|
Post by Homeloaf on Jan 19, 2006 1:05:33 GMT
How many people come here every day? I started not too long ago, and I love it. I wonder... Is the board dying? I hope not... This is the best site in the whole [expletiving] world.
|
|
|
Post by earlofqb on Jan 20, 2006 1:55:15 GMT
Well, I come here practically every day (or at least once a week), but since no one posts, and most of my QB questions have been answered already (or I would like to figure it out myself), I don't post unless its a reply to someone else's topics. To get a discussion, I got me a human friend today. The Earl's Dictionary describes a "human friend" as: "someone of any gender with whom you have had a prior friendship with, and are intrigued by in a non-dubious way" Technically, human friendship doesn't mean you like the person in a romantic way, although that is often the most obvious conclusion people get. Its more of a religious love for someone, like "I love Jesus", not "I love <random human form people lust over nowadays. I don't watch those sort of movies or TV>". Most often it is signified as an epiphany moment if you're going the romantic way, such as "hey, that person is agreeable, and I passed this up all these years?" Also, it is non-judgemental. Your preference is your own, and we really don't care either so don't tell us. Finally, one can have more than one human friend, so long as there is only one human friend with which you're romantically involved with (ie can date 1, but not 2+). Note this is different from going to a bar and picking up a random human, as human friendship implies you've known the person a good bit (at least for a month or so). It is also a fairly pure idea, and so far none that've heard the wisdom of ERE have found fundamental flaws with the basic idea (that you should be friends before you date someone, as it alleviates a lot of difficulties and tension. Further, if things don't work out, you can always go back to being friends ). So, do you have a human friend?
|
|
buff1
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by buff1 on Jan 20, 2006 3:07:26 GMT
I check it several times a week.
|
|
|
Post by earlofqb on Jan 20, 2006 21:20:18 GMT
To get a discussion, I got me a human friend today. The Earl's Dictionary describes a "human friend" as: "someone of any gender with whom you have had a prior friendship with, and are intrigued by in a non-dubious way" Technically, human friendship doesn't mean you like the person in a romantic way, although that is often the most obvious conclusion people get. Its more of a religious love for someone, like "I love Jesus", not "I love <random human form people lust over nowadays. I don't watch those sort of movies or TV>". Most often it is signified as an epiphany moment if you're going the romantic way, such as "hey, that person is agreeable, and I passed this up all these years?" Also, it is non-judgemental. Your preference is your own, and we really don't care either so don't tell us. Finally, one can have more than one human friend, so long as there is only one human friend with which you're romantically involved with (ie can date 1, but not 2+). Note this is different from going to a bar and picking up a random human, as human friendship implies you've known the person a good bit (at least for a month or so). It is also a fairly pure idea, and so far none that've heard the wisdom of ERE have found fundamental flaws with the basic idea (that you should be friends before you date someone, as it alleviates a lot of difficulties and tension. Further, if things don't work out, you can always go back to being friends ). So, do you have a human friend? Yes, I realise that was a rather n00bish statement, however Dr. ERE's message is somewhat cryptic and I simply fail to convey his message properly. Like a Canadian once said, "most of what you do is something you'll regret within about 5 years from doing it. This was one of them".
|
|
|
Post by Mikrondel on Jan 24, 2006 6:30:06 GMT
LOL @ 'Like a Canadian once said, "most of what you do is something you'll regret within about 5 years from doing it. This was one of them".'
This board is not really dying, just injured. If more people stumble across it and stay here because they like it, well, maybe it'll grow back to its former glory. Of sorts. I only became the moderator because the old moderator remembered about the board about 3 years since he last came here. And the junk mail etc. on the forum had chased many regulars here away.
|
|
|
Post by earlofqb on Jan 24, 2006 21:34:52 GMT
Well, we have two very sociable people here (myself and Homeloaf), as well as a great support of many other semi-regulars. Although ideally this board should remain dedicated to QBasic, we might have to expand a bit into some other languages. That , however, should be a last resort.
As far as suggestions for languages go, why not go for the old standby, C? Mikrondel (or was it Ildurest?) once told me to write a telnet program in C (I chose C++ as I've slight knowledge of it. However, both are relatively the same for that sort of project), and although I never finished it (yet. I am studying up on my C++, however); it is an intriguing segue into C programming.
C is often called the "programmers language" because its a real Canadian thing to use. However, it is extremely powerful and compact, and knowledge from C can be applied to C++, Java, and C# (well, ideas from any of those languages can be applied elsewhere).
However, C has its problems, especially in this modern era. C is an old language (sort of befitting this board as QB is an old language) and although there are tutorials and sites for it, they are out of date and give no real discussion on the language itself (just how to use it).
Still, as I said, adding another language to this board would be like abandoning our identity. This board is called qbasic.proboards6.com, and adding another language wouldn't be fun. Further, adding more to our general discussion (although intriguing and helpful at times) sort of isn't how one would expect a board dedicated to QB to be centered around.
Call me a purist (which means I'll probably be the downfall of us if you listen to me, as those who don't constantly adapt end up dead) if you want, but when you see the link here, would you expect topics on C (et al) and about getting human friends? Of course, the one topic, about the ratio of male to female programmers, was insightful. If we can continue to get more ideas like that one, it might help out some (many female forms are afraid to admit that they enjoy working with computers, because apparantly in our so-called "politically correct age" where everyone can do anything they please, female forms feel relegated to non-technical fields. This is the greatest travesty since the forced subserviance male forms wrongly enforced on female forms back some (reported) 20 thousand years ago (at the earliest traces of civilization). We're so "enlightened" that in overcoming millenia of subjugation, we revert back to it. Such "progress".
To understand why I posted as opinionated as I did (because the name Earl sort of tells you what gender I am), one would have to spend countless hours with me interacting in the offline world (basically, I live by what Dr. ERE calls the "Earl's Code". I had actually developed something similar to it, however Dr. ERE's is more complete. Essentially, this was all primed by the disrespectful things one sees daily, and the desire that with morality added to the mix, humanity might have the slight chance at becoming something that is both harmonious and unified (or at the very least, fulfill its own ideal of polical correctness, despite the many flaws in it). The writings of Zilah (Zilah maintains no blog, however Zilah's writings are somewhat circulated en verbatim by Dr. ERE) are a great contribution to the Code. Now, if Dr. ERE was at the slightest bit more popular outside of his little blogsphere, you'd know just what in the Canada I was talking about .
|
|
|
Post by Ildûrest on Jan 24, 2006 23:39:37 GMT
HEATHEN! YOU CALLED C OLD!!
(Just kidding)
Seriously though, C is almost the same as C++ except for a few things like classes and declaration stuff and whatnot. The bottom line is that almost everything that applies to C++ applies to C (although some modifications may have to be done).
I've written simple Windows GUI programs in C, using the Windows API only. I think it's a blast, even though a little laborious. (I haven't written anything more because I haven't yet had the time.)
I think I've lost my train of thought... Anyway I wouldn't mind having a C subforum, because it's my favourite language in terms of how it works.
About the Male/Female thing... One cannot deny that men and women are quite different both physically and mentally. For one thing, women navigate more with landmarks and things, while men go for the "mental map", and this makes it difficult for women to play, for example, First Person Shooter type games. (However they perform far better with a wide screen.)
I don't know how this applies to programming but I might guess that women are usually less logical in their approach. There are also social factors like our Earl mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by earlofqb on Jan 27, 2006 1:37:05 GMT
Yay, I get an honorable mention! Well, I'll stop bottom-up: Yes, the differences in mental processes are there, although so slight that I see absolutely no reason that they should be part of the equation. As far as your example goes, you've apparantly never met Ms. Zilah. She is arguably one of the best FPS gamers anyone will ever see. If you've heard of the frag^4 clan (the Red Faction equivalent of the Pure Pwnage Crew (purepwnage.com for details on them), but never heard how she defeated them all simultaneously (she did have some help, from myself, the self-proclaimed third-best FPS'er (second-best is the combination of the frag^4 clan) and my clan (the Knights Templar, although at the time only 2 others were in the battle)). So, before you befall youself unto elderly and outdated perceptions of the female form, go and find a copy of RF and track her down. Quite realistically, you'll find yourself looking more at your own blood than anything else. As far as programming is concerned, it is indeterminate in my own experiences because I know of none personally (although the one's I've heard about are quite good and are the top of their profession). For the C stuff, that wouldn't be half-bad. Sort of incidentally I inadvertantly got a nice crew of people hooked on C/C++ over at an intriguing gaming website . Right now they're talking about using their developing C/C++ skills to create an FPS game using the Irrlicht Engine (or maybe the Retribution Engine). Further, having a C/C++ subboard would be spiffy as I'm getting some of my friends (yes, n00bs, Earl has friends (wrong site, this isn't the one I get made fun of for being on all hours of they day. Forget I wrote that!)) interested in programming (including one who pretty much hates computers, but once I told him he could control them better using programming skills, he flew on board).
|
|
|
Post by Ildûrest on Jan 27, 2006 2:45:37 GMT
"elderly and outdated perceptions of the female form" they are not. Scientific studies have been done on the issue, and there is a significant difference.
That's not to say that all women are worse than all men. A man who spends all his time reading books is likely to have much worse navigation skills than a women who travels on foot a lot.
I've discussed this with a few of my friends and they all say that their sisters are completely disoriented when playing FPS games.
I think that although men may have a tendency to be better at such things, some women will be able to outperform them.
|
|
|
Post by earlofqb on Jan 28, 2006 2:01:39 GMT
I'm half-tempted to call you an elitist at this point. I shan't because there is some truth to your statements. However, one must wonder, is it entirely scientific, or sociological? About two summers ago (I give myself summer projects in sociology and science stuff), I did a comparative "study" (it wasn't scientific, just asking people how well they do stuff, then testing them in comparison to myself (yes, such a "scientific" study that is!)). Basically, it all boils down to sociology: People often place themselves in roles because society puts them there. I know of many who could be the greatest <occupation> in recent history. However, because of social stigmas, they don't (case in point is the above-mentioned Zilah. Despite her great logical mind and that, the drive to become at least honorably mentioned in anything is gone. Why is this? Well, to cut to the point of a series of inquiries, aside from familial distress (which would obviously place a mental handicap on prosperity, when her family is greatly disturbed and requires a good bit of assistance); it was sort of gender-based. Sad to say, however family once told her to fall under a submissive category and occupation (ie become a housewife and be a secretary until then). Further, the case of Joy Hallindorfer (her actual name, an oddity in this paranoid-filled world of instant access), who did follow a similar suit as Ms. Zilah. Again, the reason being that society pushed her into it. Finally, myself. My family is known almost entirely as a blue-collar family (hard labour). When I announced my great interest in programming, I was told to get a real job and was then forced to McDonalds to get applications. I did quit my job and decided to program. With the semi-successful release of some of my programs, I've at least given my family the idea that programming, when done properly and intelligently, can be just as profitable (if not more) as manual labor. As far as gaming is concerned, this too is societal. I re-submit my Zilah testimony. It is all a matter of how badly you'd like something. So long as you don't allow yourself to become subject to what people say you can and can't do, you will find a way to do it. I'll even admit to my n00bishness when starting out gaming (FPS started with "Goldeneye", in which case everyone could beat me at it. Here we are, nearly 10 years later, and I pwn all in RF and (depending on LAN party availability, as I don't own the titles) UT. Platform gaming started with SMB, where I'd die on the first level. Now, 15 years later, I can beat the entire game twice on one life (quite a feat I've heard. Someday I'll buy a camera and record my doing it). In chess, I could be defeated by the 4-move checkmate, and even the (apparantly I invented it, as no one had heard it before), the 3-half-move checkmate (advance king pawn two spaces on both sides. White brings queen to full extension (to H row), parallel to king-exposing pawn, black king advances (this is where I invented it ), white queen captures black pawn at e5: checkmate (no "outs" for black king))). As you can see, it is all due to dedication and practice that we excel at things, not biochemically. I'll admit its factor, but I'll debate the quantity of it (I'll admit to a range of < 5%, however). Still, there's no reason to cause a rift in the QB board because of this. I suggest we allow this topic to go its own way after another series of posts (one a person), to finalize what we've to say (I've seen stuff like this destroy a forum, splitting it into several factions that lead to the main board's death while a dozen or so micro-boards were set up by the factions).
|
|
|
Post by Ildûrest on Jan 28, 2006 23:52:13 GMT
Don't forget we're fairly intelligent people. Intelligent people should not allow minor differences in opinion to divide them.
I certainly don't think badly of you for believing that there is little difference in the abilities of men and women; on the contrary I think it's admirable.
But just because it's a good idea doesn't mean it's the truth.
I don't believe in equality; I believe in fairness. Equal opportunity. Equal treatment. But not equal people. I'm not talking about gender here. I'm saying that every person is different, and some groups of people may be different as a whole. (I'm of Polish descent, and I can tell you that a large proportion of Polish people are not nice people. Whether communism and/or centuries of occupation are to blame is another matter.)
On the point of social pressures, I believe in the words of one wise mother: "If my son wants to make shoes, then I'll send him to the best shoemaking school I can." Unfortunately many parents do not take this viewpoint, or try to change what their children want to do. I know of a person who finished law, to show his parents that he could, and then went straight into the shirt business.
Anyway, that's more or less how I see things. I don't really think I'm elitist (I'm giving a lot of free help on two QB forums to "noobs", after all). And I'll try not to take this discussion further. It was intelligent and thought-provoking, while it lasted.
|
|
|
Post by earlofqb on Jan 31, 2006 21:55:05 GMT
I wouldn't consider myself "intelligent", however whatever you say Further, considering the fact that I base a lot of my ideas off this unlicensed psychiatrist/programmer/theologian in Quebec, I'm proving to be incredibly unintelligent as I basically "stole" his ideas. Some say that I look up to Dr. ERE, but I've more of a feeling that it seems more like I practically worship the guy; which would be false. The guy has some great ideas, and more than likely I'd have stumbled upon them anyway, considering the years I've spent in Catholic school and in the Church. Putting a name to the notation is just something that happened along the way. Also, you've given me too much power. I can modify an Administrator's posts, which is a bit beyond the power of a Moderator. Fortunately I'm not mentally deferred enough to even try modifying your posts (what difference would it make? You know what you posted anyway, and no matter how much I'd not take kind to your statements; they are your own and I've no purpose to modify them). You might want to change that little feature of Moderation. Being of Polish descent, I could begin a debate on this, however the truth can't be debated. Fortunately, I'm "diluted" enough (I'm roughly 37% Polish, without counting the various times the bloodline crossed centuries ago (no, I'm not inbred, just saying that the German and Polish bloodlines most likely crossed, as my family lived along the boarder for years. However, I wouldn't be surprised if I was inbred. I'm related to close to half the folks who go to school with me (which does explain why I've no human friend (I do realize that I stated that above, however just the other day I found out she's my 5th cousin. Far away enough to be legal, but still creepy. But, I do get a good friend out of it, and someone's parents I can hit up for money )), as my family has this tendancy to stay in one spot and populate it endlessly until we find out that there's the slight possibility that the person whom we call our wife happens to also be a cousin of some sort; then we leave for another country )) that I don't blindly rage out like my family does ( very scary holidays, especially after the holiday spirit (usually red wine, beer, burbon or whiskey) is passed around). My ideas of equality are based off the idea that under it all, we are equal. I'm not saying that we're 100% equal, just that if we overcome things, we are. Yes, this may confuse you, however I can't actually think of a good way to say it (mostly because it seems like every other day someone's calling me a racist because I tell this random person that maybe their problems wouldn't be so bad if they spent their time indulging in the devil's brew and refusing the consequences therein. Just because the poerson is able to find one difference between myself and them, they call me a racist <censored>). Essentially, I'm of the mind that we can overcome those minor differences and become equal. So long as humanity doesn't give up on trying to overcome itself, humanity will prosper. I actually think your idea is very similar to mine, and that we might actually be talking about the same things, just using a different syntax. Possibly the best example of this is in the first sentence of the last paragraph of my last post: This states it fairly clearly: we might have biochemical differences deeply engrained in our physical selves, however we also have the ability to transcend this and overcome it (within reason. I wouldn't expect someone 4 feet tall and weighing 45 kg to lift something 1800 kg). So, whatever one says of it, that people can overcome or not; there is no reason to debate this. Your views are your own, mine are mine. Unfortunately for myself, it actually took a week in jail before I wisened up to this (which makes me wonder: if we sent all the extremist political activists to jail for a week, would they realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinion? Probably not because "extremist" is affiliated with a loss of sense of reality). In the words of Polonius: "This business is well concluded". There is no reason debating this when there's far more important stuff to speak of (so long as you're no wife-beater or mental/emotional abuser, its of no concern to me anyway). You're no elitist, that's for sure. That was pretty much a joke fueled by a small emotional response created by the combination of the day's events and reading your post (your post had something like a 2% role in the emotional content of it. I apologize for redirecting my anger towards you). Besides, if you were an elitist, you'd hear nothing of it (Dr. ERE's Code tells that one should walk away from elitism and negative influences; rather than combat them). Finally, you spent the time to justify your position, something elitists almost never do (unless they're trying to gain popular support because they lack the resources). I just realized I broke my own rule (that I wouldn't reply), however it is better that I leave this in a better state than it was previously in. You've a great amount of information and a well thought-out position. Very few people have this (even just one of them), and the fact that you're willing to set things aside shows great restraint. Indeed, you are (to "steal" a Dr. ERE quote:) "an agreeable person to be about, <about as in "around"> and one looks forward to future discussion".
|
|
|
Post by Mikrondel on Feb 1, 2006 8:51:19 GMT
Well, I'm not really going against my pledge, 'And I'll try not to take this discussion further.'
I'd just like to say that I take you 1.5 times as seriously as you intend, and you take me 1.5 times as seriously as I intend. Intelligent or not so much, you can certainly hold up a perfectly intelligent discussion (your multi-layer parentheses are almost beyond my ability to understand, hehe. (What I mean is that you seem to excel in this kind of thing more than I do))
So don't take my criticisms to your head, and I won't yours, and we'll have even more fun ^_^
|
|
|
Post by earlofqb on Feb 2, 2006 1:21:21 GMT
I agree. However, if we both take each other 1.5 times a seriously as intended, does that mean that those reading this will take both our statements 3 times more seriously than intended? If that's the case, I wonder there hasn't been a massive war by now (lol).
Mastery of multi-layer parenthasis is fun, however its a learned skill. If anything, I need to learn how to stop rambling (because each little soliloquy needs to be in its own section (if it isn't, that means that you risk confusing the thoughts (if you confuse the thoughts, you will fail to begin to grasp at the meaning (not saying that you couldn't, as I've known people who can pretty much figure out the worst sentence you can see (case in point (from an online message board dedicated to gaming (I think it was slashdot)): "lolz, that n00b needed pwnd worse than i did i didn't think n00bs like that existed until i saw that that video make me rofl to death!" (which pretty much translates to: Haha, that idiot needed to be shown up. Until I saw that video, I didn't think idiots like that could exist. I laughed so hard at that video, I thought that I'd die)))))).
Here's the same sentence, with a little different grouping (ie, {}, [], (), <>, \, and / are used to denote hierarchy of sentence):
Mastery of multi-layer parenthasis is fun, however its a learned skill. If anything, I need to learn how to stop rambling {because each little soliloquy needs to be in its own section [if it isn't, that means that you risk confusing the thoughts (if you confuse the thoughts, you will fail to begin to grasp at the meaning <not saying that you couldn't, as I've known people who can pretty much figure out the worst sentence you can see (case in point \from an online message board dedicated to gaming /I think it was slashdot/ \ : "lolz, that n00b needed pwnd worse than i did i didn't think n00bs like that existed until i saw that that video make me rofl to death!" (which pretty much translates to: Haha, that idiot needed to be shown up. Until I saw that video, I didn't think idiots like that could exist. I laughed so hard at that video, I thought that I'd die))>)]}.
Still confusing, however slightly better to read as you can now separate it a little better.
Anyway, I'm pretty good at it because I spent a good hour a day going around forums (typing those massive posts, you'd think it'd take me longer, but somehow it doesn't), and using parenthesis is almost second nature by now. Of course, one must always remember that after you fall through about 3 levels of parenthesis, it is difficult to read. Thus, usually after there I'll throw in the braces ( {} ) and brackets ( [] ), if I remember.
Back on topic (because that was a bit obscene, that deluge of idiotic self-gratification over skills learned because I don't have the skills to find someone in my neighborhood who isn't somehow related to me (I'll some day reach the point where I decide to be a pure redneck and I'll probably end up dating my sister or something)):
Having fun is the ultimate aim of my discussions, after teaching others (although I won't compromise teaching just for fun, and I won't compromise fun for teaching (ie I won't make endless jokes when someone needs help; and I won't spend 50 pages on an advanced topic that no one really needs); which is something a lot of people online seem to be unable to do anymore). I really don't take your criticisms (which they hardly ever are) seriously because most often it is because of a lack of communication on my part that you'd feel that I offended you. Even if not for that, there's always the fact that despite the time I spend online, I can still separate the Internet world from the real; meaning that once I've logged off, why should I worry about what someone said? Sure, I'll sometimes start thinking of a reply, or fine-tune an existing plan, but most often I just drop the topic until I log back in (because there's no sense in worrying about it and I have stuff at home to tend to anyway).
Someday, I'll listen to my pledge (arg!).
|
|