From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Corey <corey@bitworthy.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:55:36 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.34-rc4; KDE/4.4.2; i686; ; )
References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com>
	<201004261142.36229.corey@bitworthy.net>
	<705baa3f1f157e04358737cdb6e8dfd2@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <705baa3f1f157e04358737cdb6e8dfd2@kw.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201004261255.36203.corey@bitworthy.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] [PlanX] Re:  Mars Needs Women
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0e919b86-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


Response sent offlist.

On Monday 26 April 2010 12:24:02 erik quanstrom wrote:
> > On Monday 26 April 2010 06:06:11 erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > > I'd prefer not to narrowly frame things in terms of my own personal
> > > > needs.
> > >
> > > that kind of thinking made linux what it is today.
> >
> > You can quit being obstinate now, the threat has been eliminated - sleep
> > soundly, knowing that Plan 9 is once again safe... from being turned
> > into... linux?
> >
> > The. mind. reels.
>
> interestingly, you cut out of your quote the three arguments
> i had for programming for one's own needs.
>
> i'd like to add that unix was written this way at bell labs.
> a lot of good can come of solving one's own problem well.
> multics (hopefully no one is personally vested in it) by
> contrast tried to solve problems more in the abstract.
>
> perhaps you're talking my comments personally?  i don't
> see why you would, since there is no person that can claim
> responsibility for what linux is.
>
> > The problem is that in this case there's a massive bug in your program
> > logic - your knee_jerk_reaction(), tunnel_vision() and dogma() methods
> > appear hardcoded somewhere to intercept and override  all messages that
> > would be better handled by your benefit_of_the_doubt() or
> > think_rationally() methods.
>
> do you have any evidence for this assertion?  the topic here
> is if one should program for one's own needs or not.
>
> neither i nor the list deserve this ad hominem.
>
> > but I'm done with this thread, and the subject in general
>
> you said that already.
>
> - erik