post-doomsday computing

In article <3f24b384.47054142.DeleteThis@news.ocis.net>,
Gene Wirchenko <genew.DeleteThis@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>Erik Max Francis <max.DeleteThis@alcyone.com> wrote:
>
>>Larry Elmore wrote:
>>
>>> My point, which apparently flew right over your head, was that nearly
>>> all messages ever written have been intended for a particular reader
>>> or
>>> audience, and that while no efforts have been made to intentionally
>>> make
>>> it more difficult for anyone else to understand, ...
>>
>>Look at the Subject. Read the origin of the subthread. Keep in mind
>>people have been talking about encyclopedias as examples. Rethink your
>>point.
>
> Some encyclopedias have been written to be less than
>understandable even for native-language readers.

This is part of making a separate academic subject of something.

A core part of academic life is building concepts, and using
language to describe them is an integral part of this concept-
formation, thereby forming a lot of new "sub-languages"; often
mangling words from a different language to supply a base for the
new vocabulary needed.

This process is far advanced in medicine, biology, chemistry,
physics, law, social sciences; and some more practically
oriented trades like sailing and flying.

This is perhaps more evident for someone who originally learned
some of these subjects in another language than English, and
have had to re-learn the vocabulary to express it in English.

Some of these languages have names, like legalese, reflecting
the fact that they build another sub-language.

An encyclopedia of medical conditions written for medically
trained people is also probably pretty useless for the lay person.

And just watch how much fun people make of sailor's speak. They
don't get the fact that all of these strange words reflect
different concepts. This vocabulary was pretty common a few
centuries ago, and can make it difficult for today's people
to understand poetry from the sailing age.

If you try to understand such a text with only an understanding
of the base language you will struggle to say it mildly. On the
other hand, the specialist words are pretty common among languages.
(except French and Icelandic, making a point NOT to conform )
This commonality may form the basis for breaking into a new
language you don't understand. A kind of "subject-matter" rosetta
stone.

-- mrr
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

In article <1059763352snz.DeleteThis@dsl.co.uk>,
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <bhk.DeleteThis@dsl.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <0vuVa.8902$uu5.828@sccrnsc04>
> bobkolker.DeleteThis@comcast.net "Robert J. Kolker" writes:
>
>> Brian {Hamilton Kelly} wrote:
>>
>> > (Still waiting for Etruscan to be deciphered; as was Claudius, and it had
>> > been dead for a far shorter period in his time.)
>>
>> Is that the same Claudius as in the t.v. series - I Clavdivs-?
>
>Errm, yes, of course. (Although it was an excellent book by Robert
>Graves some decades before the TV series was made; the latter was
>actually based upon Graves' _two_ books, "I, Claudius" and "Claudius the
>God".)
>
>Claudius was actually a great scholar (in a dilletante-like fashion).

A lot of the constructions for making a large state function
are his personal inventions. Like a proper separation in the
scope of authority for courts, and national identity papers.
This became a necessity when the Roman empire had grown beyond
a place where every member of the ruling class could know all the
others. But it took Claudius to step out of the system and to take
a fresh view.

Whenever you go to small claims court you are using one of his
inventions.

His contemporaries never quite knew what to make of him.

-- mrr
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

In article <bftpg8$evm$3@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfbahciv.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <na.0b4eb54c17.a806e0tennant.TakeThisOut@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <tennant.TakeThisOut@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <of0vhvcod75n91lkc60ug4lslril6u9ljs.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, Brian Inglis
>><Brian.Inglis.TakeThisOut@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:00:02 BST in alt.folklore.computers,
>>> Tennant Stuart <tennant.TakeThisOut@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>>> It doesn't matter. Patterns are patterns. From there you get the words.

>>> Figuring out word groups from symbol patterns is probably not too hard,
>>> even common phrases from groups of words is possible. Figuring out what
>>> any of the words mean, even what part of speech they are, is impossible
>>> without some kind of context. To reference another thread, you
>>> effectively have a bunch of coded messages. Without a codebook or a
>>> crib, you can assign any meaning you like to any word, and it may make
>>> sense or not, you can't really tell.

>>One does have a crib, it's called physics & chemistry.

But our expression of physics and chemistry is quite full
of the context in which it was discovered. Just look at how
slowly quantum mechanics and relativity has permeated into
the old "newtonian" body of texts.

Just think of correlating this with a civilization where
they discovered Maxwell's equations before getting properly
to grips with pressure, gravity and chemical fires aka. explotions.

This civilization may not have a "newtonian" base description
at all, but may have a different, quantum-inspired tool set.

>>Sigh.
>>
>>I'm surprised that quite a few of the people in this discussion are
>>so lacking in the vision or perspicacity to even credit such a task,
>>like a lot of old men proclaiming that something is impossible until
>>someone younger with the nerve to ignore them just does it anyway.
>>
>>I seem to recall a book by Arthur C. Clarke on this very situation,
>>ascribing it to failures of imagination or failures of nerve, ITSBC.
>
>You appear to have picked up this thread in mid-drift.
>
>You are also making the assumption that physics and chemistry
>are the same everywhere. That's not quite true .

They may not honour the very notion of "physics" and
"chemistry" to be separate subjects. Indeed, chemistry seems
to be doing a fork with the event of powerful molecular biology.
It seems more and more to have a "physics" part and a "biology"
part.

-- mrr
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

In article <d0jshb.08.ln@acer>, Morten Reistad <mrr.TakeThisOut@reistad.priv.no> wrote:
>In article <3f24b384.47054142.TakeThisOut@news.ocis.net>,
>Gene Wirchenko <genew.TakeThisOut@mail.ocis.net> wrote:

>A core part of academic life is building concepts, and using
>language to describe them is an integral part of this concept-
>formation, thereby forming a lot of new "sub-languages"; often
>mangling words from a different language to supply a base for the
>new vocabulary needed.
>
>This process is far advanced in medicine, biology, chemistry,
>physics, law, social sciences; and some more practically
>oriented trades like sailing and flying.

<snip>
>
>Some of these languages have names, like legalese, reflecting
>the fact that they build another sub-language.

Legales actually goes the other ways. It doesn't bring new things in,
but clings tightly to the old vocabulary.

If I use the same word that's been used for 400 years, even though it's
fallen out of usage outside the law, I know what it means if it's
litigated. If I use "plain english" I don't have that guarantee.

Which do you want *your* attorney using?



hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
dochawk.TakeThisOut@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

In article <bi2pvk$1dpk$4@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>,
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins <hawk.RemoveThis@slytherin.ds.psu.edu> wrote:
>In article <d0jshb.08.ln@acer>, Morten Reistad <mrr.RemoveThis@reistad.priv.no> wrote:
>>In article <3f24b384.47054142.RemoveThis@news.ocis.net>,
>>Gene Wirchenko <genew.RemoveThis@mail.ocis.net> wrote:
>
>>A core part of academic life is building concepts, and using
>>language to describe them is an integral part of this concept-
>>formation, thereby forming a lot of new "sub-languages"; often
>>mangling words from a different language to supply a base for the
>>new vocabulary needed.
>>
>>This process is far advanced in medicine, biology, chemistry,
>>physics, law, social sciences; and some more practically
>>oriented trades like sailing and flying.
>
><snip>
>>
>>Some of these languages have names, like legalese, reflecting
>>the fact that they build another sub-language.
>
>Legales actually goes the other ways. It doesn't bring new things in,
>but clings tightly to the old vocabulary.

The legal people were among the first to build a set of definitions
of words that doesn't necessarily coinside with standard english usage
of the same word. This becomes very clear when the english vernacular
changes, but the legalese stays the same.

That much of the legalese language-concept mappings were done in the
17th to 19th centuries doesn't invalidate this description. Latin and
Old English have been useful sources of many such words; like "Habeus
Corpus". This is a Latin Idiom that has moved into Legal English, but
has subtly changed meaning away from the idiom into a label for a legal
principle.

This language formation is necessary if any academic subject is to make
any major headway in the world. Scholars cannot speak or write with
good precision unless this is done.

>If I use the same word that's been used for 400 years, even though it's
>fallen out of usage outside the law, I know what it means if it's
>litigated. If I use "plain english" I don't have that guarantee.
>
>Which do you want *your* attorney using?

Legalese, in legalese contexts.

Plain language in plain language contexts.

You seem to misunderstand the angle. I don't polemise against these
sub-languages. I merely describe them. And I note that the sub-languages
stay very alike across rather major language barriers; except where
someone makes a major effort to change them (France, Iceland).

For that reason such sub-languages could even be a way to decipher
parts of unknown languages if the language base is great enough.

-- mrr
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

In article <tre3ib.lu2.ln@acer>, Morten Reistad <mrr DeleteThis @reistad.priv.no> wrote:
>In article <bi2pvk$1dpk$4@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>,
>Dr. Richard E. Hawkins <hawk DeleteThis @slytherin.ds.psu.edu> wrote:

>>>Some of these languages have names, like legalese, reflecting
>>>the fact that they build another sub-language.

>>Legales actually goes the other ways. It doesn't bring new things in,
>>but clings tightly to the old vocabulary.

>The legal people were among the first to build a set of definitions
>of words that doesn't necessarily coinside with standard english usage
>of the same word. This becomes very clear when the english vernacular
>changes, but the legalese stays the same.

>That much of the legalese language-concept mappings were done in the
>17th to 19th centuries doesn't invalidate this description. Latin and
>Old English have been useful sources of many such words; like "Habeus
>Corpus". This is a Latin Idiom that has moved into Legal English, but
>has subtly changed meaning away from the idiom into a label for a legal
>principle.

>This language formation is necessary if any academic subject is to make
>any major headway in the world. Scholars cannot speak or write with
>good precision unless this is done.

Yep. And . . .
>>If I use the same word that's been used for 400 years, even though it's
>>fallen out of usage outside the law, I know what it means if it's
>>litigated. If I use "plain english" I don't have that guarantee.

>>Which do you want *your* attorney using?

>Legalese, in legalese contexts.

>Plain language in plain language contexts.

That's what I did. The problem is that there's a "plain english for
lawyers" movement out there, showing up in law schools (including legal
writing instructors that don't write well in either dialect), that's
tring to force the issue.

>You seem to misunderstand the angle. I don't polemise against these
>sub-languages. I merely describe them. And I note that the sub-languages
>stay very alike across rather major language barriers; except where
>someone makes a major effort to change them (France, Iceland).

Oh, I see the angle. I'm just pointing out that unlike the other
languages, legalese doesn't change much (though it gets things added).

hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
dochawk DeleteThis @psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

In article <20030822070306.4149b394.steveo RemoveThis @eircom.net>,
Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo RemoveThis @eircom.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:54:28 +0000 (UTC)
>hawk@slytherin.ds.psu.edu (Dr. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:

>DREH> Legales actually goes the other ways. It doesn't bring new things
>DREH> in, but clings tightly to the old vocabulary.
>DREH>
>DREH> If I use the same word that's been used for 400 years, even though
>DREH> it's fallen out of usage outside the law, I know what it means if
>DREH> it's litigated. If I use "plain english" I don't have that
>DREH> guarantee.

> The flip side of this is that any normal person needs professional
>assistance to comprehend such a document and even then unless the
>communication with that professional is good there can be
>misunderstanding.

Depends upon the lawyer. It's possible to use proper terminology and
still be legal, but you'd better stick to formal grammar rules (like I'm
breaking in this sentence) at the expense of lay-readability.

And when you pay for a document, you're *entitled* to that explanation


hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
dochawk RemoveThis @psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

Bernie Dwyer wrote:

> I've just finished reading the Niven/Pournelle novel "Lucifer's Hammer.
>
> SPOILER FOLLOWS
>
> Briefly, the earth suffers multiple comet strikes, driving civilisation
> back almost to feudalism.
>
> It got me wondering about how to preserve electronic computing
> facilities for a time when there would be little or no service or spare
> parts. Perhaps there would not much use for a computer when one is
> struggling to grow enough food to feed yourself + family (+ sharing with
> neighbours?), but I'd sure like to have the ability to organise and
> analyse information in the future.
>
> So, take your typical intel PC (preferably 10 or more of them), or
> whatever you have handy. Hard disks will eventually die, but you still
> want to be able to start the machine and use it.
>
> How many bootable tapes/diskettes/CDs will you make (assuming you have
> time to do so)? How many copies of your favourite apps?
>
> And would it be better to verify and copy^W backup those old Lotus 1-2-3
> diskettes?
> What's the best way to preserve hardware that you might not use for some
> time, but you want to be able to use it say in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years
> (if you haven't got electric power after 5 years, I think you may as
> well forget all about it!)
>
> Personally, I'm off-grid with 1.6 kilowatts of solar panels and 1100 amp
> hours of batteries at 450 meters above sea level, about 50km from the
> coast. I *should* survive food-wise, but I probably wouldn't be able to
> fire up the home computer very often.

I have recently read of a portable computer being marketed to the 3rd World
for use in villages without ready access to electricity. Its batteries can
be recharged by pedaling a stationary bike.
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

On Jan 16, 2:42 am, Tim Bruening <tsbru....RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> Bernie Dwyer wrote:
> > I've just finished reading the Niven/Pournelle novel "Lucifer's Hammer.
>
> > SPOILER FOLLOWS
>
> > Briefly, the earth suffers multiple comet strikes, driving civilisation
> > back almost to feudalism.
>
> > It got me wondering about how to preserve electronic computing
> > facilities for a time when there would be little or no service or spare
> > parts. Perhaps there would not much use for a computer when one is
> > struggling to grow enough food to feed yourself + family (+ sharing with
> > neighbours?), but I'd sure like to have the ability to organise and
> > analyse information in the future.
>
> > So, take your typical intel PC (preferably 10 or more of them), or
> > whatever you have handy. Hard disks will eventually die, but you still
> > want to be able to start the machine and use it.
>
> > How many bootable tapes/diskettes/CDs will you make (assuming you have
> > time to do so)? How many copies of your favourite apps?
>
> > And would it be better to verify and copy^W backup those old Lotus 1-2-3
> > diskettes?
> > What's the best way to preserve hardware that you might not use for some
> > time, but you want to be able to use it say in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years
> > (if you haven't got electric power after 5 years, I think you may as
> > well forget all about it!)
>
> > Personally, I'm off-grid with 1.6 kilowatts of solar panels and 1100 amp
> > hours of batteries at 450 meters above sea level, about 50km from the
> > coast. I *should* survive food-wise, but I probably wouldn't be able to
> > fire up the home computer very often.
>
> I have recently read of a portable computer being marketed to the 3rd World
> for use in villages without ready access to electricity.  Its batteries can
> be recharged by pedaling a stationary bike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You must be referring to the One Laptop Per Child project
and the OLPC XO-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_laptop_per_child
who's goal is to provide a cheap ($100) laptop to poor third world
country's children.
Its an ingenious design and has many great features all computers
should have
like an easy to clean keyboard.
its designed to minimized power consumption and uses a hand crank or
even a solar panel
attachment for recharging. not a stationary bike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1

tphile
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> Bernie Dwyer wrote:
>

>>Personally, I'm off-grid with 1.6 kilowatts of solar panels and 1100 amp
>>hours of batteries at 450 meters above sea level, about 50km from the
>>coast. I *should* survive food-wise, but I probably wouldn't be able to
>>fire up the home computer very often.
>
>
> I have recently read of a portable computer being marketed to the 3rd World
> for use in villages without ready access to electricity. Its batteries can
> be recharged by pedaling a stationary bike.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1
: OLPC XO-1
:
: The XO-1, previously known as the $100 Laptop or Children's Machine,
: is an inexpensive laptop computer intended to be distributed to
: children in developing countries around the world,[1] to provide
: them with access to knowledge, and opportunities to "explore,
: experiment and express themselves" (constructionist learning).[2]
: The laptop is developed by the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) social
: welfare organization
:
: [...]
: The rugged, low-power computers contain flash memory instead of a
: hard drive and use Linux as their operating system.[7] Mobile ad-hoc
: networking is used to allow many machines to share Internet access
: from one connection.

I think you're referring to this.

Jim Burns
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

In rec.arts.sf.science Tim Bruening <tsbrueni RemoveThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
> Bernie Dwyer wrote:
>
>> It got me wondering about how to preserve electronic computing
>> facilities for a time when there would be little or no service or spare
>> parts. Perhaps there would not much use for a computer when one is
>> struggling to grow enough food to feed yourself + family (+ sharing with
>> neighbours?), but I'd sure like to have the ability to organise and
>> analyse information in the future.
>>
>> So, take your typical intel PC (preferably 10 or more of them), or
>> whatever you have handy. Hard disks will eventually die, but you still
>> want to be able to start the machine and use it.
>>
>> How many bootable tapes/diskettes/CDs will you make (assuming you have
>> time to do so)? How many copies of your favourite apps?
>>
>> And would it be better to verify and copy^W backup those old Lotus 1-2-3
>> diskettes?
>> What's the best way to preserve hardware that you might not use for some
>> time, but you want to be able to use it say in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years
>> (if you haven't got electric power after 5 years, I think you may as
>> well forget all about it!)

If you're talking about just 5 years, then I don't see the problem. Most
harddisks, data storage and electronic equipment of halfway decent
quality should be able to survive for 5 years.

>> Personally, I'm off-grid with 1.6 kilowatts of solar panels and 1100 amp
>> hours of batteries at 450 meters above sea level, about 50km from the
>> coast. I *should* survive food-wise, but I probably wouldn't be able to
>> fire up the home computer very often.

1.6 kilowatts is more than plenty for a PC. Unless you also want a fridge
and a vacuum cleaner. But PCs are becoming more and more energy efficient
these days.

> I have recently read of a portable computer being marketed to the 3rd World
> for use in villages without ready access to electricity. Its batteries can
> be recharged by pedaling a stationary bike.

More importantly, the OLPC laptop is designed to be very rugged with no
moving parts, and it can communicate without infrastructure. On full
load, it uses only a couple of watts. All in all, this thing could be
the saviour of our information infrastructure in case of an apocalyptic
event. And we're sending them all to Africa...

How about an SF setting where it's the current third world that rebuilds
civilisation because of these laptops?


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

mcv <mcvmcv.RemoveThis@xs4all.nl> writes:
> More importantly, the OLPC laptop is designed to be very rugged with no
> moving parts, and it can communicate without infrastructure. On full
> load, it uses only a couple of watts. All in all, this thing could be
> the saviour of our information infrastructure in case of an apocalyptic
> event. And we're sending them all to Africa...
>
> How about an SF setting where it's the current third world that rebuilds
> civilisation because of these laptops?

How about an SF story where the last surviving laptops, in Nigeria,
are used to coordinate and organize crime on a global basis,
funded by the nation's (uniquely surviving the apocolypes) petroleum
reserves, with all the associated intrigue. In the end, some of the
losing gangsters (posed as self-styled "government officials") wind up
fleeing from Nigeria and experience "banking problems" wherein they
need help transferring a large amount of newcash and gold.

Well, I guess that's one way of "rebuilding civilization".

Featuring: dictator General Sanni Abacha, Isa Ahmed Letter,
Prince Isa Ahmed, Farouk Bakoh, Idris Musa, Kareem Salami,
Yabril Omotayo, Umaru Egwuatu, Capt. Godwin Maja Martins,
The Ministry of Petroleum, the Petroleum Trust Fund,
the Nigerian National Petroleum Company,
and of course, the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Titled:
"The Unpleasant Occupation Of Barrister Amobi Nzelu,
legal adviser to Mr. Mohammed Abacha,
the heir apparent to the estate of the late
Head of State of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
late General Sani Abacha..."
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing 

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:50:32 +0000, mcv wrote
>
>> I have recently read of a portable computer being marketed to the 3rd World
>> for use in villages without ready access to electricity. Its batteries can
>> be recharged by pedaling a stationary bike.
>
> More importantly, the OLPC laptop is designed to be very rugged with no
> moving parts, and it can communicate without infrastructure. On full
> load, it uses only a couple of watts. All in all, this thing could be
> the saviour of our information infrastructure in case of an apocalyptic
> event. And we're sending them all to Africa...

The OLPC consortium are hitting problems because they appear to by trying to
place themselves into a monopoly position in the countries to whom they're
selling.

There are reports that OLPC refuse to engage in 'beauty parades' with the
Intel Classmate and, if a potential customer wants to evaluate both machines,
Negroponte is walking away.
 >> Stay informed about: post-doomsday computing