writinhg on wall dept.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:44:02 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:26 AM, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:04:47 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/21/2013 7:43 PM, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:20:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/20/2013 6:21 PM, datakoll wrote:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259406.php



Chicago Trib today ( dead tree version, not online) says
athletes, including cyclists, are using experimental drugs
with known elevated cancer risk, such drugs being not
approved for human use and labeled "for animal research only".

As regards the classic query about a shortened life for
better performance now, life imitates thought experiment.

I believe that the use of growth hormone intended for use with cattle
has been common for some years now.

But "performance enhancing" drug use has been documented since the
original Olympic days, so what is new?


This is new, an experimental (failed trials) thing called
GW501516.

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=GW501516

Well, it the lads feel it is going to make them faster than it doesn't
make any difference where it comes from. I vaguely remember reading
something about chaps who took strychnine and brandy in order to boost
performance.


Yep, those were common race-day enhancements for the pros in
my youth, along with a host of more notorious drugs. See
the many interviews with Jacques Anquetil who didn't
obfuscate, as the modern riders must.

Years ago I read a book entitled "Use of Drugs in Sports", or some
such title, written by a doctor who was head of the Australian drug
testing lab during their Olympics. In the early chapters he documented
the use of drug enhancing drugs in sports and apparently it is been a
common practice throughout recorded history, and given the
possibilities (stick a needle in your butt and become a millionaire) I
don't find it strange that people do it. In fact I find it a bit more
noble then the usual bureaucratic war act - tell a lie about your mate
and get promoted.

--
Cheers,

John B.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...echnology.html

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:04:19 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...echnology.html

"The government guidelines say cars should be stopped and in park to use things like social media while the industry version allows use while driving at low speeds."

What nonsense! Seems to me that "driving at low speeds" would include the times motorists are most likely to encounter a bicyclist on the road. It's also when pedestrians are most likely to be around, when cars are most likely to pull out of parking lots, etc.

Is Facebook _really_ so important that it has to be accessed while you're driving a car?

- Frank Krygowski

On 4/24/2013 2:32 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
the perfect time to write:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:04:19 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...echnology.html

"The government guidelines say cars should be stopped and in park to use things like social media while the industry version allows use while driving at low speeds."

What nonsense! Seems to me that "driving at low speeds" would include the times motorists are most likely to encounter a bicyclist on the road. It's also when pedestrians are most likely to be around, when cars are most likely to pull out of parking lots, etc.

Is Facebook _really_ so important that it has to be accessed while you're driving a car?

- Frank Krygowski

I reckon the standard penalty for using any handheld communication
device while driving (i.e. sitting in the driving seat, with the
engine running OR the vehicle in motion) should be to be forced to
drive over it, then pick up the bits and deposit them in a bin.

And it should be enforced rigorously, so that perpetrators know that
it's not a matter of IF they get caught, but WHEN.


There was a time when "I had a few drinks" was a mitigating
factor, now it's an aggregating factor. Similarly
inattentive driving is hardly ever charged but I think it
ought to be and a serious charge at that, given a couple
tons of high speed weaponry.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:04:19 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...echnology.html

"The government guidelines say cars should be stopped and in park to use things like social media while the industry version allows use while driving at low speeds."

What nonsense! Seems to me that "driving at low speeds" would include the times motorists are most likely to encounter a bicyclist on the road. It's also when pedestrians are most likely to be around, when cars are most likely to pull out of parking lots, etc.

Is Facebook _really_ so important that it has to be accessed while you're driving a car?

- Frank Krygowski

Singapore has a law that specifies that you may not use a hand phone
while driving unless you use a "hands free" ear phone and they seem to
enforce it by grabbing any driver who is holding a hand phone in their
hand - if the phone is lying on the seat or in a holster or a dash top
holder than you are safe. The fine, if I remember correctly is a
couple of hundred dollars, not an inconsequently amount in Singapore.

Given that I have read that some 28% of U.S. auto "accidents" involve
a driver using a hand phone perhaps the U.S. should promulgate a
similar law.... and than enforce it.

Or does a prohibition against the use of a hand phone constitute cruel
and unusual punishment :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...attack-stroke/

On Apr 24, 1:41 pm, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/24/2013 2:32 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:



considered Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
the perfect time to write:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:04:19 PM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ed-to-simplify....

"The government guidelines say cars should be stopped and in park to use things like social media while the industry version allows use while driving at low speeds."

What nonsense! Seems to me that "driving at low speeds" would include the times motorists are most likely to encounter a bicyclist on the road. It's also when pedestrians are most likely to be around, when cars are most likely to pull out of parking lots, etc.

Is Facebook _really_ so important that it has to be accessed while you're driving a car?

- Frank Krygowski

I reckon the standard penalty for using any handheld communication
device while driving (i.e. sitting in the driving seat, with the
engine running OR the vehicle in motion) should be to be forced to
drive over it, then pick up the bits and deposit them in a bin.

And it should be enforced rigorously, so that perpetrators know that
it's not a matter of IF they get caught, but WHEN.

There was a time when "I had a few drinks" was a mitigating
factor, now it's an aggregating factor. Similarly
inattentive driving is hardly ever charged but I think it
ought to be and a serious charge at that, given a couple
tons of high speed weaponry.


It boils down to simple responsibility... SIMPLE responsibility -
something far too many drivers dismiss, rationalize away, or accept
after it's too late.

On Apr 21, 6:41 pm, datakoll wrote:
so what is new?

............

RBT is a forum and we pass information along. Establishing a POSITION isn't necessary

I had a great laugh today - lasted a long time; I couldn't stop
laughing out loud. I shared the funny with several people, but they
*all* just looked at me like, "Okay... " - but totally didn't get the
joke - *none* of them - nobody.

Whenever everybody else doesn't get something, indications are that
it's *me* that doesn't get it, right?

Okay, here it is - from http://gizmodo.com/5991723/6-obvious...p-cant-replace

"Keep doesn't help you organize your thoughts so that they're actually
useful"

This just _cracked me up_. So, my thoughts aren't actually useful,
because only the right electronic digital computing functionality can
(help me) make them so.

After everybody else just looked at me like, "Well, sure - don't you
know that's what computers are for?" I pondered. What makes thoughts
useful? Meaning, right? Can any computer possibly ever divine - or
even more inconceivable *produce* - any meaning from *my* thoughts?

And even if it could (divine or produce *any* meaning, *more*
meaning?? No way. It can *only* lose meaning. (Note that I am
writing this in ~ASCII plain text.)

Computers are *only* good for grinding out absolutely *meaningless*
bit processing. If my thoughts aren't useful, the computer's only
going to make matters worse. If I can't organize my own thoughts
usefully, how am I supposed to make use of a *computer*?

I guess if my thoughts are so useless because I can't organize them
into cogent meaning, I guess maybe some computer programmer can put
some of *his* thoughts into an automated algorithm that sorts and
selects and generates some meaning... but that's *his* thoughts.

And that cuts right to the heart of all this avalanche of emphasis on
using computers to do everything for you. Not just the tedious time-
consuming bit processing, but everything automatically without you
having to think about it. Scripting under-the-hood and abstraction
and... It just keeps getting worse long ago past the point of nobody
even understanding what the systems are doing.

If Melville had had Expert Systems and Evernote, he'd have a slick
Powerpoint all about whales and incoidentally about whaling that many
people may find that somehow satisfying...

Okay, I get it: The computer generated meaning is more meaningful to
others. So I guess there's that. But is that successful
communication??? Is that what it's about? No way.

Moby Dick is not about whales or whaling.

Hmm... I'm not laughing about it anymore. Maybe I need some
~equilibrium.

On Apr 24, 8:13 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Apr 21, 6:41 pm, datakoll wrote:

so what is new?

............

RBT is a forum and we pass information along. Establishing a POSITION isn't necessary

I had a great laugh today - lasted a long time; I couldn't stop
laughing out loud. I shared the funny with several people, but they
*all* just looked at me like, "Okay... " - but totally didn't get the
joke - *none* of them - nobody.

Whenever everybody else doesn't get something, indications are that
it's *me* that doesn't get it, right?

Okay, here it is - fromhttp://gizmodo.com/5991723/6-obvious-evernote-features-google-keep-ca...

"Keep doesn't help you organize your thoughts so that they're actually
useful"

This just _cracked me up_. So, my thoughts aren't actually useful,
because only the right electronic digital computing functionality can
(help me) make them so.

After everybody else just looked at me like, "Well, sure - don't you
know that's what computers are for?" I pondered. What makes thoughts
useful? Meaning, right? Can any computer possibly ever divine - or
even more inconceivable *produce* - any meaning from *my* thoughts?

And even if it could (divine or produce *any* meaning, *more*
meaning?? No way. It can *only* lose meaning. (Note that I am
writing this in ~ASCII plain text.)

Computers are *only* good for grinding out absolutely *meaningless*
bit processing. If my thoughts aren't useful, the computer's only
going to make matters worse. If I can't organize my own thoughts
usefully, how am I supposed to make use of a *computer*?

I guess if my thoughts are so useless because I can't organize them
into cogent meaning, I guess maybe some computer programmer can put
some of *his* thoughts into an automated algorithm that sorts and
selects and generates some meaning... but that's *his* thoughts.

And that cuts right to the heart of all this avalanche of emphasis on
using computers to do everything for you. Not just the tedious time-
consuming bit processing, but everything automatically without you
having to think about it. Scripting under-the-hood and abstraction
and... It just keeps getting worse long ago past the point of nobody
even understanding what the systems are doing.

If Melville had had Expert Systems and Evernote, he'd have a slick
Powerpoint all about whales and incoidentally about whaling that many
people may find that somehow satisfying...

Okay, I get it: The computer generated meaning is more meaningful to
others. So I guess there's that. But is that successful
communication??? Is that what it's about? No way.

Moby Dick is not about whales or whaling.

Hmm... I'm not laughing about it anymore. Maybe I need some
~equilibrium.

Doowop dooby doo doowop doowah doolang
Blue days black nights doowah doolang

When I look into the sky, the love you need ain't gonna see you
through
And I wonder why the little things you planned ain't coming true

Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight
Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight
Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight
Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight

On Apr 24, 9:15 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Apr 24, 8:13 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Apr 21, 6:41 pm, datakoll wrote:

so what is new?

............

RBT is a forum and we pass information along. Establishing a POSITION isn't necessary

I had a great laugh today - lasted a long time; I couldn't stop
laughing out loud. I shared the funny with several people, but they
*all* just looked at me like, "Okay... " - but totally didn't get the
joke - *none* of them - nobody.

Whenever everybody else doesn't get something, indications are that
it's *me* that doesn't get it, right?

Okay, here it is - fromhttp://gizmodo.com/5991723/6-obvious-evernote-features-google-keep-ca...

"Keep doesn't help you organize your thoughts so that they're actually
useful"

This just _cracked me up_. So, my thoughts aren't actually useful,
because only the right electronic digital computing functionality can
(help me) make them so.

After everybody else just looked at me like, "Well, sure - don't you
know that's what computers are for?" I pondered. What makes thoughts
useful? Meaning, right? Can any computer possibly ever divine - or
even more inconceivable *produce* - any meaning from *my* thoughts?

And even if it could (divine or produce *any* meaning, *more*
meaning?? No way. It can *only* lose meaning. (Note that I am
writing this in ~ASCII plain text.)

Computers are *only* good for grinding out absolutely *meaningless*
bit processing. If my thoughts aren't useful, the computer's only
going to make matters worse. If I can't organize my own thoughts
usefully, how am I supposed to make use of a *computer*?

I guess if my thoughts are so useless because I can't organize them
into cogent meaning, I guess maybe some computer programmer can put
some of *his* thoughts into an automated algorithm that sorts and
selects and generates some meaning... but that's *his* thoughts.

And that cuts right to the heart of all this avalanche of emphasis on
using computers to do everything for you. Not just the tedious time-
consuming bit processing, but everything automatically without you
having to think about it. Scripting under-the-hood and abstraction
and... It just keeps getting worse long ago past the point of nobody
even understanding what the systems are doing.

If Melville had had Expert Systems and Evernote, he'd have a slick
Powerpoint all about whales and incoidentally about whaling that many
people may find that somehow satisfying...

Okay, I get it: The computer generated meaning is more meaningful to
others. So I guess there's that. But is that successful
communication??? Is that what it's about? No way.

Moby Dick is not about whales or whaling.

Hmm... I'm not laughing about it anymore. Maybe I need some
~equilibrium.

Doowop dooby doo doowop doowah doolang
Blue days black nights doowah doolang

When I look into the sky, the love you need ain't gonna see you
through
And I wonder why the little things you planned ain't coming true

Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight
Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight
Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight
Oh oh Telephone Line, give me some time, I'm living in twilight

Call the ambulance somebody's falling
The devil's calling

Hear the hurricane, howling out my name
Coming now to take me under

Oh no, not now, don't take me please
Oh no! let go, not ready to leave
Somebody help, I'm running out of time
Devil's gate is opening on me
Devil's gate is opening on me
The devil's gate is opening on me