From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-22 19:05:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: 22 Sep 2003 19:05:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <8mgdmv08eaabv53vv5sofud2k40lbo0fdh@4ax.com> <6roimvg39s8h5ba64u9pn0trsa4d3u4kai@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.33.245.37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1064282731 19128 127.0.0.1 (23 Sep 2003 02:05:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Sep 2003 02:05:31 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42766 Date: 2003-09-23T02:05:31+00:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: in message > >> Come on! Everybody had a vision of a TV set. > > > >Well, and which scientific concepts are represented by this wooden or plastic > >box with a glass screen showing dynamic images and something inside producing > >speech and music? > > To peceive and to understand are well different things. If a person was unable to learn that from his/her contacts with other persons (of opposite sex, for a strong example) than TV box surely will not help. > >It's impossible - to train not to recognize - at least at current state-of-art > >and not a single person, but a big part of population. You can (with big and > >very costly effort) block a particular way of recognition, but no more. > > Oh, this is very possible. For example, people trained to eat > McDonald's food will not accept any decent dish. You are certainly wrong. Those habits easily change in several weeks in appropriate (even not severe) circumstances, for almost every person. > People permanently > watching MTV are unable to recognize virtually any music. This is wrong also. They just may be unable to recognize that this *is called* music, because they reserved that term to MTV production, but this generally do not make them deaf to another kinds of music - it just should not be abstract, and should not require special training. > Wirth wrote > that students once exposed to Basic are beyond any hope... Well, this was true in some sense, but the difference is that programming is more about creation then about consumption or perception. > >> Hal Clement > >... > Strugatsky called him Jules Verne of XX century. They translated his > Mission of Gravity - one of the best science fiction novels. Hm, 20th century was not the best time for "Jules Verne" -;) . And the gravity is not the best subject for manipulation, for many reasons... Well, perhaps there will be some chance to see... > >Given current circumstances regarding intellectual property, I can't resist > >to ask question: if knowledge, rather than money, is a measure of success, > >doesn't this mean that knowledge became a property in that science-oriented > >society? -;) > > In my dilettantish opinion, there is a difference, knowledge is > difficult to separate from its carrier. But a carrier can be severely restricted (if not imprisoned... or even killed after he shared his knowledge with another person) - by state or corporate secrecy/security rules, copyright or patent laws (don't forget that copyright and patent rights may be sold and bought). In such a situation the real measure of success is not carrying knowledge, but having rights and/or control of it. Not much difference from money, I think. > The-Mickey-Mouse-movement > against freedom of speech was so successfull I do not think, that it was successful. On the contrary, I think that its current choice is between retreat and rout in near future. > because in case of > recorded music and movies it was relatively easy to do. Just as mocking science and irresponsible engineering. It is not easy (and even relatively easy) to create popular music or movies of high quality (like, say, Nino Rota... or Webber in JCS and Evita - in music, and, say, Casablanca - for movie). > >> ...people grown in rich families often despise > >> money and become anarchists, socialists, anti-globalists, greens etc. > >> They just take wealth [created by others] for granted. > > > >I don't know how often it happens (I never meet such persons, and I strongly > >suspect that you also have no reliable sources for statistics about this > >phenomena), but anyway I do not count those, almost always young people being > >so stupid - I think they just are trying other values... rich families provide > >them possibility for an experiment without too much danger for their present > >and future status - so why not to use this opportunity (sometimes)... ? > > This is what I meant. This is the pattern. It is like a believer, > visiting shrines of all possible gods, church, mosque and not > forgetting to buy a horoscope and a herbalife course, just in case. > (:-)) Something of this sort... many young people naturally try to find their own tastes and places. But as you specifically mentioned rich then don't forget about one of the major system roles of rich - many of them are just testers - they test things on themselves - so for some part of young rich this can be just good training for their future role. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia