Science/Technology Humor Page 2
Follow all of these instructions carefully for error-free floppies!!
1. Never leave diskettes in the disk drive, as data can leak out of the disk and corrode the inner mechanics of the drive. Diskettes should be rolled up and stored in pencil holders.
2. Diskettes should be cleaned and waxed once a week. Microscopic metal particles can be removed by waving a powerful magnet over the surface of the disk. Any stubborn metallic shavings can be removed with scouring powder and soap. When waxing the diskettes, make sure the surface is even. This will allow the diskette to spin faster, resulting in better access time.
3. Do not fold diskettes unless they do not fit into the drive. "Big" diskettes may be folded and used in "little" disk drives.
4. Never insert a diskette into the drive upside down. The data can fall off the surface of the disk and jam the intricate mechanics of the drive.
5. Diskettes cannot be backed up by running them through the xerox machine. If your data is going to need to be backed up, simply insert two diskettes into the drive. Whenever you update a document, the data will be written on both diskettes.
6. Diskettes should not be inserted or removed from the drive while the red light is flashing. Doing so could result in smeared or possibly unreadable text. Occasionally the red light remains flashing in what is known as a "hung" or "hooked" state. If your system is "hooking" you will probably need to insert a few coins before being allowed access to the slot.
7. If your diskette is full and you need more storage space, remove the disk from the drive and shake vigorously for 2 minutes. This will pack the data enough (Data Compression) to allow for more storage. Be sure to cover all the openings with scotch tape to prevent loss data.
8. Access time can be greatly improved by cutting more holes in the diskette jacket. This will provide more simultaneous access points to the disk.
9. Diskettes may be used as coasters for beverage glasses, provided that they are properly waxed beforehand. Be sure to wipe the diskettes dry before using. (see item 2 above)
10. Never use scissors and glue to manually edit documents. The data is stored much too small for the naked eye, and you may end up with data from some other document stuck in the middle of your document. Razor blades and scotch tape may be used, however, provided the user is equipped with an electron microscope.
11. Periodically spray diskettes with insecticide to prevent system bugs from spreading.
The Top Ten Reasons Eternal Damnation is Better than Windows Software Development
Reason #10:
Eternal Damnation--It never ends.
Windows software development--You think you're almost done, but you never really finish.
Reason #9:
Eternal Damnation--You burn forever, but are not consumed.
Windows software development--Each update introduces new and improved tortures, which slowly consume you.
Reason #8:
Eternal Damnation--Your fate is in the hands of Satan, Prince of Darkness.
Windows software development--Your fate is in the hands of Gates, Prince of Incompatibility.
Reason #7:
Eternal Damnation---Satan gives you something you want in return for being damned.
Windows software development--Gates makes you buy Windows 95.
Reason #6:
Eternal Damnation--It is avoidable; an attractive, widely-marketed alternative is available.
Windows software development--Resistance is futile. All the alternatives are damned or doomed.
Reason #5:
Eternal Damnation--It is free.
Windows software development--You pay, and pay, and pay just to stay in the game.
Reason #4:
Eternal Damnation--Satan was once an angel.
Windows software development--Gates started by writing a BASIC interpreter.
Reason #3:
Eternal Damnation--Hell has no Windows.
Windows software development--Microsoft does.
Reason #2:
Eternal Damnation--You only pass the Gates of Hell one time.
Windows software development--The Gates of Microsoft keeps popping up everywhere you look.
and finally, Reason #1:
Eternal Damnation-Satan sincerely believes in the triumph of Evil.
Windows software development-Gates just does it for the money.
So: Where do you want to go today?
(by John Walker, somwhere on the Internet)
At a recent Sacramento PC User's Group meeting, a company was demonstrating its latest speech-recognition software. A representative from the company was just about ready to start the demonstration and asked everyone in the room to quiet down.
Just then someone in the back of the room yelled,
"Format C: Return."
Someone else chimed in:
"Yes, Return"
Unfortunately, the software worked.
The following is an actual dialog of a former Wordperfect Customer Support employee:
"Ridge Hall computer assistant; may I help you?"
"Yes, well, I'm having trouble with WordPerfect."
"What sort of trouble?"
"Well, I was just typing along, and all of a sudden the words went away."
"Went away?"
"They disappeared."
"Hmm. So what does your screen look like now?"
"Nothing."
"Nothing?"
"It's blank; it won't accept anything when I type."
"Are you still in WordPerfect, or did you get out?"
"How do I tell?"
"Can you see the C:\ prompt on the screen?"
"What's a sea-prompt?"
"Never mind. Can you move the cursor around on the screen?"
"There isn't any cursor: I told you, it won't accept anything I type."
"Does your monitor have a power indicator?"
"What's a monitor?"
"It's the thing with the screen on it that looks like a TV. Does it have a little light that tells you when it's on?"
"I don't know."
"Well, then look on the back of the monitor and find where the power cord goes into it. Can you see that?"
....."Um, Yes, I think so."
"Great! Follow the cord to the plug, and tell me if it's plugged into the wall."
....."Um, Yes it is."
"When you were behind the monitor, did you notice that there were two cables plugged into the back of it, not just one?"
"No."
"Well, there are. I need you to look back there again and find the other cable."
....."Okay, here it is."
"Follow it for me, and tell me if it's plugged securely into the back of your computer."
"I can't reach."
"Uh huh. Well, can you see if it is?"
"No."
"Even if you maybe put your knee on something and lean way over?"
"Oh, it's not because I don't have the right angle - it's because it's dark."
"Dark?"
"Yes-the office light is off, and the only light I have is coming in from the window."
"Well, turn on the office light then."
"I can't."
"No? Why not?"
"Because there's a power outage."
"A power... A power outage? Aha! Okay, we've got it licked now. Do you still have the boxes and manuals and packing stuff your computer came in?"
"Well, yes, I keep them in the closet."
"Good! Go get them, and unplug your system and pack it up just like it was when you got it. Then take it back to the store you bought it from."
"Really? Is it that bad?"
"Yes, I'm afraid it is."
"Well, all right then, I suppose. What do I tell them?"
"Tell them you're too stupid to own a computer."
I have discovered a new particle,
Background: There seems to be an awful lot of goofy things out there.
Theory: There is a fundamental force in the Universe associated with this stupidity.
And voila:
the newest particle, the ridiculon. The ridiculon is the carrier particle of the force of Ridiculosity. Ridiculous things emit them at a rate linearly related to how ridiculous or stupid they are, and they interact with matter in the course of the universal ridiculosity thermalization whereby stupidity seeks to spread through the universe until it reaches an even distribution. Ridiculons themselves are the means by which ridiculosity spreads through the Universe. Things which are more ridiculous emit more of them, and things which have experienced nonscattering collisions with ridiculons become more ridiculous every time such a collision occurs. While the ridiculon itself is massless at rest, while in transit it has a nominal mass, which is why things get more and more dense as they get stupider. A material which has interacted with too many ridiculons will become very dense, and loses its quality as hadron or lepton, and instead becomes a new family of particle in itself, which I discovered in the course of my research and named a Moron. Morons decay, because this overconcentration of stupidity cannot be stable for long, and they begin spontaneously emitting large quantities of ridiculons and many people around can detect the increased ridiculon emission and observe that the Moron is very ridiculous or stupid.
Ridiculons travel faster than the speed of light- this explains two things. One, this can explain how a stupid idea can propagate throughout an entire country in less than it takes to see the blank impression it leaves on people's faces, and two, it fits nicely with the theory in general: Ridiculons, by definition the pure essence of Ridiculosity and Stupidity, are ridiculous things, and it is fitting that they travel faster than light. Ridiculous logic? Right on, because any theory that concerns itself centrally with ridiculons embroils itself in far too many ridiculons to remain sane for long!
I have observed other properties of these unique particles through experiments in my Ridiculous Particle Accelerator, at the National Laboratory for Improbable Science Grants in Pittsburgh, PA, as well. For instance, it seems that ridiculons are not conserved. While the conservation of matter and energy are not violated by ridiculons, it seems that a ridiculous thing can emit ridiculons aplenty without becoming any less ridiculous itself.
Also, ridiculons have a terrific concentration in humans, so much that almost anything they touch or make is ridiculous to an extreme! This has been verified by the vast quantity of human artifacts which exhibit the re-emission of previously absorbed ridiculons from humans, items such as Diet Cola, Cordless toothbrushes, Perpetual motion machines, soap operas, and polyester clothes.
By accelerating particles to ridiculous speeds in my Ridiculous Particle Accelerator, I was able to get them to emit ridiculons as well. This was measured by placing our log books next to the target chamber and running several tests: After a while, our logged results looked downright ridiculous- proof that ridiculons had done their work!
This is an exciting time in physics, and this new particle will explain much about why so many things are so ridiculous!
It is also postulated by myself that the ridiculon can help solve many of the world's great physics problems. For example, Cold Fusion has failed until now. Why? Because ridiculons have been interfering with the carriers of the nuclear forces. Ridiculons will turn a perfectly functional device into putty or lime jello without a second thought. They also keep cold fusion devices from working.
Here's my Lab's audit of the situation:
i. Cold Fusion device created.
ii. It begins emitting ridiculons.
iii. When device is activated, muons that would normally be carrying the nuclear forces experience interactions with ridiculons.
iv. Because the ridiculon has mass while in motion, this collision changes the course of the muon.
v. Not very long after this, the ridiculon-muon pair will become a moron.
vi. No longer carrying the forces requisite for attraction of nuclei for fusion, no fusion occurs.
The problem is inherent in cold fusion devices, because no matter what is done, there will be sufficient ridiculon emission to prevent fusion from occurring - the true heart of the problem is that cold fusion is ridiculous.
Also, there is the issue of spin. Ridiculons are unique in that they are never quite the same. They possess an imaginary spin, that is to say a spin which is an imaginary number (I imagined it!), and this is because such a spin is truly ridiculous and this helps illustrate the property of stupid things such that if you start with an ordinary item, make it ridiculous, and then apply the operation again to it, no matter _how_ many times you apply the operation, even fractional applications, you will neither succeed in making sense out of the thing again or seeing the exact same ridiculosity you started out seeing. It will just remain ridiculous.
Also, ridiculons do not obey general relativity. This is illustrated well by the following example:
picture a railcar moving down a straight track.
A ridiculon emitter is placed on the car.
To an observer moving with the car, the ridiculon emitter emits ridiculons at a rate directly proportional to how ridiculous it is.
For every unit distance the train travels, a ridiculon is emitted.
To an observer stationary, only a few of these ridiculons should strike the general vicinity and the item will to said observer appear marginally ridiculous or not ridiculous at all, if the train is moving fast enough.
However, in observations, it is apparent that the ridiculosity of the item is immediately apparent regardless of the speed of the train and that it is measured to be fully as ridiculous as it is at rest- and multiple detectors will measure the same full ridiculosity despite the apparent violation of the distribution of ridiculon emissions over time.
Ridiculons do not share relative motion with their emitters. Things are just as stupid when moving quickly as they are when stationary, and moving them quickly will not stretch their stupidity out and make them appear less stupid at any given point.
More to follow later on this exciting discovery as soon as I get my research grant approved by the NSF!
Top 10 things likely to be overheard if you had a Klingon on your software development team:
10) "This code is a gagh! You have no honor!"
9) "A TRUE Klingon warrior does not comment his code!"
8) "By filing this bug you have questioned my family honor. Prepare to die!"
7) "You question the worthiness of my Code?! I should kill you where you stand!"
6) "Our competitors are without honor!"
5) "Specs are for the weak and timid!"
4) "This machine is a piece of GAGH! I need a UNIX box if I am to do battle!"
3) "Perhaps it IS a good day to Die! Let's ship it!"
2) "My program has just dumped Stovo Core!"
1) "Behold, the keyboard of Kalis! The greatest Klingon code warrior who ever lived!"
A truck driver hauling a tractor-trailer load of computers stops for a beer. As he approaches the bar he sees a big sign on the door saying:
"NERDS NOT ALLOWED -- ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK|" He goes in and sits down.
The bartender comes over to him, sniffs, says he smells kind of nerdy, asks him what he does for a living. The truck driver says he drives a truck, and the smell is just from the computers he is hauling. The bartender says OK, truck drivers are not nerds, and serves him a beer.
As he is sipping his beer, a skinny guy walks in with tape around his glasses, a pocket protector with twelve kinds of pens and pencils stashed in his pocket protector, and a belt at least a foot too long. The bartender, without saying a word, pulls out a shotgun and blows the guy away. The truck driver asks him why he did that.
The bartender said not to worry, the nerds are overpopulating the Silicon Valley, and are in season now. You don't even need a license, he said.
So the truck driver finishes his beer, gets back in his truck, and heads back onto the freeway. Suddenly he veers to avoid an accident, and the load shifts. The back door breaks open and computers spill out all over the freeway. He jumps out and sees a crowd already forming, grabbing up the computers. They are all engineers, accountants and programmers wearing the nerdiest clothes he has ever seen. He can't let them steal his whole load. So remembering what happened in the bar, he pulls out his gun and starts blasting away, felling several of them instantly.
A highway patrol officer comes zooming up and jumps out of the car screaming at him to stop. The truck driver said, "What's wrong? I thought nerds were in season."
"Well, sure," said the patrolman, "But you can't bait 'em."
Alternatives to OSI ===================
by Jock C. St. Martin
University of the Outer Hebrides Scotland
Following recent discussions concerning the relative merits of OSI and ARPA protocols, I decided to throw my hat into the ring. Furthermore, I believe that the ARPA protocols are not the only contenders with OSI, and that a number of even more "mature" mechanisms exist. I present seven possibilities for consideration.
1. Bean tins and bits of string -------------------------------
The use of bean tins and taut pieces of string has long been recognised as an effective means of communication. In fact, excavations from Anglo-Saxon dwellings in Nottingham show their use (albeit with imported coconuts as opposed to bean tins) in early everyday office situations.
Bean tins and string have several advantages over OSI:
a. They are fast, light weight and portable.
b. They don't require the purchase of expensive computers.
c. Complex error correction (based on the "NO - I said ..." principal)
d. Uses off the supermarket shelf technology.
e. They were not invented by the ISO.
They also exhibit a very few trifling limitations:
a. Poor support for "packet" switching (however, tin switching may be supported).
b. Users often cut themselves on the tins.
c. Star network topologies become more complex.
d. They don't scale very well.
2. Shouting from the roof tops ------------------------------
Shouting from the rooftops can be an effective method of optimised local area communication. It is based on the well understood CMSA/CD technology but with the notion of priority. Users can insert high priority traffic with the "If I might get a word in edgeways" packet. It is already in widespread use - e.g., the House of Commons, political canvassing and Speakers Corner. Naturally, a roof top is only necessary for high bandwidth traffic. The PTT's would probably assume this role. The average user would be content to shout in the street.
Shouting has many advantages over OSI:
a. It is not as "complex and obscure".
b. Most people understand shouting.
c. Broadcasts are easy.
d. Its fun.
e. It wasn't invented by the ISO
OSI has hardly any advantages over shouting:
3. Burning beacons on hill-tops: ---------------------------------
Burning beacons on hill-tops have long been used to warn of advancing Armadas and their like. However, the author believes that beacons may have wider applications than just these.
In particular, they have the following advantages over OSI:
a. No "dangerous checkpointing".
b. They keep you warm.
c. Not overly complex and obscure.
d. A secondary use for the disposal of those nasty ISO people.
e. Not cluttered with unnecessary functionality.
f. Not invented by the ISO.
Disadvantages to OSI:
a. Not suitable for the office environment (this may really be an advantage in some circumstances).
b. Low bandwidth (may also be an advantage - see 7)
c. Error rates can be high. Arsonists, pyromaniacs and "Satanic Verses" burners can generate spoof packets.
4. Semaphore ------------
Semaphore has been in use for many years. So why did ISO not consider this for international internetworking? This is difficult to determine, but is probably due to political motivations rather than any deficiencies in the protocols. Naturally there are a few rough edges to be addressed.
Advantages over OSI
a. Broadcasts are easily accommodated.
b. Widely supported off-the-shelf infra-structure (boy scouts).
c. Not invented by ISO
Disadvantages over OSI
a. Not so useful at night (but a working party on luminous flags is in progress).
b. Bandwidth is rather low - but automation should help.
5. Messages in bottles ----------------------
This is a low cost solution to networking. Bottles are easy to obtain and with a little development, this neglected backwater of communications technology could be a real alternative.
Advantages over OSI
a. High bandwidth data channels already in existence (e.g. the gulf stream, rivers and sewers.)
b. Large amounts of data can be placed in the appropriate sized bottles.
c. Not invented by ISO.
Disadvantages to OSI
a. Transit time is unpredictable (but then IP, for instance, does not guarantee any bounded delivery time)
6. The Telephone ----------------
This might be seen as an enhancement of method 2. However, there is a lot to be gained from this approach. The name lookup problem is already solved as are routing issues. Lets face it, communications protocols are ultimately used for communicating between people. So why not just standardise the telephone. Add on services such as broadcast agents (commonly called gossips/operators) are easy to achieve.
Advantages over OSI
a. Its a mature existing technology.
b. Directory services issues, routing and charging are already established.
c. It's now available in portable form.
d. Not invented by ISO
Disadvantages to OSI
a. Because it's a mature technology, there aren't so many interesting research areas.
b. As a result of 2. there are few exotic conference openings.
c. It costs money.
7. Not communicating at all ---------------------------
One question I asked myself was "why communicate at all?" On consideration it was realised that not communicating has the following advantages over OSI.
a. Low consumption of bandwidth.
b. Cheap and easy to manage.
c. No one disagrees with you.
d. Without the time wasted on communication, other business proceeds much quicker.
e. Not invented by the ISO
No known disadvantages to OSI.
The ARPA protocols. ----------------------
The ARPA protocols deserve consideration along with many of the above mentioned methods of communication. In particular, they have one major advantage over OSI.
a. Not invented by the ISO
However, despite this overwhelming advantage of the Internet protocol suite, the ISO proponents simply will not give in. In this section I therefore give a few other reasons for the superiority of the Internet suite - as if 1. was not enough.
Scalability. The Internet protocols are obviously scalable as has been proved time and time again. All that is required is for the PTT's to take the sensible step of providing a network infra-structure and the rest can be solved. Charging is easily accommodated - the PTT's pick up the bills.
Network interface. Many people have commented on how convenient it is to have a network address which fits into a common word size. This is such a advantage that the limitations are really insignificant. If the address space ever gets used up there is an obvious extension mechanism - the waiting list.
Session layer. The Internet suite sensibly disregarded session services as superfluous. As has been observed, checkpointing is inherently dangerous as it can lead to loss of network usage and revenue. OSI has been influenced by the Internet community here, and has provided a session service complex enough that most implementations try and ignore it.
Presentation layer. Again the Internet triumphs. It is quite clear that for the most part applications only need to exchange data consisting of bytes of 8, 16 and 32 bit quantities. These simple structures can be used as building blocks to construct almost any structure required. If this is not sufficient, there is a simple escape mechanism provided, known in the jargon as a "string encoding". It is quite clear that ASN.1 is just over the top - CHOICE's and OPTIONAL's are for quiche-eating indecisive applications.
Application layer. Well the Internet has got this one too. Honestly, it's quite obvious that each application should do its own thing. That's what they're there for. If an application needs remote procedure call interface, or security, or name lookup, then it can do it itself rather than forcing it to use some more general service like ROS or directory services.
SUMMARY -------
In summary, I feel that all of the above methods are orders of magnitude better than OSI (which incidently, and by coincidence, wasn't invented here). In particular, I feel that method 7 offers the greatest potential and, with this in mind, WE DO NOT WELCOME ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU MIGHT HAVE!
The three most dangerous things are a programmer with a soldering iron, a manager who codes, and a user who gets ideas.
"Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and millions of others are by far the most popular with about 70 million machines in use worldwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that cockroaches are far more numerous than humans and that numbers alone do not denote a higher life form."
-New York Times, November 26, 1991
[My Hompepage] [About Me] [Photos] [Humor] [What's New]
email me
Last modified: Apr.. 25, 2001