BBC Blog Network

User Profile

fillandfrowpist

Listed below are comments made by fillandfrowpist between Tuesday, 6th October 2009 and Thursday, 8th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Caught up in a conspiracy theory 07:02am on 08 Oct 2009 Well guys, having been up all night successfully running a final diagnostic on some software I have completed, I am off to foreign parts for a while (a week, maybe three, who knows) to supply and commission for my customer. I will be back - if it goes well early next week maybe. Who knows?

Have fun and keep you know who in order.....
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 06:56am on 08 Oct 2009 @5293

tfk wrote: "Chihuahuas, Pomeranians, Twoofers... ankle biters of all stripes are really nothing worry about."

Yes, tfk, you make a dog's dinner out of everything......
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 05:09am on 08 Oct 2009 @5322

tfk wrote: "PS. Oh yeah. Regarding my comment at 4640. That must be why you identified it as "4633".

Any good at numbers, fil?"

All contributors have a cache available to them of all their entries courtesy of the BBC. It appears that the software they use is not very good at keeping up location numbers. As for me I am pretty good with numbers but avoid intense mathematical problems where I can. My ex-brother in law can compute faster than a computer but then he is rubbish at various things I can do. It is all according to how we come out of the "melting pot" tfk, not a sign of inherent genius. Sorry to dent your ego, old man.

tfk wrote "Got that numerical integration technique figured out yet, fil?"

And what might they mean in plain English, old man?

tfk wrote: "Figured out the difference between a Cray Y-MP and a Mac Plus yet, fil?"

Have you figured out how the world's most powerful computer couldn't keep up with half a mouse brain working at a tenth of its usual speed for one second? Are you aware that a PC running a complex game can run processes faster than these super-computers? Super computers are required where there is a lot of data to process, which because of the physical limitations of a PC (hard disk size and speed are the severest limitations) just do not mix. Complexity of mathematics is not however a barrier to processing on a PC. If it were then games would not be what they are (given that high resolution graphics require enormous computational power and speed). And most games deal with rotation representation in providing a 3D image albeit in 2D. Rotational components have been around since the advent of home computers, tfk, and programmers do not (ever) reinvent the wheel. Space rotation (in many different guises or DCMs) components are available for purchase in source code. Given that my software was for DOS (maximum resolution 640x480) the coding was quite simple to follow and utilise and came for free in return for a favour.

You see you really know nothing about programming - nothing at all. OK maybe you did a little basic.... which matches your social skills on here.
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 03:46am on 08 Oct 2009 @5324

tfk wrote: "Well, since we were discussing none of the above, it's a pure waste of bandwidth."

It is exactly what you were talking about.

tfk wrote: "If you weren't such a poseur, fil, you'd be able to stay on topic. And provide direct answers to direct questions."

Previous comment refers.

tfk wrote: "THAT sort of "misdirection, obfuscation and dishonest", fil?"

Yes, tfk THAT TYPE, the type you spend your time on here writing, and your mate from JREF.

tfk wrote: "PS. So, fil. What were the operations that you used in your "planet simulator" to provide viewpoint translations & rotations?

What were those planetary state equations again?

Why won't you talk about this, fil?

Could it possibly be ....?

Nah. Not fil..."

I have already told you this. But of course in your mistrustful world where you specialise in misdirection, sleight of hand, lies, deceits and obfuscation I wouldn't expect you to notice, old man.

@5325

I have read "City in the Sky" (which was why I talked about "design faults" a long time ago now. But of course engineers don't make design faults do they - they just guess). And you are a mighty poor guesser tfk as well as having no grasp of computer programs. Why would the coding of complex mathematical formulae crash a computer? Any ideas?
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 01:51am on 08 Oct 2009 tfk

Further to my entry at 5321 which is the point that you mention building codes (you obfuscate by saying they were not REQUIRED to do the wind tunnel testing) what puzzles me is as follows.

The designers set about designing WTC buildings (the tallest buildings in the world at that time) with inadequate design tools (in your words "MASSIVELY simplified approximations") and go to Colorado with a scale model. They then collect data (from the scale model) and with their "MASSIVELY simplified approximations" do what FFS?

You make it sound like trial and error.... or are you just trying to bolster your ego as a present day engineer with a chip on his shoulder. Before they ever got to Colorado they must have been pretty sure that the building was "design" sound.
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 00:56am on 08 Oct 2009 @5316

tfk

ref: building codes

Read my entry at #4637 and your reply at #4640 (or get a new researcher).
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 00:13am on 08 Oct 2009 @5316

In mathematics, tfk, there are two branches of problem solving called linear programming, and non-linear programming. Neither of these relate to software, although software designed to deal with either or both is available. This software operates like all other on a "one instruction at a time basis". As I said before you clearly haven't a clue as to how programs are structured.

You know this already so this whole thing is just another part of your tiresome charade of misdirection, obfuscation, and dishonesty. It is tiresome because it takes a real person to stop doing it.

As for what is the "right" place to start then the first entry seems appropriate whether you like it or not.
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 9:09pm on 07 Oct 2009 @5253

tfk

Let us look at your track record, shall we?

@3556 (The first line of your first comment)

“You guys are pretty dang silly with all of this.”

@3558

“…and cling to the fantasies of amateurs, laden with blatant, ludicrous errors.”

@3594

“I've given you my definition of an expert. You guys are welcome to use your own definition. You're welcome to think that a nuclear physicist like Jones can speak authoritatively on structural engineering. You're welcome to think that a chemist can speak authoritatively about controlled demolition. You're wrong about this.

And I'm right.”

@3754

“But it is evident that that's not the case. And you guys ain't worth wasting my time.

And your level of entrenched, determined, self-imposed ignorance is, in fact, impermeable to reason & thought.

So I'll leave you to your delusions of significance, your self-congratulatory victory dances (without a single victory to be found in 8 long years), your impotence, and your delusions that you are the only moral, ethical, honorable people on the planet.”

@3771

“One of the absolute BEST things in the world is to find honest, thoughtful, intelligent people that disagree with you about some passion-producing topic.

And, if I thought for a minute that you, or any of the other posters here, fell into that category, I LEAP at your offer.”

@3784

“My View of the Twoof Movement

The Twoof Movement is nothing new. It is the direct descendant of 100 other "youth movements" that have emerged over the centuries. The common denominator are unmistakable:…”

And….
“And this is a fine example of why I'm leaving here. I have no interest to deal with liars.

Sorry "Phil", there is no other possible term for this paragraph. I did not say "delicately balanced". I said "beautifully balanced"”

@3789

“'Nah, that ain't my original vernacular. I was brought up in Boston, snooty Ivy League degree...'”

@3805

“ynda, You are not a truthful person.”

@3818

“And this clown expects anyone to take him seriously?” (at Ian)

@3819

“You know, putzes,…”

@3851

“You are AGAIN lying now…” (at Moria)

and loads more if you want them repeated....!

Are these polite or impolite? Sir John gave you a clue @4018

“tee eff - you do not engage politely”

Of course the word I actually used was "respectful" of which none of the above qualify.

******************

Now, tfk on computers….

Yes, tfk, let us go to the RIGHT place.

I raised computer software at #4386.

Your response is at #4394 as follows “Please provide a link to this. My bs alarm is going off.”

@4415 you responded “As I thought, your portrayal of the mouse brain vs. Blue Gene computer was completely snafu'd. But you did use a bunch of the same words: "computer, mouse brain, 10 seconds". No comprehension, but the same words...”

@4425 I offered “….it is a programme that will keep repeating the same code until it is told to stop. It also has lots of little bugs that the lazy engineer (like you are when under stress maybe) has not bothered to deal with. These bugs play all manner of little tricks on the output. Engineering software saves you time that is all it does - or was there not a world before computers?”

We have a glimpse of your “human” side

@4465 “Unfortunately, I realized that I was starting to write like a bully, and I don't like it.”

The software debate, and your “lecture” on the mathematical use of linear (not the common definition which from my dictionary meaning “relating to lines”, “sequential connection of points”), was, in my opinion an attempt at subterfuge of an argument you were always going to lose – get me back on YOUR territory rather than on mine.

So like I originally said tfk, I got you onto a subject of my choosing and you didn’t like it.
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 10:21pm on 06 Oct 2009 @5239

Carl wrote: "Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25"

Does your colleague, tfk, know about these Carl? The reason I ask is that in response to an earlier comment (#4633) I made, tfk said that there was "no building code".

More JREF smoke and mirrors or lies, lies and more lies....
Caught up in a conspiracy theory 7:15pm on 06 Oct 2009 #5233

Great article, ynda.

Mr Perspicacity himself shows how determined and relentless he is in the pursuit of truth. Well done fella.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

fillandfrowpist