dynamic electric or magnetic fields
- particle accelerators and detectors
- chemical reactions
- nuclear reactions
- etc.
[3] What were the observable effects?
- unexpected change in mass
- otherwise unexplainable change in velocity of a particle
- unexpected photon generation
- unexpected frequency shift of photons
- etc.
[4] Were any of the effects in [3] predicted by the Smart Model,
and not by the Standard Model? Indicate which ones.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "S. Enterprize Company" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
29 Jul 2003 04:24:31 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company
<smart1234@aol.com>
wrote
on 28 Jul 2003 23:57:04 GMT
<20030728195704.18197.00000527@mb-m15.aol.com>:
What should we respond to? Did you have a specific prediction
in mind?
Predict something and then measure it. Publish the results.
[.sigsnip]
I did publish, on the internet using my own Alternative "Smart Science"
Journal.
Could you be more specific? Perhaps this will help... :-)
[1] Did your experiment involve any of the following?
- electrons
- protons
- newtrons
- photons
- muons
- mesons
- etc.
Yes.
[2] Did your experiment involve any of the following?
I made comparisons with already existing experimental findings.
- static electric fields
- static magnetic fields
- dynamic electric or magnetic fields
- particle accelerators and detectors
- chemical reactions
- nuclear reactions
- etc.
[3] What were the observable effects?
- unexpected change in mass
- otherwise unexplainable change in velocity of a particle
- unexpected photon generation
- unexpected frequency shift of photons
- etc.
I show some of this at website.
[4] Were any of the effects in [3] predicted by the Smart Model,
and not by the Standard Model? Indicate which ones.
No QM electron orbitals.
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUKpics/POW/pr_971203.html
The Standard model is like an extention to the QM model.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
28 Jul 2003 08:06:10 PM |
|
|
(S. Enterprize Company) wrote in
news:20030728011621.18340.00000550@mb-m15.aol.com:
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
I mean 10+ years, and then you stop????
You got too boring.
Llanzlan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
29 Jul 2003 07:42:18 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company
<smart1234@aol.com>
wrote
on 29 Jul 2003 03:44:40 GMT
<20030728234440.14658.00001192@mb-m04.aol.com>:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in
news:20030728011621.18340.00000550@mb-m15.aol.com:
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
I mean 10+ years, and then you stop????
You got too boring.
Llanzlan.
Again, the focus is on "me" , not The smart Model.
Well, you're the only one going on about the Smart Model;
no one else seems to mention except in reference to your
posts (or threads involving your posts). :-)
Uncle Al's thing, for example, is his EotVos experiment but
his modeling, AFAICT, is fairly conventional. Frodo's
experiments are interesting as well but his modeling is even
more conventional. Sam Wormley (I *will* get his name right,
I *will* get his name right, I *will* get ...) is apparently
sci.physics' answer to maff91 in another newsgroup and he's
fairly conventional... :-)
And I of course am a relative neophyte who happens to know enough
math to get into trouble :-) . For what all this is worth.
You should see all the new things there now ( my website),
including recent experimental developments made by others,
which in my opinion, further proves The Smart Model is the
best and most accurate model.
Has CERN or SLAC contacted you yet? :-)
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frodo Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
29 Jul 2003 04:58:23 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company
<smart1234@aol.com>
wrote
on 29 Jul 2003 03:44:40 GMT
<20030728234440.14658.00001192@mb-m04.aol.com>:
smart1234@aol.com (S. Enterprize Company) wrote in
news:20030728011621.18340.00000550@mb-m15.aol.com:
What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model?
I mean 10+ years, and then you stop????
You got too boring.
Llanzlan.
Again, the focus is on "me" , not The smart Model.
Well, you're the only one going on about the Smart Model;
no one else seems to mention except in reference to your
posts (or threads involving your posts). :-)
Uncle Al's thing, for example, is his EotVos experiment but
his modeling, AFAICT, is fairly conventional. Frodo's
experiments are interesting as well but his modeling is even
more conventional.
Yup, that's because the experiments are all undergrad stuff ;-) Most of
the interesting work I seem to do is all computer-based, and more as
tools to aid teaching or data analysis than models of any so-called 'new
physics'.
There is some interesting computing work going on in the astrophysics
subdept at the moment, but they're weenies using Fortran-77 (which I
refuse to accept as a real programming language).
--
FM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
29 Jul 2003 05:28:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Frodo Morris wrote:
There is some interesting computing work going on in the astrophysics
subdept at the moment, but they're weenies using Fortran-77 (which I
refuse to accept as a real programming language).
FORTRAN 77 is real, all too real. On dark nights it crawls out of its
grave, and lurches across the landscape, seeking modern code to devour,
stripping it of comments, whitespace, and meaningful variable names.
(Real astrophysicists use IDL?)
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
29 Jul 2003 06:25:17 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0307300825230.16110-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Frodo Morris wrote:
There is some interesting computing work going on in the astrophysics
subdept at the moment, but they're weenies using Fortran-77 (which I
refuse to accept as a real programming language).
FORTRAN 77 is real, all too real. On dark nights it crawls out of its
grave, and lurches across the landscape, seeking modern code to devour,
stripping it of comments, whitespace, and meaningful variable names.
(Real astrophysicists use IDL?)
Of course. Synchrotron radiation people, too.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
29 Jul 2003 07:24:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
(Real astrophysicists use IDL?)
Of course. Synchrotron radiation people, too.
When did IDL become popular? Though an ex-computational astrophysicist, I
first learned of it earlier this year.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
29 Jul 2003 07:38:36 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0307301021450.16946-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
(Real astrophysicists use IDL?)
Of course. Synchrotron radiation people, too.
When did IDL become popular? Though an ex-computational astrophysicist, I
first learned of it earlier this year.
The first version I used was 2.0, circa 1991.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
30 Jul 2003 01:47:49 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0307301048370.16951-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
(Real astrophysicists use IDL?)
Of course. Synchrotron radiation people, too.
When did IDL become popular? Though an ex-computational astrophysicist, I
first learned of it earlier this year.
The first version I used was 2.0, circa 1991.
My supervisor was an old-time FORTRANner. Rather than hack his code, I
re-implemented in C. The VAX was dead. I had a C compiler for PC. More
educational, too. But the code shat itself due to 16-bit limitations.
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Re-re-implemented in MATLAB, worked fine. Did that in 1992-1993, mostly.
Then finished PhD and escaped from astrophysics.
Astrophysics is lovely, but there is the pesky detail of having to
make a living, that often gets in the way.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
30 Jul 2003 03:48:14 AM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0307301756070.19833-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
My supervisor was an old-time FORTRANner. Rather than hack his code, I
re-implemented in C. The VAX was dead. I had a C compiler for PC. More
educational, too. But the code shat itself due to 16-bit limitations.
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB.
Yes.
Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
Most FORTRAN code people ever encounter is code written in the 50s and
60s (or at least written by people who got their computer experience
at that time) and this is usually atrocious (how about "computed
goto"). But modern FORTRAN is an extremely powerful and flexible
language. It is as far removed from the old fortran as a modern car
is removed from model T.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
30 Jul 2003 05:54:54 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.50.0307310840230.24096-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
Most FORTRAN code people ever encounter is code written in the 50s and
60s (or at least written by people who got their computer experience
at that time) and this is usually atrocious (how about "computed
goto").
... and code written recently by people who think they learned all there
is know about programming by example from that kind of code.
But modern FORTRAN is an extremely powerful and flexible
language. It is as far removed from the old fortran as a modern car
is removed from model T.
Just got a nifty F95 compiler. I'll have to look for a good excuse to play
with it. Actually, I'll have to look for the time to play with it too.
Yes, I know, there are always more nifty toys than time available to
play with them:-(
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
30 Jul 2003 11:42:41 AM |
|
|
In article <bg8871$ni4$3@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
In article <iDLVa.42$Z4.13806@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.50.0307301756070.19833-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
My supervisor was an old-time FORTRANner. Rather than hack his code, I
re-implemented in C. The VAX was dead. I had a C compiler for PC. More
educational, too. But the code shat itself due to 16-bit limitations.
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB.
Yes.
Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
Most FORTRAN code people ever encounter is code written in the 50s and
60s (or at least written by people who got their computer experience
at that time) and this is usually atrocious (how about "computed
goto").
I liked those things; it was better than coding them by hand :-).
Aha. Did you ever tried to debug one of these beasties?
.. But modern FORTRAN is an extremely powerful and flexible
language. It is as far removed from the old fortran as a modern car
is removed from model T.
There was a lot of hard work that went into VMS' FORTRAN math library.
A very smart lady figured out how to make those computer critters
add well, and a very smart guy knew how to take her results and
code them. Some of it was even allowed to get into the PDP-10
flavored FORTRAN.
I really liked VMS FORTRAN.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
31 Jul 2003 05:03:23 AM |
|
|
In article <5ASVa.44$Z4.14642@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <bg8871$ni4$3@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
In article <iDLVa.42$Z4.13806@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.50.0307301756070.19833-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
My supervisor was an old-time FORTRANner. Rather than hack his code,
I
re-implemented in C. The VAX was dead. I had a C compiler for PC.
More
educational, too. But the code shat itself due to 16-bit
limitations.
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier
for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB.
Yes.
Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
Most FORTRAN code people ever encounter is code written in the 50s and
60s (or at least written by people who got their computer experience
at that time) and this is usually atrocious (how about "computed
goto").
I liked those things; it was better than coding them by hand :-).
Aha. Did you ever tried to debug one of these beasties?
Welll...my own. But then my structures were logical and commented.
For those <ahem>programmers who just had to have a computed goto
for every line....we had a very smart guy who was willing to take
those on :-))). I passed the buck.
Any lanugage can be abused. I once thought it was impossible to
program a mess using COBOL. Then I inherited somebody's code who
thought he was "saving" instructions by PERFORMing little bitty
pieces or JRSTing into the middle of a paragraph that shouldn't
have been split up.
.. But modern FORTRAN is an extremely powerful and flexible
language. It is as far removed from the old fortran as a modern car
is removed from model T.
There was a lot of hard work that went into VMS' FORTRAN math library.
A very smart lady figured out how to make those computer critters
add well, and a very smart guy knew how to take her results and
code them. Some of it was even allowed to get into the PDP-10
flavored FORTRAN.
I really liked VMS FORTRAN.
I think you would have liked our math gal. The guy who worked with
her told me he managed to get most of her stuff into VMS' FORTRAN.
Those two did a lot of work for a long time to get it right...as
right as you can get it.
With the hobby work that's been going on, you can use it on these
pitiful machines. Note that this stuff is all at hobby stage and
hasn't been rigorously validated.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
31 Jul 2003 01:20:16 PM |
|
|
In article <bgat5d$1jq$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
In article <5ASVa.44$Z4.14642@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <bg8871$ni4$3@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
In article <iDLVa.42$Z4.13806@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.50.0307301756070.19833-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
My supervisor was an old-time FORTRANner. Rather than hack his code,
I
re-implemented in C. The VAX was dead. I had a C compiler for PC.
More
educational, too. But the code shat itself due to 16-bit
limitations.
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier
for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB.
Yes.
Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
Most FORTRAN code people ever encounter is code written in the 50s and
60s (or at least written by people who got their computer experience
at that time) and this is usually atrocious (how about "computed
goto").
I liked those things; it was better than coding them by hand :-).
Aha. Did you ever tried to debug one of these beasties?
Welll...my own. But then my structures were logical and commented.
For those <ahem>programmers who just had to have a computed goto
for every line....we had a very smart guy who was willing to take
those on :-))). I passed the buck.
Very wise. These are horror.
Any lanugage can be abused. I once thought it was impossible to
program a mess using COBOL. Then I inherited somebody's code who
thought he was "saving" instructions by PERFORMing little bitty
pieces or JRSTing into the middle of a paragraph that shouldn't
have been split up.
Well, of course anything can be abused. As the saying goes, "nothing
is foolproof, because the fools are so ingenious".
.. But modern FORTRAN is an extremely powerful and flexible
language. It is as far removed from the old fortran as a modern car
is removed from model T.
There was a lot of hard work that went into VMS' FORTRAN math library.
A very smart lady figured out how to make those computer critters
add well, and a very smart guy knew how to take her results and
code them. Some of it was even allowed to get into the PDP-10
flavored FORTRAN.
I really liked VMS FORTRAN.
I think you would have liked our math gal. The guy who worked with
her told me he managed to get most of her stuff into VMS' FORTRAN.
Those two did a lot of work for a long time to get it right...as
right as you can get it.
It sure did work right. Got lots of mileage on it.
With the hobby work that's been going on, you can use it on these
pitiful machines. Note that this stuff is all at hobby stage and
hasn't been rigorously validated.
Meaning, that's only for the brave and/or foolhardy.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
01 Aug 2003 05:25:01 AM |
|
|
In article <A5dWa.68$Z4.18081@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <bgat5d$1jq$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
<snip>
Any lanugage can be abused. I once thought it was impossible to
program a mess using COBOL. Then I inherited somebody's code who
thought he was "saving" instructions by PERFORMing little bitty
pieces or JRSTing into the middle of a paragraph that shouldn't
have been split up.
Well, of course anything can be abused. As the saying goes, "nothing
is foolproof, because the fools are so ingenious".
Yea. I even spend some time admiring the <ahem>creativity of the
more bizarre and try to figure out how to channel it. Fortunately,
I seem to be growing up.
<snip>
With the hobby work that's been going on, you can use it on these
pitiful machines. Note that this stuff is all at hobby stage and
hasn't been rigorously validated.
Meaning, that's only for the brave and/or foolhardy.
Isn't that what grad students are used for? ;-)
The good thing about it is that the knowledge is geographically
spread out.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
01 Aug 2003 02:09:33 PM |
|
|
In article <bgdiq8$i7q$3@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
In article <A5dWa.68$Z4.18081@news.uchicago.edu>,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <bgat5d$1jq$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
<snip>
Any lanugage can be abused. I once thought it was impossible to
program a mess using COBOL. Then I inherited somebody's code who
thought he was "saving" instructions by PERFORMing little bitty
pieces or JRSTing into the middle of a paragraph that shouldn't
have been split up.
Well, of course anything can be abused. As the saying goes, "nothing
is foolproof, because the fools are so ingenious".
Yea. I even spend some time admiring the <ahem>creativity of the
more bizarre and try to figure out how to channel it.
Don't even try:-)
Fortunately, I seem to be growing up.
Good.
With the hobby work that's been going on, you can use it on these
pitiful machines. Note that this stuff is all at hobby stage and
hasn't been rigorously validated.
Meaning, that's only for the brave and/or foolhardy.
Isn't that what grad students are used for? ;-)
Exactly!
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
02 Aug 2003 05:55:32 AM |
|
|
In article <NVyWa.89$Z4.21266@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <bgdiq8$i7q$3@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
In article <A5dWa.68$Z4.18081@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <bgat5d$1jq$4@bob.news.rcn.net>, writes:
<snip>
Any lanugage can be abused. I once thought it was impossible to
program a mess using COBOL. Then I inherited somebody's code who
thought he was "saving" instructions by PERFORMing little bitty
pieces or JRSTing into the middle of a paragraph that shouldn't
have been split up.
Well, of course anything can be abused. As the saying goes, "nothing
is foolproof, because the fools are so ingenious".
Yea. I even spend some time admiring the <ahem>creativity of the
more bizarre and try to figure out how to channel it.
Don't even try:-)
Ah, but it's such a waste of energy.
Fortunately, I seem to be growing up.
Good.
<snort> ;-)
With the hobby work that's been going on, you can use it on these
pitiful machines. Note that this stuff is all at hobby stage and
hasn't been rigorously validated.
Meaning, that's only for the brave and/or foolhardy.
Isn't that what grad students are used for? ;-)
Exactly!
Great! I'm beginning to learn the science biz.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
30 Jul 2003 04:53:45 AM |
|
|
In article <iDLVa.42$Z4.13806@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.50.0307301756070.19833-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
My supervisor was an old-time FORTRANner. Rather than hack his code, I
re-implemented in C. The VAX was dead. I had a C compiler for PC. More
educational, too. But the code shat itself due to 16-bit limitations.
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB.
Yes.
Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
Most FORTRAN code people ever encounter is code written in the 50s and
60s (or at least written by people who got their computer experience
at that time) and this is usually atrocious (how about "computed
goto").
I liked those things; it was better than coding them by hand :-).
.. But modern FORTRAN is an extremely powerful and flexible
language. It is as far removed from the old fortran as a modern car
is removed from model T.
There was a lot of hard work that went into VMS' FORTRAN math library.
A very smart lady figured out how to make those computer critters
add well, and a very smart guy knew how to take her results and
code them. Some of it was even allowed to get into the PDP-10
flavored FORTRAN.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
30 Jul 2003 03:01:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> writes:
My supervisor was an old-time FORTRANner. Rather than hack his code, I
re-implemented in C. The VAX was dead. I had a C compiler for PC. More
educational, too. But the code shat itself due to 16-bit limitations.
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB. Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
30 Jul 2003 06:07:53 AM |
|
|
In article <bg87gp$qb4$1@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Frodo Morris <graham.lee@wadham.ox.ac.invalid.uk> wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB. Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have
a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
i.e. Fortran 90/95. In Universities there's a rather hefty reliance
upon GNU software [mainly due to its 'free as in costless'-dom], and
unfortunately they only have a 'strict syntax' f77 compiler, or f2c
which is arguably worse.
A good language for doing models in is, IMHO, Objective-C.
What kinds of models?
... Pascal is
very bad, C is reasonable but would increase the amount of grunt work to
be done, Python is brilliant if your computer's fast enough that you
don't mind it being interpreted,
We've been talking about all of this in another world. All you're
doing is describing your programming style. This not to be confused
with choosing the appropriate tool for a job.
...and don't even mention COBOL around me ;-)
sigh! Do you know how much trouble you can get in if you program
banking transactions that use FORTRAN FORMAT statements for their
output? Truncation is not amusing.
Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical modelling...?
You have a very narrow view of models and no idea of history.
COBOL is the world's best lanuguage for a report generator
especially if you need to print totals, sub-totals, sub-sub-totals,
sub-sub-sub-totals, etc.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frodo Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
31 Jul 2003 06:32:53 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <bg87gp$qb4$1@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Frodo Morris <graham.lee@wadham.ox.ac.invalid.uk> wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB. Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have
a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
i.e. Fortran 90/95. In Universities there's a rather hefty reliance
upon GNU software [mainly due to its 'free as in costless'-dom], and
unfortunately they only have a 'strict syntax' f77 compiler, or f2c
which is arguably worse.
A good language for doing models in is, IMHO, Objective-C.
What kinds of models?
Physical models. This is, after all, a physics newsgroup.
The paradigm employed in Objective-C coding (this is probably better
explained on Apple's web site, and a billion other places) is called
Model-View-Controller. The model contains your simulation code, the
view handles I/O, and the controller glues the two together.
... Pascal is
very bad, C is reasonable but would increase the amount of grunt work to
be done, Python is brilliant if your computer's fast enough that you
don't mind it being interpreted,
We've been talking about all of this in another world. All you're
doing is describing your programming style. This not to be confused
with choosing the appropriate tool for a job.
Let's have a look at what I actually said: "C is reasonable but would
increase the amount of grunt work to be done". Looks like I'm
acknowledging that C might not be the best tool for the job...
Anyway, for the programming work I do (which is largely in Physics,
handy what with our having been discussing programming in a Physics
group) the 'right tools for the job' require good interfacing with the
Operating System (almost invariably Unix or Linux), extensibility, clean
well-structured code (decided by the whole group, not just by me).
Speed of compilation is unimportant, speed of execution is of variable
importance depending on the type of job. Due to the nature of working
in academia, having the code in such a state that it is freely available
to others is very important, so if there is a free implementation of the
language this is beneficial.
Within this framework, languages such as Pascal, Fortran, COBOL, ALGOL,
Modula-x, Prolog, Perl and Java are unacceptable as they are not 'thre
right tool for the job'. Now I like hacking in Perl (and am warming to
Java), but even so have to admit that code created in Perl is
sufficiently obfuscated to be useless in the context in which I work.
OTOH, languages that could be considered include C, C++, Objective-C,
Python, csh, Ch. Now I can't stand C++ or csh, but have used both where
they will get the job done in suitable manner.
...and don't even mention COBOL around me ;-)
sigh! Do you know how much trouble you can get in if you program
banking transactions that use FORTRAN FORMAT statements for their
output? Truncation is not amusing.
sigh! Do you know that this group is called sci.physics, so computer
programming discussions may be related possibly to physics? Do you also
know how easy it is to generate formatted report outputs with C, Python,
Perl, C++,...
Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical modelling...?
You have a very narrow view of models and no idea of history.
COBOL is the world's best lanuguage for a report generator
especially if you need to print totals, sub-totals, sub-sub-totals,
sub-sub-sub-totals, etc.
Hmm...so COBOL is the automated ledger book I had it down for (someone
once told me that COBOL is the best lanaguage for handling large amounts
of data, too. I guess that's why Access, MySQL, Postgre, db and so
forth are all written in COBOL^H^H^H^H). Nothing that couldn't be done
elsewhere, and, re-reading what I actually said, it looks conspicuously
like "Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical
modelling...?". Some might argue that the simulation of a red-'n'-black
doesn't count as a mathematical model, still others might note that it's
not a model of a situation in Physics, and that this group is a physics
newsgroup.
--
FM
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
31 Jul 2003 06:31:26 AM |
|
|
In article <bgauqs$fqo$1@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Frodo Morris <graham.lee@wadham.ox.ac.invalid.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <bg87gp$qb4$1@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Frodo Morris <graham.lee@wadham.ox.ac.invalid.uk> wrote:
<snip>
What kinds of models?
Physical models. This is, after all, a physics newsgroup.
[emoticon wipes snot off poster's nose]
The paradigm employed in Objective-C coding (this is probably better
explained on Apple's web site, and a billion other places) is called
Model-View-Controller. The model contains your simulation code, the
view handles I/O, and the controller glues the two together.
Why am I worried?
<snip>
We've been talking about all of this in another world. All you're
doing is describing your programming style. This not to be confused
with choosing the appropriate tool for a job.
Let's have a look at what I actually said: "C is reasonable but would
increase the amount of grunt work to be done". Looks like I'm
acknowledging that C might not be the best tool for the job...
YOUR job in YOUR place of work.
Anyway, for the programming work I do (which is largely in Physics,
handy what with our having been discussing programming in a Physics
group)
[emoticon wipes more snot off poster's nose] I'm running out of
Kim-Wipes, kid.
.. the 'right tools for the job' require good interfacing with the
Operating System (almost invariably Unix or Linux), extensibility, clean
well-structured code (decided by the whole group, not just by me).
Speed of compilation is unimportant, speed of execution is of variable
importance depending on the type of job. Due to the nature of working
in academia, having the code in such a state that it is freely available
to others is very important, so if there is a free implementation of the
language this is beneficial.
Like I said, you're talking about programming style. Each person
has one; each group has one; each "company" has one.
Within this framework, languages such as Pascal, Fortran, COBOL, ALGOL,
Modula-x, Prolog, Perl and Java are unacceptable as they are not 'thre
right tool for the job'.
For YOUR job.
<snip>
...and don't even mention COBOL around me ;-)
sigh! Do you know how much trouble you can get in if you program
banking transactions that use FORTRAN FORMAT statements for their
output? Truncation is not amusing.
sigh! Do you know that this group is called sci.physics, so computer
programming discussions may be related possibly to physics?
Funny, there's quite a bit of "physics" done with COBOL. I shudder
when I hear this, but it does know how to do decimal arithmetic.
.. Do you also
know how easy it is to generate formatted report outputs with C, Python,
Perl, C++,...
Sure. First you have to write the code that does the report writing.
If you use COBOL, you can skip this step.
Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical modelling...?
You have a very narrow view of models and no idea of history.
COBOL is the world's best lanuguage for a report generator
especially if you need to print totals, sub-totals, sub-sub-totals,
sub-sub-sub-totals, etc.
Hmm...so COBOL is the automated ledger book I had it down for (someone
once told me that COBOL is the best lanaguage for handling large amounts
of data, too.
That depends on how you define "large". It doesn't do data base
flavored stuff very well.
.. I guess that's why Access, MySQL, Postgre, db and so
forth are all written in COBOL^H^H^H^H). Nothing that couldn't be done
elsewhere, and, re-reading what I actually said, it looks conspicuously
like "Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical
modelling...?".
It depends on what kind of model; you seem to not know that there
is more than one.
. Some might argue that the simulation of a red-'n'-black
doesn't count as a mathematical model, still others might note that it's
not a model of a situation in Physics, and that this group is a physics
newsgroup.
So fucking what? Since you are talking about computing and you seem
to disparage my talking about computing, surely you should get thee to
a computer newsgroup.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The Smart Model? |
30 Jul 2003 11:40:17 AM |
|
|
In article <bg87gp$qb4$1@news.ox.ac.uk>, Frodo Morris <graham.lee@wadham.ox.ac.invalid.uk> writes:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 wrote:
I used mostly FORTRAN, till 91. Using all the extensions of VAX
Fortran you could do anything with it. But IDL was so much easier for
experimenting and doing stuff on the go. Still is.
Yup. Ditto MATLAB. Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
i.e. Fortran 90/95. In Universities there's a rather hefty reliance
upon GNU software [mainly due to its 'free as in costless'-dom], and
unfortunately they only have a 'strict syntax' f77 compiler, or f2c
which is arguably worse.
A good language for doing models in is, IMHO, Objective-C. Pascal is
very bad, C is reasonable but would increase the amount of grunt work to
be done, Python is brilliant if your computer's fast enough that you
don't mind it being interpreted, and don't even mention COBOL around me ;-)
Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical modelling...?
--
Shudder. That's probably what happens to bad programers in hell.
They'ry condemned to modeling turbulent flow using COBOL.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
30 Jul 2003 05:58:48 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Frodo Morris wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
Yup. Ditto MATLAB. Actually, FORTRAN isn't that bad, as long as you have a
compiler that understands free-form code. OTOH, most FORTRAN code _is_
that bad.
i.e. Fortran 90/95. In Universities there's a rather hefty reliance
upon GNU software [mainly due to its 'free as in costless'-dom], and
unfortunately they only have a 'strict syntax' f77 compiler, or f2c
which is arguably worse.
G77 copes with free-form code, and has for some years. It even copes with
a (very, very, small) subset of F90. "-ffree-form" or somesuch.
A good language for doing models in is, IMHO, Objective-C. Pascal is
very bad, C is reasonable but would increase the amount of grunt work to
be done, Python is brilliant if your computer's fast enough that you
don't mind it being interpreted, and don't even mention COBOL around me ;-)
MATLAB is good for what I do, which mostly involves either (1) solving DEs
by finding eigenvalues/eigenvectors, (2) solving DEs by FDFD by solving
large sparse linear systems, or (3) eigenfunction expansions by solving
overdetermined linear systems.
I'd pick F90/95 over C, native complex number support is nice. Not used
Objective-C. Would depend on availability of decent linear algebra
libraries for/interfaceable-with it. In the end, good programming is more
important than language.
Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical modelling...?
I'm sure it's been done. I did some numerical work in QBasic or QuickBasic
or whatever. A nifty side benefit was that it's very easy to get QBasic
programs to play music, so it was simulation with soundtrack. What could
beat electrons whizzing around in a magnetron to "Iron Man"?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What's Wrong With You People, Why You Stopped Damning The SmartModel? |
31 Jul 2003 04:55:26 AM |
|
|
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.50.0307310844000.24096-100000@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Frodo Morris wrote:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
<snip>
Not that anyone would try to use COBOL for mathematical modelling...?
I'm sure it's been done. I did some numerical work in QBasic or QuickBasic
or whatever. A nifty side benefit was that it's very easy to get QBasic
programs to play music, so it was simulation with soundtrack. What could
beat electrons whizzing around in a magnetron to "Iron Man"?
ROTFL. Did your program figure out how to deliver pizza, too?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
