[Wongsky]

And so have I but long before you. I can also code in binary, can you?

Well you no doubt have worked in the industry like longer, but in my career I've spent years writing code in assembler, plus several 3GLs (C, COBOL), as well as Java and countless scripting languages, all the while never actually being just an application programmer. Did I actually have to enter 0s or 1s, or toggle switches to enter code, no. But then so what - it’s just a number system. I've written binary editors, what is it you think is so magically superior about the tedium of actually entering them.

Ooopppss didn't think so! Therefore you have to revert to sly innuendo comments about booze! How sad you are!

Sly inneundo? Don't play the victim you wanna open that door, don't whinge when somebody does the same back, it's unbecoming.

[sad_old_man]

Well you no doubt have worked in the industry like longer, but in my career I've spent years writing code in assembler, plus several 3GLs (C, COBOL), as well as Java and countless scripting languages, all the while never actually being just an application programmer. Did I actually have to enter 0s or 1s, or toggle switches to enter code, no. But then so what - it’s just a number system. I've written binary editors, what is it you think is so magically superior about the tedium of actually entering them.



Sly inneundo? Don't play the victim you wanna open that door, don't whinge when somebody does the same back, it's unbecoming.

And your point is exactly?

[Wongsky]

And your point is exactly?

Quite simple - what's with this ******** suggestion that only those who actually entered code in binary are Rock's chosen techies.

Given you said you can still code in binary, which platform and OS (that presumably you still have actual access to) could you do that on, and what is it your binary code would do?

[sad_old_man]

Quite simple - what's with this ******** suggestion that only those who actually entered code in binary are Rock's chosen techies.

Given you said you can still code in binary, which platform and OS (that presumably you still have actual access to) could you do that on, and what is it your binary code would do?

Well my super programming genius, if you as a 'developer, programmer' doesn't know by now what binary does then your way beyond even my help!

ps memory is a great thing, especially for human beings. I said "I could" program in binary, not that I still did. If you cast your mind back to the numerous posts you've made in reply to mine you should at your age be able to remember that I stated several times that I'm retired now and only do consultancy. Oh and by the way, who the **** is Rock?

[imcurved]

You convinced me. I'm going to have marmalade in steady of BlackBerry tomorrow.

Post via CB Z10

[Wongsky]

Well my super programming genius, if you as a 'developer, programmer' doesn't know by now what binary does then your way beyond even my help!

ps memory is a great thing, especially for human beings. I said "I could" program in binary, not that I still did. If you cast your mind back to the numerous posts you've made in reply to mine you should at your age be able to remember that I stated several times that I'm retired now and only do consultancy. Oh and by the way, who the **** is Rock?

So stop squirming, then, on what platform and OS could you code in binary, and what would it do. YOU said you could.

[ThaSwapMeetPimp]

I give up now completely. The only reason decimal numbers exist is because we stupid humans normally have ten digits on our hands and it makes it easier for us to count. The true form of numerics is Hex but we find that too hard and most people don't understand it anyway.

Very few 'developers' these days can actually write a program without the aid of a 'high level' programming language, Basic, Pascal, Fortran pick whatever language you prefer they are all in existence to make humans lives (developers) easy. Everything and I repeat everything is compiled down to 0s and 1s (on and off to you) because it's the only way electronic components can be manipulated in the way we require as programmers. (sorry about that but I thought I would introduce the common man's term for the posh word developers)

Programming an entire suite of software in binary can be done, has been done and before the younger generation of 'developers' were born was the only way to do it. It is though very time consuming and expensive requiring a large number of intelligent software coders therefore is not done commercially any longer.

The point still remains though that I cannot understand any 'developer', programmer, coder or basic hack stating that 0s and 1s don't actually exist unless it's in the "aether"?

Encyclop�dia Britannica

ether,*also spelled aether, also called luminiferous ether,* in physics, a theoretical, universal substance believed during the 19th century to act as the medium for transmission of electromagnetic waves (e.g., light and X rays) much as sound waves are transmitted by elastic media such as air. The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space. The theory met with increasing difficulties as the nature of light and the structure of matter became better understood; it was seriously weakened (1881) by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was designed specifically to detect the motion of the Earth through the ether and which showed that there was no such effect.

With the formulation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905 and its acceptance by scientists generally, the ether hypothesis was abandoned as being unnecessary in terms of Einstein’s assumption that the speed of light, or any electromagnetic wave, is a universal constant.

He was using terminology I originally used when I started this conversation, when he used the word aether. I don't know if it's a word he would have chosen on his own but it was consistent with the conversation, so using it he knew I would understand him.

I was just being poetic, not literal. Using "aether" instead of "datastream" or "out of thin air" because it sounds better to my ear. I write how I talk. So please don't blast him for using my poetic terminology. I'm sure he just wanted to make sure I understood him.

Also.... "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else--with the help of small floats, for instance--we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics--if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

We have something like this in the electromagnetic field. For we may picture the field to ourselves as consisting of lines of force. If we wish to interpret these lines of force to ourselves as something material in the ordinary sense, we are tempted to interpret the dynamic processes as motions of these lines of force, such that each separate line of force is tracked through the course of time. It is well known, however, that this way of regarding the electromagnetic field leads to contradictions.

Generalising we must say this:--There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski�s idiom this is expressed as follows:--Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of world-threads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.

Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space.

Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space �Ether�; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real." Albert Einstein, Ether and the Theory of Relativity, May 5th 1920.

[ThaSwapMeetPimp]

Wow in the time it took me to research and post that last post alot has happened lol

[sad_old_man]

So stop squirming, then, on what platform and OS could you code in binary, and what would it do. YOU said you could.

I leave the squirming to people like you. This conversation is over apart from to ask, can you program a mainframe in basic, cobal, fortran, qnx. Don't think so. You are a developer not a programmer, you might need to Google that, it's spelled 'programmer'. You deal in high level languages like most people do and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. If you knew anything about your profession or were at least intelligent, you would be able to work out what 'assembler' actually means? Especially considering you say you can developed in it?? ?????? ????????? I'll give you a clue shall I, "it assembles code into a form that the processor can understand and respond accordingly to". For simpletons it means 0s and 1s? Oh **** were back to the start again!

[sad_old_man]

He was using terminology I originally used when I started this conversation, when he used the word aether. I don't know if it's a word he would have chosen on his own but it was consistent with the conversation, so using it he knew I would understand him.

I was just being poetic, not literal. Using "aether" instead of "datastream" or "out of thin air" because it sounds better to my ear. I write how I talk. So please don't blast him for using my poetic terminology. I'm sure he just wanted to make sure I understood him.

Also.... "More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else--with the help of small floats, for instance--we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics--if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

We have something like this in the electromagnetic field. For we may picture the field to ourselves as consisting of lines of force. If we wish to interpret these lines of force to ourselves as something material in the ordinary sense, we are tempted to interpret the dynamic processes as motions of these lines of force, such that each separate line of force is tracked through the course of time. It is well known, however, that this way of regarding the electromagnetic field leads to contradictions.

Generalising we must say this:--There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski�s idiom this is expressed as follows:--Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of world-threads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.

Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space.

Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space �Ether�; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real." Albert Einstein, Ether and the Theory of Relativity, May 5th 1920.

If I thought you understood what you said I'd marry you!

[Wongsky]

I leave the squirming to people like you. This conversation is over apart from to ask, can you program a mainframe in basic, cobal, fortran, qnx. Don't think so. You are a developer not a programmer, you might need to Google that, it's spelled 'programmer'. You deal in high level languages like most people do and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. If you knew anything about your profession or were at least intelligent, you would be able to work out what 'assembler' actually means? Especially considering you say you can developed in it?? ?????? ????????? I'll give you a clue shall I, "it assembles code into a form that the processor can understand and respond accordingly to". For simpletons it means 0s and 1s? Oh **** were back to the start again!

Eh? You should take more water with it. I know what an assembler is, wrote code in assembler at the beginning of my career. Assemblers and compilers produce binary code, so what? That's not the same as "coding in binary" since with assembler it's assembly instructions - yes, pretty low level, but not binary before assembling, even if some of the logic is pretty damn low level

So I've programmed in low level as well as high level languages.

And enough ducking your claim - you stated you could still code in binary, so once again - and maybe you'll actually answer this time - on what platform, under what OS, and what could you actually get it to do. FYI "Hello world!" doesn't count.

[Angus_CB]

I give up now completely. The only reason decimal numbers exist is because we stupid humans normally have ten digits on our hands and it makes it easier for us to count.
...

Ah shaddup. Look at me, I have thumbs!
Lucky bastage.

[blueberrymerry]

Heck, I used to program by flipping switches on a panel. 0, 1, 0, 0... drat there goes a vacuum tube, Mr. Watson do change it please, I have a program to finish!

Anyway developers really need the BB10 SDK to arrive for Playbook. Cascades and Qt will make developers' lives a lot easier. Right now, nobody wants to code in whatever abomination from Adobe and they don't want to muck about with the bare metal either.

[sad_old_man]

You convinced me. I'm going to have marmalade in steady of BlackBerry tomorrow.

Post via CB Z10

Thin or thick cut? On brown or white?

[FF22]

Thin or thick cut? On brown or white?

I prefer thick cut and more bitter - we are talking marmalade!!!!