Recent Posts

1201

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by IainB on March 09, 2017, 08:59 AM »

I had been searching for an explanation of the meaning of the seemingly ambiguous term"alternative facts". Just found this:

1202

Screenshot Captor / Re: How Do I Make the Program accept a key combo I have assigned to...

« Last post by IainB on March 09, 2017, 07:46 AM »

@philipwells: What you want to do - I do this all the time with SC (ScreenshotCaptor).
To do the same, follow these steps:

• In SC, go to menu Edit | Preferences - brings up Screenshot Captor Options panel.
• Go to The Basics | Interface Options.
• Select dot for Stay Minimized (under "After capture Show").
• Click on "Apply" at bottom of panel.
• Go to Basic Capturing | Post Capture Options.
• Tick "Play Capture Sound" (if you want that).
• Where it says "Copy to clipboard", select Image bitmap.
• Click on "Apply" at bottom of panel.
• Click on "Accept" at bottom of panel.
• Then Alt-Tab to the Window you want to take a clip from.
• Thereafter, whenever you want to use SC to Grab selected region (using crosshairs) press hotkey (Ctrl+Shift+C) or (Shift+PrtScr)
• Then the image clip bitmap will be sent to the Clipboard, and, if you enabled it, the Shutter sound will give feedback that capture is complete.
• If a little pane pops up asking what you want to do with the capture, then you forgot to set Stay Minimized above, so in the pop-up, where it says "After next capture", select "Stay minimized in tray".

Consider using @mouser's excellent CHS (Clipboard Help & Spell) - a clipboard manager with some extra-special functionality.

• I use CHS to save a copy of each image or text clip (just plain text) clipped to the Clipbard.
• Whereas the text clips are saved in the CHS database, images are saved by CHS as discrete files in a folder, in .PNG format. This is a really handy feature, as one can search for them using a file explorer also, so one is not constrained by having to use only the CHS user interface. Text notes can be added alongside any CHS image clip, and these are linked in the database to that specific image file.
• I save myself a lot of time by saving several successive image and text clips to CHS, one after another, and then scroll through them using CHS, and select the ones I wish to edit or paste.
• If I want to just view an image clip saved by CHS, I can either view it directly in the CHS image pane viewer (it has a handy mousewheel zoom function), or set an additional default viewer to view images with - e.g., I use irfanview here, as it also has a thumbnails panel with a navigation tree for managing all the images in the CHS folder where the selected clip image resides. This can sometimes be a really handy timesaver.
• If I want to edit an image that is saved by CHS, I can do so by setting a default image editor, and here I use SC (Screenshot Captor)! Edits made to the image clip using SC can be saved over the original image clip file, thus updating it for CHS. Ergonomically this is great, and it can be an incredibly useful timesaver. (Try it and see. YMMV.)

Hope this all helps or is of use.

1203

Post New Requests Here / Re: HTML to RSS

« Last post by IainB on March 09, 2017, 06:21 AM »

Thanks @Tuxman, but that's not going to do it for me. (Too much like hard work.) I already have a workaround that does about 80% of what I need/want anyway.
By the way, I can get my bazqux feed-reader to find a feed for that Kitty website. (Interesting website.)

1204

General Software Discussion / Re: Any tool that immediately shows boot time problems?

« Last post by IainB on March 09, 2017, 05:39 AM »

@highend01:
To answer your Q: There was a tool - I forget it's name - that I recall I wrote about on the DC Forum some time (years) ago, when I was running WinXP. It was free, and it did a very thorough job of telling you what all the started proggies and services did during startup, and suggested how you could move startup sequences about to minimise the startup duration. I thought it was potentially very useful.

I stopped using it as I no longer needed it and it was itself a heavy overhead if you kept it in the startup queue.

Suggestions:
@Shades makes a good point re the possibility that the hard disk could be failing. The symptoms you describe are what one could expect from a failing disk drive. So, as a first step, consider installing Hard Disk Sentinel and see what it says.

Without wishing to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, there could be several things causing the prolonged bootup time.
I have got used to being asked to make examinations of friend's PCs that are S-L-O-W. I usually do the following, in the "better safe than sorry" priority order given:

• Install and run a licenced copy of Malwarebytes. Set it to do a full scan. Remove the licence and uninstall it when done, unless the user is happy to pay for a licence, in which case buy a new licence and assign that to the installed proggy.
• Remove and expunge with prejudice any and all virus checkers except MS Security Essentials. If the latter is not installed, install and run it - do a full scan.
• Install and run Hard Disk Sentinel. Do this first if the hard disk is suspect.
• Install and run CCleaner. Clean up the disk for all relevant apps., then the Registry.
• Run Windows cleanmgr.exe - setting it to clean almost everything except error/performance logs, and delete old Restore Points.
• Install and Run Sysinternals' Autoruns. Scrutinise all startup processes and adjust as necessary. Delete all "File not found" lines.
• Install and run Process Hacker (in preference to Sysinternals' Process Explorer). Scrutinise all processes and services.
• Create a new temp folder C:\TEMP and assign Environment Variables .TMP and .TEMP to that folder.
• Install and run Everything (Search proggie). Scan the disk(s) for residual .TEMP, .TMP and .bak files and Temp folders and Cache folders, and delete any junk that can be safely deleted.
• Check and reset (if necessary to rebuild the search index) Windows Desktop Search settings. Unset any superfluous time-consuming settings.
• Run Windows defrag.

Somewhere amongst that lot you are likely to identify most problems and find out how to rectify the situation.

1205

Living Room / Re: Culture is the Behavior You Reward and Punish

« Last post by IainB on March 08, 2017, 08:55 PM »

@tomos:

@IainB, re step two of the CMM, Wikipedia says:

Repeatable - the process is at least documented sufficiently such that repeating the same steps may be attempted.

Does that mean that at the first level they were so disorganised that they couldnt say what exactly they did even?
And that then enough of a sense of awareness was learned to notice what they were doing so as they could repeat/reproduce it?

-tomos (March 08, 2017, 06:02 PM)

I would point out that, because I used to teach and coach people on this stuff, I thought it might help to have it expanded on in Wikipedia, and I thus was one of the original/early writers/editors for that Wikipedia entry some years ago, but abandoned it and lost interest when other editor's started randomly shoving their opinions and misconceptions in all the time and it started to become incoherent vandalised garbage, so I am unsure how accurate/correct the entry might be now - it would certainly not be authoritative. The authoritative source would still be the actual book in the library.

Another point that I would make is that, whilst the book (on CMM) was written in the context of evaluating software development processes for consistency of output quality, for use in letting DoD contracts for software development, the model was later seen to be a very useful general model for all/any business processes - i.e., not just those for software development.
In fact the original CMM model ceased being used/relevant for software development and was further developed into versions CMM I and CMM II (for example), which were more closely applicable to later more structured software development processes. Those CMM versions became a sort of separate methodology in their own right.

In answer to the 1st Q: No, not necessarily. Those who did the work might have known what process they used the 1st time they did the work (e.g., in software development), but they would not necessarily feel obliged to use the same process the 2nd/next time they did the same/similar kind of work, even if the 1st time's results were good. Also, different developers in the same organisation, tasked with the same/similar work, would tend to perform the work in their own preferred way. That's behind the reason why it's called ad hoc/chaotic - because it would be both of those things.

In answer to the 2nd Q: No, not necessarily. I mean, they might have been very well aware of how they did the work the 1st time, but just inconsistent in what approach they chose to take in performing the same/similar work in a 2nd or future instance. Maybe the resources (programmers) that were used the 1st time were unavailable, so the 2nd time they had to use someone who only knew a different programming language. Again, that's behind the reason why it's called ad hoc/chaotic.

The thing about the consistency of any business process is that, other things being equal, it would tend to produce more consistent results than if you varied the process - and that includes errors (which are a part of the process outputs).
This is where Deming enters the scene for process quality control/improvement, because he built on what he learned from standing on Shewhart's shoulders:

W.A.Shewhart - March 18, 1891 – March 11, 1967
Dr. Shewhart's boss, George D. Edwards, recalled:
"Dr. Shewhart prepared a little memorandum only about a page in length. About a third of that page was given over to a simple diagram which we would all recognize today as a schematic control chart. That diagram, and the short text which preceded and followed it, set forth all of the essential principles and considerations which are involved in what we know today as process quality control."[1]
 - https://en.wikipedia...i/Walter_A._Shewhart

If you take a "quality" (a characteristic) of a process and measure it and monitor it, you can learn a lot about the process by mapping it on a simple statistical/process control chart and looking for the degree of statistical variation in that quality. So, for example, in the case of gearbox production, you might measure the "quality" of endfloat (tolerance) on the output shafts of gearboxes in a production line, and plot the variability of that amongst the population of gearboxes produced. Too high or too low an endfloat above/below the prescribed engineering tolerance range would result in that gearbox being rejected as being of unsuitable quality for installation in a motor vehicle, so the gearbox would be returned to the workshops to have the output endfloat adjusted (this is called rework), after which it would be put into the QC (Quality Control queue) with an updated job ticket to have the endfloat checked again.

The important thing here is the statistical/process control chart, which is "the process telling you about itself" (Deming), and it is the key to systematically and progressively improving/changing the process to progressively reduce the variability about the mean for any given quality being measured.
So, whether it is gearbox output shaft endfloat in a production line, or the length or thickness of sausages in a sausage-making machine, the principle is the same - to aim for increased consistency (less variability) in the quality of the thing being produced.

Now you can't even begin to usefully do that until you do things in a consistent way using a single, clearly defined process - i.e., CMM Level 3 at least - that is also the only process you use to perform that particular task.
Thus, if the business processes that underpin whatever stands as the prevailing corporate culture are below CMM Level 3, then they are - by definition - likely to be out of statistical control and the culture will necessarily be unstable  - ad hoc/chaotic - as a result.
Toxicity is a typical characteristic of working environments where the processes are at CMM Level 1 or 2, because the environment is ad hoc/chaotic. It is stressful for employees, demotivating and frustrating, productivity is likely to be inhibited and staff turnover is likely to be relatively high.
Thus, trying to retrofit (say) the 5thD methodology on top of a working culture underpinned by business processes which are at CMM Level 1 or 2 will categorically fail.
That is the "boringly obvious" point that took so long to penetrate my thinking.   

1206

Living Room / Re: The joy of seeing a first time forum poster

« Last post by IainB on March 08, 2017, 06:17 PM »

@6DecadesOld:

...I'll bet that is actually a "W" slightly tilted on the left side, right? 
___________________

-6DecadesOld (March 08, 2017, 04:25 AM)

From my perspective, I think the answer to your question might depend on how many shots of whisky one has had.

1207

Living Room / Re: Culture is the Behavior You Reward and Punish

« Last post by IainB on March 08, 2017, 04:29 PM »

@tomos: Yes, there seems to be a large gap between the idea(tion) and the eventual reality, when it comes time to implement corporate "cultural change". That would seem to be because we don't understand what's involved - we do not automatically possess knowledge of the theory that might give us the capability to comprehend the reality of what the processes that form the basis of a culture are about, nor how they may affect the manifestation of the culture. Action which is not based on sound theory or recognised "best/good practice" would be irrational by definition (Deming) - it is just random experimentation.

The article you link to is, to me, depressing, as it is a trite once-over-lightly rationalised opinion-piece founded apparently on no perceptible sound theory, "best/good practice" or reasoning whatsoever. That is why I described it as "the seemingly half-baked article you link to - is elementary at best and arguably mostly BS and corporate cliché." Thus, though it may sound or look good, it is effectively useless.

The Fifth Discipline sounds interesting.

-tomos (March 08, 2017, 05:44 AM)

I found it very interesting and it taught me a lot, and is very useful as a paradigm for understanding the weaknesses and strengths of different corporate cultures that one comes across. I first met the 5thD in an acculturation training programme at an IT company called EDS, which had just taken over the company I was employed by in NZ.

At the time, EDS was in the process of re-engineering itself in what was described as a five-wave change programme, in preparation for it to be able to meet the changes that it anticipated in its future markets - the training was part of the re-engineering. I was very impressed.
Looking back though, the programme must have already gone awry. There seemed to be no evidence that they were implementing the change using any sound theory - e.g., the Kotter theoretical 8-step Change Management approach - and I think they may have mistakenly regarded Peter Senge and the 5thD as some kind of magic bullet combo which would magically bring about the necessary reform, but they in fact had no clearly-defined idea as to what the AS-IS state was nor what the desired objective TO-BE state was, and nor did they know/articulate what steps they needed to take to successfully make the transformation from AS-IS ---> TO-BE. So whatever was being done was being done blindly - completely in the dark. Seems idiotic when one puts it that way - and it is/was - but then this seems to be how humans manage their complex affairs when they don't fully understand what the heck is really going on.

To use the Uber case as an example, they wouldn't have got to their current toxic state by careful design - though they may have originally egotistically considered that that was the case. On the contrary, they would not have deliberately designed themselves into a culture that risked turning out to be a toxic straitjacket and a dead end. No sane management would do that. It would have to have been accidental mistake, though no doubt in all probability based on the best of good intentions and on what they thought was the best thing to do at the time.
Whenever one discovers or reveals screw-ups like that in organisations, the phrase "It seemed like a good idea at the time" is generally applicable. From experience, one frequently comes across that. It's actually a reflection of a vital and normal human instinct - we are hard-wired to learn by trial-and-error, and we do that extremely well. It's how we learn to walk or climb trees. It makes us adaptable and is thus one of our strongest survival characteristics. Born totally dependent and ignorant, that instinct has literally helped us reach for the stars. It is the basis of the scientific method. Every one of us is a scientist, straight out of the womb.

In the EDS case, I was blissfully unaware of all these factors at the time and was happy as a sand-boy, as I saw that EDS presented an opportunity for me to learn a lot and potentially expand my horizons in all sorts of interesting directions - and to some extent it did.

Unfortunately, by some apparent oversight, most of the management had not been obliged to undergo the 5thD training programme, because they had been brought to NZ after the takeover, transferred from the Plano (Texas) HQ, where re-engineering had not yet commenced, so that screw-up in the timing meant that they missed the new 5thD training altogether, and thus never did really understand it, so they carried on managing affairs in NZ in the old ways they were accustomed to that had presumably worked for them in Plano. I rapidly came to appreciate that they were depressingly ignorant.

On top of this, the NZ trainees didn't take it all on board terribly well - sort of "in one ear and out the other", as they were never obliged to internalise any new behaviours, and when they realised that the training had apparently been for nought, they promptly forgot about it and fell back on fairly typical adaptive survival practices/behaviours in order to survive and get ahead in the new company, which thus proceeded to evolve into the opposite of a "learning organisation" as espoused by Senge et al - i.e., reverting to a toxic dog-eat-dog, dysfunctional culture. It was interesting to observe, but frustrating to work in and became not a happy place to be. It was a lost opportunity to realise the desirable theoretical state of the 5thD.

I tried to get some of the American managers interested in rectifying the situation, but none of them seemed to have undergone any pukka management training and they did not seem to have the intellectual tools to comprehend what was involved, and anyway were in roles where they had probably achieved their level of incompetence and most were of an age where they had been put out to this foreign base purely temporarily as a home run prior to their retirement and pension. So they didn't want to rock the boat or mess about in something they couldn't properly understand, in case it might risk jeopardizing their retirement/pension.

So, puzzled and disappointed, I just concentrated on doing the best I could in my job, in what became an increasingly toxic culture, meanwhile sucking up all the training/education I could possibly get my hands on from EDS. Having exhausted the supply and learned a lot of incredibly useful stuff, I left for less toxic and greener pastures. EDS management had lost sight of its objectives, and I predicted that EDS was set to become just another corporate failure and it did. It went down the well-trodden path of the history of progressive decline and failure of other great computer companies - e.g., including CDC (Control Data Corporation), DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation).

It was some years later, when I was involved in leading process/cultural re-engineering projects, that I belatedly came across the IDEF methodology and, later, Humphreys book describing the theoretical CMM.



Those things slowly combined and gelled in my mind with the teachings of Deming, eventually causing the lights to suddenly switch on in my head in a minor epiphany, whereupon I belatedly began to perceive/understand the theoretical basis that explained why some of these projects did not - could never - succeed. Simply put, they were doomed to inevitable failure unless the CMM Level had been incrementally (you can't skip a level) ratcheted up to Level 3 at least, and that even getting to Level 3 and staying there was no mean feat in itself, so success was not a given.

This is such a mechanistic certainty that I now find it boringly obvious, but at the same time I am aware that it took me a relatively long time to get to the point where I actually began to understand what was going on, and I'm still not sure whether I am missing something. As Deming pointed out, some of the most profound truths are exceedingly simple, but can be obscure - difficult for us to understand. He recommended that the continual seeking of incrementally more profound knowledge should become a habit, hence The Deming System of Profound Knowledge:



The Deming System of Profound Knowledge:
 - Variation (this is statistical variation)
 - Psychology
 - Systems Thinking
 - Theory of knowledge

Four interconnected domains, such that each has three connections - one to each of the other three domains.

________________________________________

1208

Post New Requests Here / Re: HTML to RSS

« Last post by IainB on March 07, 2017, 10:09 PM »

What an interesting question!
That happens to be almost exactly what I have been puzzling over for a couple of years and getting nowhere so far, though I have a provisional workaround.

In my case I have a store on hard disk containing many .htm and .mhtml files (saves of part/whole webpages) that I want to scan using a two-pane window. The LHS pane would give some kind of hierarchical navigation tree by category, and the RHS pane would display just the headings and/or first line of each page in that category, and be able to expand into the full page on demand. A bit like my bazqux feed-reader.

1209

Living Room / Re: Culture is the Behavior You Reward and Punish

« Last post by IainB on March 07, 2017, 09:44 PM »

@tomos:
This could be a very interesting discussion. However, if one is going to be able to meaningfully discuss a thing such as "workplace culture" or "corporate culture" in any meaningful way, then I would suggest that some definition would be in order.

"…it all depends what you mean by..."
 - Dr C.E.M. Joad on BBC TV "The Brains Trust".
_______________________

So, some definition that may be useful: my emphasis)

culture
· n.
1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. Ø a refined understanding or appreciation of this.
2 the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or group.
3 Biology the cultivation of bacteria, tissue cells, etc. in an artificial medium containing nutrients. Ø a preparation of cells obtained in such a way. Ø the cultivation of plants.
4 [in combination] denoting cultivation or husbandry: aviculture.
· v. Biology maintain (tissue cells, bacteria, etc.) in conditions suitable for growth.
– ORIGIN C17 (denoting a cultivated piece of land): the noun from Fr. culture or directly from L. cultura ‘growing, cultivation’; the verb from obs. Fr. culturer or med. L. culturare, both based on L. colere (see cultivate).
– WORD FORMATION -culture ‘cultivation or husbandry, especially of a specified animal or plant’
(More in the spoiler below)

Spoiler

Ø -culture words in current use (full entries and definitions to be found in this dictionary):
agriculture
farming
L. ager, agri- ‘field’
apiculture
bee-keeping
L. apis ‘bee’
aviculture
rearing of birds
L. avis ‘bird’
floriculture
cultivation of flowers
L. flos, flor- ‘flower’
horticulture
gardening
L. hortus ‘garden’
mariculture
cultivation of sea fish or other marine life
L. mare, mari- ‘sea’
pisciculture
breeding of fish
L. piscis ‘fish’
pomiculture
fruit-growing
L. pomum ‘apple, fruit’
sericulture
cultivation of silk and silkworms
L. sericum ‘silk’
silviculture
cultivation of trees
L. silva ‘wood’
viniculture
less common term for viticulture
L. vinum ‘wine’
viticulture
cultivation of grapevines
L. vitis ‘vine’

 Ø Archaic or less common -culture words:
boviculture
cattle-rearing
L. bos, bov- ‘ox’
caniculture
breeding of dogs
L. canis ‘dog’
demoniculture
demon worship
based on demon1
domiculture
housekeeping
L. domus ‘house’
menticulture
cultivation of the mind
L. mens, ment- ‘mind’
olericulture
cultivation of vegetables
L. oleri-, olus ‘pot-herb’
ostreiculture
breeding of oysters
L. ostreum ‘oyster’
urbiculture
development of cities and towns
L. urbs, urb- ‘city’

Most -culture words were first used in English in the 19th century, though a few, notably agriculture and horticulture, are recorded earlier (17th century).

- Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Ed.)
__________________________

For "work/workplace culture" or "corporate culture" though, I would suggest #2: the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or group.

Unfortunately, from experience, most of the talk about "the corporate culture" or somesuch - including the seemingly half-baked article you link to - is elementary at best and arguably mostly BS and corporate cliché. This would be because many (if not most) business processes - which implicitly and de facto form the bulk of any given workplace culture - are generally ephemeral, due to them mostly being at CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Level 1 (Ad hoc/Chaotic) or Level 2 (Repeatable). The processes in these organisations are thus in a state of constant dynamic change  - churning their processes - and thus their corresponding identifiable cultural standards are likely to be in a state of dynamic change also (by definition).

However, this situation is not necessarily immediately intuitively understood and it is difficult to demonstrate/prove until one shows the evidence of it by logical modelling of the corporate business processes using the IDEF0/IDEF3 methods showing ICOMs (Inputs, Controls, Outputs, Mechanisms) and Data Flows, and applying an Activity-Based Costing approach, at which point it becomes glaringly obvious. Using something else - (say) BPMN (Business process Modelling Notation) methods, for example - could not really show this with such clarity as it is mostly a drafting standard and does not force a sufficiently logical/rigorous relationship model structure on the processes, for more in-depth analysis.

What this suggests is that the only corporate cultures that are arguably worth spending one's cognitve surplus on are those that are specifically more persistent (non-ephemeral) - i.e., those at CMM Level 3 or above. These will fall into a relative minority though.

If one didn't use this as the key criterion to test for a useful candidate as a culture/process to discuss, then one could end up going round in circles futilely discussing a culture based on a group of processes at CMM Level 1 or 2 - e,g., (say) the Uber business processes/culture (which really rather seems to be at CMM Level 1, judging from its recent reported fiascos).

Some of the most constructive developmental thinking and research carried out on the re-engineering of corporate processes and culture was documented in two books that brought together a theory and an implementation approach for organisational development using a culture definition called "The Learning Organisation":

• The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (1994) By Dr. Peter M. Senge.
• The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization (1994) By Dr. Peter M. Senge.

Again, unfortunately in my experience - though I am a great fan of the 5th Discipline - attempts to implement the 5th Discipline generally tended to be undermined or frustrated by management that was corrupt, or driven by specific religio-political ideologies - e.g., MBO (Management By Objectives) - either of which could generally tend to run counter to and destructive of the Learning Organization approach and its inherent principles -  including, for example, openness, honesty, integrity and what was defined as a "safe" (non-toxic in a physical and psychological sense) cultural working environment for all employees.

The most recent and classic example of this sort of toxicity existing - and in this case being endemic in the highest organisational levels in state sector organisations - would be the driving forces behind (giving rise to) Edward Snowden's whistleblowing and the treatment meted out to him subsequently by a repressive regime, despite the POTUS' apparent lip service to the protection of whistleblowers because of "the importance to our society of what they do", etc.
(Yeah, I know, right?)

Thus, the Learning Organization approach would seem to remain a very good (if not beautiful) idea only, with no real practical or demonstrable, or even potential for, implementation successes, So the 5th Discipline could be rather like the Algol programming language - a fading star.

1210

Find And Run Robot / Re: Problem: episodic FARR error - a non-appearing active FARR window.

« Last post by IainB on March 07, 2017, 07:15 AM »

Well, it has not recurred so far.
So an effective workaround seems to be:
In Options | Advanced Visuals:

• Switch off all transparency and
• untick Alpha Fade into view

_______________________
FARR version is v2.226.01
OS is Win10-64 PRO

1211

Living Room / Re: Show us the View Outside Your Window

« Last post by IainB on March 05, 2017, 10:37 PM »

@Arizona Hot: Your pix are stunning. Music to my eyes.
As a child, I was fascinated by sunrises and sunsets. I would draw sheet after sheet of them, rising/setting behind imaginary hills, and the sun's rays catching the clouds. I was always trying to capture the reality, but could never quite get it, of course, and each is unique anyway. Nowadays, having learned my lesson and if I have the time, I just sit and watch the beauty of the scene evolve in front of me. Don't even touch the camera.

1212

Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process

« Last post by IainB on March 05, 2017, 12:34 AM »

@Renegade:
The Thunderbolts Project looked interesting. Thanks. Good questioning approach as well - so, useful for educational purposes and for stimulating the enquiring mind (like my 15 y/o daughter's).

If the scientific error seems to be present as:
(a) deliberate error in cases of outright fraud - apparently in some areas of commercially-driven science and at least that one US government department (QED).
(b) errors in the application of the scientific method - e.g., in cases of gross error in other supposedly scientific institutions, "settled science", etc.

 - then, I find it not so much "terrifying" as simply appalling that, when one goes go through their materials, one can see so many egregious fundamental errors in scientific conclusions.

The quote they give is rather pertinent:

"l know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if
it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which
they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly
taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread,
into the fabric of their lives." — Leo Tolstoy

We seem to invest so much of ourselves into our beliefs/paradigms that we inhibit our ability to think freely/critically, where nothing must be allowed to contradict those beliefs - which have (to us) become seemingly sacred truths. Edward De Bono called this "intellectual deadlock", and saw it as the single biggest obstacle to one being able to improve one's thinking skills (ref. "Teaching Thinking", by Edward De Bono). He theorised that, at bottom, it was the ego protecting itself.

As far as De Bono could see, this self-crippling phenomenon had a tendency to occur in the minds of most people, but from experience was more likely in intelligent people  - regardless of profession (i.e., whether they were business people, politicians, scientists or peer reviewers. etc.).

EDIT: 2017-08-03 - Major correction to wording in the last para re "fallacy".
And this is before one considers the self-evident fallacy that peer review proves the truth of some research, when in fact it proves nothing except that a review has taken place (QED). The material reviewed could still be false/flawed.

1213

Living Room / Re: Movies you've seen lately

« Last post by IainB on March 02, 2017, 05:41 AM »

Just in case anyone might be interested:
A curated list of movies every hacker & cyberpunk must watch.

Worth a look. I've seen quite a few of the SF movies, but less of the other ones listed.

1214

Living Room / Re: Movies you've seen lately

« Last post by IainB on March 02, 2017, 05:35 AM »

Solaris

Storyline:
The Solaris mission has established a base on a planet that appears to host some kind of intelligence, but the details are hazy and very secret. After the mysterious demise of one of the three scientists on the base, the main character (a troubled psychologist) is sent out to replace him. He finds the station run-down and the remaining scientists cold and secretive. When he also encounters his wife who has been dead for ten years, he begins to discover the baffling nature of the alien intelligence.

My review:
I've actually been watching 2 versions of the Solaris movie - the original 1972 Russian production, and the newer Hollywood version of 2002, with George Clooney.
They are both very good movies, in my view, and though the interpretation and somewhat surprising endings are different, the story hangs together rather well in each.   
I had always thought the 1972 version could not be bested, but the 2002 version was just as good and George Clooney does a pretty creditable act as the psychologist.   
The Solaris movies are based on the story of the same name by the superb SF writer Stanislaw Lem.   

Soundtrack Music: https://www.soundtra...album/solaris--3196/
The music in the second one (2002) is by Cliff Martinez and is very good and I find it worth listening to for its own sake, with some of it being quite hauntingly beautiful.   

1215

Living Room / Re: Interesting "stuff"

« Last post by IainB on March 02, 2017, 01:25 AM »

Interesting physics experiment with a dropped spring, apparently misunderstood at first, but then with a correct theoretical explanation kindly provided by Luboš Motl:
Brian Greene's spring trick and his weird explanation based on locality

This is an interesting experiment for school science students.
It's a bit less confuzzling than the rotating gyro that becomes lighter than it was when stationary, after it has been spun up - as per Prof. Eric Laithwaite's demo when he was invited to speak at the Royal Society, and which ensured that he didn't get invited back, as he seemed to be questioning God Newton. Laithwaite was regarded as a heretic after that, and shunned by the RS. (Didn't seem to hold him back from being credited with the invention of the linear motor though.)

1216

Clipboard Help+Spell / Re: CLIPBOARD HELP+SPELL LATEST VERSION INFO THREAD - v2.39.0 - Dec 22, 2016

« Last post by IainB on March 01, 2017, 09:10 PM »

Ah, OK. Thanks for that. I shall try as you suggest. (Is this an "undocumented feature"?)

Made me think: If you just sort of discovered it as well, then does it mean that I am the only CHS user to have experienced/reported this problem? I would have thought that other CHS users would have experienced similar problems - no?
Maybe I might be "pushing the technical boundaries" as a user of CHS.   

It's certainly one of the most useful info-gathering and storing tools that I have. It's actually the first one I usually rely on in my info-gathering processes.

1217

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by IainB on March 01, 2017, 11:10 AM »

@IainB
well, me, I found the post more sad than funny. Unfortunately there's a lot more intelligent pedophiles travelling successfully for the more or less the same reasons. But yeah, I get the irony of it too -- but that's all beside the point.

You didn't address the main point made:
the idea is dc be family-friendly, and free of religion and politics, directly or indirectly. Which doesn't seem very complicated to me, and you choose to ignore it in what seems like a pointed manner at times. Which brought me to the thesis in my previous post. Which you also chose to ignore.
_______________________________

-tomos (March 01, 2017, 08:18 AM)

@tomos: Oh, my apologies, there seems to be some misunderstanding here: I only addressed the use of the word "offensive", because apparently it was not "offensive" or even "offending", as far as @mouser had indicated (QED), and I presumed that that was what you were referring to. I did write: "I'm not sure whether you meant to say it, but...", because I wondered whether you had used the wrong word, by mistake.

And I didn't address "the main point made", as you put it, simply because:
(a) I didn't read it as your making a point (as in "stating an argument" or making a proposition) - let alone a main point - but perceived that you were merely expressing an opinion ("I Think..."):

I think @IainB thinks he has to test us on occasion -- not often, yet regularly. Who knows what might happen to us otherwise?
We may turn into naive innocents in our cocooned family-friendly donationcoder world, protected from religion and politics and related.

Nor did I perceive that this was a "thesis" as you put it, nor did I see that you were asking for or expecting a reply. I just saw an amusing opinion.
 
- and,

(b) On the basis that people are entitled to whatever opinions they want to hold and I do not usually find any constructive purpose is met in debating or commenting on opinions (except for amusement/humour), I would generally avoid doing that and thus would not have responded. Nor would I normally debate or comment on a person's thesis unless I saw that I might be able to add something of value that might help or be useful in developing said thesis.

So, it was not the case that I simply ignored you on either or both counts. Quite the contrary.

And I of course perceived no implicit request for a response, in what you wrote, but if I had, or if you had gone so far as to ask explicitly "What do you think IainB?", or something, then I would have probably responded with something like, "Well, it's an interesting thought." and left it at that, because I won't allow myself to be forced into making a comment on an opinion which does not really require a comment from me. That would usually seem to me to be pointless, as I mentioned above.

And so I shall not pass comment on your opinion/thesis as described.   

1218

Clipboard Help+Spell / Re: CLIPBOARD HELP+SPELL LATEST VERSION INFO THREAD - v2.39.0 - Dec 22, 2016

« Last post by IainB on March 01, 2017, 08:14 AM »

...Regarding arranging the tree alphabetically -- you must manually drag and drop to reorder groups in the tree.
_________________________

-mouser (February 28, 2017, 12:29 PM)

@mouser: I already tried that and it doesn't seem to work. Tried it again just now, with same result. Maybe I am doing it wrong? We're taking about the tree in the Tree pane here - right?
In fact trying to move stuff around manually like that in the tre seems to be really difficult/kludgy in CHS, so I figured it was not in the design.
Maybe there is an option I need to set somewhere?   
In any event, whilst having to do it manually might actually be useful and OK for small trees or groups, it could be too tedious in a larger/more complex tree, and so it would be best to have an automated option in those cases (also less error-prone).

Request: New option for Alphameric (Ascending/Descending) sorting in the whole tree or just in a specified group/sub-group, please.

1219

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by IainB on March 01, 2017, 07:29 AM »

Re the offensive post in question:
I think @IainB thinks he has to test us on occasion -- not often, yet regularly. Who knows what might happen to us otherwise?
We may turn into naive innocents in our cocooned family-friendly donationcoder world, protected from religion and politics and related.

-tomos (February 28, 2017, 05:00 AM)

@tomos: On your use of the word "offensive" - I'm not sure whether you meant to say it, but I don't see where the post I made was called or even shown to be "offensive" by @mouser. You might perhaps have been intending to call it "offending", but even that would be incorrect as all @mouser seems to think he did was suggest that "...the post ... was not appropriate for this section" - to which I rejoined that it was a true report (it was clipped verbatim out of the Daily Mailonline website) and that it was one of those "truth is stranger than fiction" things that I found LOL funny and very ironic - though I am unsure whether all the people reading it will necessarily be able to see the irony.

I say that about the irony because I showed the article to my 15 y/o daughter, who is studying comedic analysis of Shakespeare's plays, for Eng.Lit. at the moment, and she of course thought it was disgusting (what the guy had apparently documented as his intentions), but then saw the humour in someone actually being that dim-witted and having so little purpose in life as to have those objectives in the first place. However, I had to explain to her the inherent irony of it, and then the penny dropped and she thought it was quite a good joke out of real life.

/rant on...
Joking aside though - and it's easy to poke fun - on the other side of the coin I actually pity him, because he's most surely "not 100%" right in the head and would thus be just a gullible idiot recently converted to the Islamic religion and which he very likely can't properly comprehend, and he probably would have been too incompetent to stay alive for more than 10 hours after joining ISIS or somesuch anyway - assuming they would have wanted him in the first place (but probably only as a dopey suicide bomber).

What he was apparently being charged with seemed to be intention to commit a terrorist act, or something, though he hadn't actually committed any terrorist act, yet. Quite literally, the guy seems to be "a sad joke", yet he's likely to do time for it and will in any event have a record of this hanging over him for the rest of his life, regardless. His life will probably now become just another minor, but avoidable pathetic tragedy of human failure.

The police need to be focused on pursuing and ferreting out real terrorists, not imbeciles like him. He probably - almost certainly, I would suggest - needs welfare help, and especially protection from being "used" - wound up or further indoctrinated/radicalised by the "religious leaders" who probably took advantage of him and put these bonkers ideas into his apparently unimaginative and thick head in the first place. The guy may even be an innocent victim without a bad bone in his body, but much good it may do him, because it's likely he's about to be eviscerated and made an example of by the British legal system. I think it stinks. He's likely no more than a puppet who has been set up by others - the real criminals in this - and they may well escape scrutiny/punishment and cynically repeat it with countless other suckers before they are stopped.
This would be an elephant in the room.
There's nothing funny I can see about any of that.
/rant off

1220

Living Room / Re: Interesting "stuff"

« Last post by IainB on February 27, 2017, 11:26 PM »

I just read this: Creepy IoT teddy bear leaks >2 million parents’ and kids’ voice messages

It immediately reminded me of the rather eerie short story The Professor's Teddy Bear, by Theodore Sturgeon. That was not a nice teddy bear.

Looks like it might be another case of form-follows-art, or something.

1221

Living Room / Re: Show us the View Outside Your Window

« Last post by IainB on February 27, 2017, 10:30 PM »

Did you post them to Google Photos/Google Earth?
If not, then you really should, I reckon - as I think I suggested earlier.
They are pretty impressive pix. Beautiful.

1222

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by IainB on February 27, 2017, 10:15 PM »

I stand by my suggestion that the post I commented on was not appropriate for this section, but the burn button feature idea post .. now that was funny.   

-mouser (February 27, 2017, 09:39 PM)

Yes, but in all seriousness - even if it is not implemented here on DCF where it was first imagined (which would be a shame), I reckon it's probably only a matter of time before some other innovative forum borrows the idea and implements it. Good and well-thought-out ideas like that are rare, hard to come up with and hard to keep down, and my 6 y/o son agrees too, so that's probably confirmed it.

1223

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by IainB on February 27, 2017, 09:27 PM »

@wraith808:

I don't get what you want from posting this.  Do you want someone to say "no, it was ok?"  Several people have already chimed in.  So no matter what pedantic definitions are brought forth, it would seem that precedence and preference - especially endorsed/started by mouser, would say that the appropriate response might be "Hey didn't know.  Will keep that in mind."  Or silence, and just taking the hit and continuing forward.  Food for thought.

-wraith808 (February 27, 2017, 05:25 PM)

If that was addressed to me, in answer to your first question I would have to ask: Why do you assume that I "want" anything from it?
I apologise if you somehow took it amiss - it was not even directed at you - but I was genuinely and politely correcting the shortened form of the thread title, as it had been misquoted by @Curt in using it as an umbrella term, and then providing examples of black humour including reference to death, thus politely implying that in neither case would it be correct to call them "morbid" - which is why I gave the definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Ed.).

I could be wrong, of course, but I think English may not be @Curt's first language, and, if that is the case, then he seems to do very well indeed with it, and I would not be so rude as to criticise his use of English.
I think he almost certainly knew what it was he objected to, but it wouldn't be "morbid" humour (if there is such a thing), by definition (QED). I can only guess at what he was objecting to. Maybe there is not an English word that fits what he might mean in his own language? I'm sure he could tell us if you asked him nicely.

As to your second question and the curious statement(s) that follow it, I am at a loss to understand why you imagine I would be interested in attempting to clarify my earlier posting in response to @mouser, regarding the would-be-slave-owner.
As far as I am concerned, I had said all that I needed to say to him on the subject, and even said that I couldn't help him any more on that.
I mean, he's quite entitled as the site Admin. to say what he did, just as I am entitled to post about something harmless and stupid that I found LOL and hugely ironic. In fact, it is so ironic that I wonder whether people can actually see it. I did say it was priceless. It's a beaut, it really is. Typical Daily Mail. I presume the journos at the Daily Mail who posted it would have seen the irony, and it would have destroyed the joke to have explained it.

So, having finished the subject with the response to @mouserI certainly didn't intend to add to it with @Curt or anyone else, but you seem to want to pursue it. I can't think why - it's all over and donewith. Forget about it. Let it go.

Do please remember that this is the silly humour thread, and that it would be a needless waste of energy to get all twisted up and antagonistic about things where all is otherwise potentially good humour and friendliness. Also, I would recommend that you take anything I say in this thread as having been said tongue-in-cheek and with a heavy dollop of amiable humour and sarcasm.

In closing, I'd be obliged if you could avoid any further harassment of me in future, upon my making helpful and inoffensive posts to other people, in this or other discussion threads.

1224

Living Room / Re: silly humor - Problem Solved (read on)

« Last post by IainB on February 27, 2017, 08:20 PM »

iain, that is disturbing but i dont think it really falls into the humor category of this thread.

-mouser (February 26, 2017, 11:09 PM)

Agreed.

-wraith808 (February 27, 2017, 03:46 PM)

Actually, I think that could raise an interesting point.
What we may seem to need here is a definition of an acceptable, Pan-forum prevailing RPI (Religio-Political Ideology). A declaration of "What we stand for". It doesn't matter what it is, just define it as a WIP (Work-In-Progress) and unambiguously, as a first step. Then people will know where they stand. The RPI declaration can always be modified later, and would be always subject to (say), a consenting majority vote, and amended/re-voted on, every 3 or 4 years, as times change and the audience turnover takes place.

Then, aligned with and armed by that DCF RPI declaration, create "safe spaces" on the forum. That would arguably probably help to make it a more desirably inclusive area for a more diverse audience to participate in under the protective umbrella of the RPI. People who might be real snowflakes (yes, like me, I admit it!), perhaps not having yet had the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, or achieve the psychological maturity to develop a spine and/or a thick skin, would be protected - trigger warnings would ensure that we need not be afraid about being inadvertently offended by something we might be about to inadvertently see/read on the forum (Ah bliss! We can just block it out if it threatens to conflict with our own peculiar reality meta-context), and we need not be afraid to be heard (Ah bliss! No more holding back with our POV, no matter how daft it may seem to others, because it is just as valid as their stupid POVs) - because nobody would dare be rude enough to flame us or call us "an idiot" (indirectly or otherwise), as seems to sometimes happen at present. (I feel sure that many others, like me, will have been offended by stuff they have seen/read on this forum, or that people may have said directly/indirectly in comments on the forum and which seemed hurtful, but out of fear have always held their peace.)

Rather than reinvent the wheel and design a new RPI and forum safe spaces structure from scratch, as a preliminary template for all of this, we could do a lot worse than adopt/use the UC Berkely model, which would seem to be an admirable standard to set, and where the forum members could even burn down the entire forum if they see it as fitting. I don't really mean "burn it down", of course, ha-ha, but simulated, where there is a "Burn the forum down" button on each and every post, and if enough people hit that button to achieve a set Burn Threshold (a preset Burn button depression count) for any single given item/post/comment, then the system will commence a Burn Event and emulate a random failure and parts of it will go variously off-line/DDOS or otherwise OOS (Out Of Service) for a predefined interval. The number of parts of the system that will go down and the effective outage duration will be predetermined by and dependent on the scale of the Burn Outrage Level - the Burn Count minus the Burn Threshold, multiplied (aggravated) by any other Burn events and their severity. (It's mathematical, see?)

NB: To clarify - thus the Burn Count is the sum of times that that specific Burn button has been pressed for that specific item.
The Burn Outrage Level is the Burn Count over and above the set Burn Threshold, which is a preset Burn button depression count.
(Sorry if that seems confusing, but it's technical.)

Theoretically, given a sufficiently angry forum membership response, the whole forum could be out for days or even weeks, but that very possibility will put the forum Administrator on his/her mettle because s/he will be charged with an SLA (Service Level Agreement) that aims for pay-on-performance for continuous minimum forum system uptime/availability of 99.86%, so s/he's not likely to want any idiot to trigger a Burn Event as it will directly adversely impact his/her wallet. Motivation!   
Problem solved. There will be more cultural safety, freedom and independence for the now happier and newly-enfranchised forum members, and consequential increased responsibility and accountability for the Admin., where there will admittedly be a bit more work for them to do - so no more slacking and lollygagging around the water-cooler for them!

At the same time, I seem to recall that an up/down voting system was suggested/considered for the DC forum some time ago, but in the event it was not implemented.
Maybe we need to revisit that and reconsider? If there are some jokes or any subject(s) being discussed that one just does not like, or that one feels outraged or offended by, or that simply make one "feel funny inside", for whatever reason - whether a clearly-definable reason, or not - then maybe we should implement an up/down voting system. Then, if a post gets (say) 100 down-votes or so, it would be (say) expunged (not even Basemented) and the author sin-binned, not permitted to post for a period, or simply excommunicated/banished. I mean, if one cannot follow the defined RPI that would seem to be only fair - right? (See also notes on excommunication criteria and licence rescinding, below.)

And if the up/down votes aren't doing it for those who feel themselves to have been victimised, then there's always the Burn button! (That SLA wiil sure need to be closely monitored!)
I know this might sound a bit like witch-hunting, but it might be just the ticket for the DC Forum so that we don't have to put up with those thorny people who don't think the right way like we do, and then we'd all be able to really feel a lot safer, and our children and grandchildren, and maybe even their children too - as I am sure the gentle reader would have to agree.

In addition, we could establish a detailed set of highly specific forum rules - and I don't mean here some mamby-pamby toothless set of rough guidelines (we already have those). No, these will be hard intolerant rules with teeth that absolutely must be followed by all commenters, with mandatory "trigger warnings" before any subject is brought up - and no exceptions - under POD (Pain Of Death) - i.e., temporary banning from posting, or excommunication and rescinding/invalidating of DCF software licences in the case of the most persistent offenders.

As a result, there will be no naysayers or stupid conflicting POVs and everybody will be happy-happy  - maybe even as good as or better than a frontal lobotomy! - otherwise they won't be allowed to use the DCF forum or software. A contented DC Forum bubble. This should also help to maintain DCF system performance levels to meet the SLA, because, few/no Burn Events - so everybody wins - right?   

Admittedly, this is all rather "off the top of my head" - an idea sparked by @wraith808's acute and penetrating comment as quoted - but, as you can probably see I am quite enthusiastic about it. Having put it down in writing like this, the act of writing helped me to clarify my thinking about it as I went along, so I have been able to outline the thing pretty well.
As it stands, it just needs a few details put in, whereupon it should be good to go and could probably be implemented over a weekend by any half-competent webmaster.

If you like my arguably highly original thinking and ideas as put down here, then don't be shy! Please make a comment and don't be a stranger with the DC Credits donation button!     
And if you don't like my ideas, then feel free to comment anyway. I'll not forget you when the up/down vote and Burn buttons are installed!  (Only joking. I'd never be spiteful like that, honest!)   

EDIT: My 6 y/o son has just returned from school and I read this out to him. he thinks it's a great idea!   
He even suggested some improvements:

• Flamer Fuel: He said why not have a second button beside the Burn button, with an icon like a can of kerosene or something, called High Octane Flamer Fuel (like in Fallout 3 and New Vegas). Whereas the user could only be allowed one valid press of the Burn button on any given topic, pressing the flamer fuel button would multiply it by (say) 10, for that user, but it would also subtract some DC Credits, so there's some responsibility attached to it and the user pays for it only so long as they have the DC Credits! Brilliant idea! I love that boy.
  
  
• up/down vote button animation: He said why not have a hangman icon for the up/down vote status, that reflected the accumulated sum of all the up down votes for that item. A smiley icon meant people liked it, but a progressively sad hanging man meant that it was probably curtains. Another brilliant idea, eh?
  
  
• Burn button animation: He said why not have a flame icon for the Burn status, that reflected the accumulated Burn Count for that item. A small flicker icon meant that it was at a low threshold so far, but a fiercely flickering flame icon meant that a Burn Threshold was being approached and a Burn Event was imminent (about to be triggered). Thus a user could determine whether they merely wanted to add their feelings to a harmless small fire, or really wanted to express their anger and risk triggering a full Burn Event. The Admin. would sure as heck have his/her eye on that baby! Another great idea from the boy. I just didn't think of it.

1225

Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content]

« Last post by IainB on February 27, 2017, 04:09 PM »

My 15 y/o daughter has just started computer studies - one of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) subjects - and she showed me her class notes. The class are learning about some Python language statements, and I mentioned to her that I thought it was probably a useful language to learn as it had quite a large user base, but that there are always going to be potential difficulties inherent in some programming languages - what @app103 referred to as:

...This is one of those cases where Java lets you shoot yourself in the foot*.
http://docs.oracle.c...ronment/sysprop.html
*Yes, I know every language includes shoot your foot stuff.
__________________________________

-app103 (October 02, 2014, 05:29 AM)

And then I thought I recalled something more about this, and I found it in my jokes/humour database:

Shooting Yourself in the Foot, or How to Determine Which Programming Language You're Using.

This collection of descriptions of programming languages is based on the much-quoted principle that in C it's fairly easy to "shoot yourself in the foot" (metaphorically speaking), whereas in C++ it's harder to shoot yourself in the foot, but when you do, you usually blow your whole leg off.  The proliferation of modern programming languages which seem to have stolen countless features from each other sometimes makes it difficult to remember which language you're using.  This guide is offered as a public service to help programmers in such dilemmas.


*C:*
You shoot yourself in the foot.

*C++:*
You accidentally create a dozen instances of yourself and shoot them all in the foot.  Providing emergency medical care is impossible since you can't tell which are bitwise copies and which are just pointing at others and saying, "that's me, over there."

*Objective C:*
You write a protocol for shooting yourself in the foot so that all people can get shot in their feet.

*Ada:*
If you are dumb enough to actually use this language, the United States Department of Defense will kidnap you, stand you up in front of a firing squad, and tell the soldiers, "Shoot at his feet."
or After correctly packaging your foot, you attempt to concurrently load the gun, pull the trigger, scream and shoot yourself in the foot.  When you try, however, you discover that your foot is of the wrong type.

*Algol (60 or 68):*
You shoot yourself in the foot with a musket.  The musket is aesthetically fascinating, and the wound baffles the adolescent medic in the emergency room.

*Algol 60:*
You spend hours trying to figure out how to fire the gun since it doesn't have any provision for input or output.

*Algol 68:*
You mildly deprocedure the gun, the bullet gets firmly dereferenced, and your foot is strongly coerced to void.

*APL:*
You hear a gunshot, and there's a hole in your foot, but you don't remember enough linear algebra to understand what happened.
or You shoot yourself in the foot, then spend all day figuring out how to do it with fewer characters.

*Assembly language:*
You crash the O/S and overwrite the root disk.  The system administrator arrives and shoots you in the foot.  After a moment of contemplation, the administrator shoots himself in the foot and then hops around the room rabidly shooting at everyone in sight.
or You try to shoot yourself in the foot only to discover you must first reinvent the gun, the bullet, and your foot.

*Basic:*
Shoot self in foot with water pistol.  On big systems, continue until entire lower body is waterlogged.

*Visual Basic:*
You'll shoot yourself in the foot, but you'll have so much fun doing it that you won't care.

*Cobol:*
USEing a COLT45 HANDGUN, AIM gun at LEG.FOOT, THEN place ARM.HAND.FINGER on HANDGUN.TRIGGER, and SQUEEZE.  THEN return HANDGUN to HOLSTER.  Check whether shoe-lace needs to be retied.
or You try to shoot yourself in the foot, but the gun won't fire unless it's aligned in column 8.

*DBase:*
You squeeze the trigger, but the bullet moves so slowly that by the time your foot feels the pain you've forgotten why you shot yourself anyway.

*DBase IV version 1.0:*
You pull the trigger, but it turns out that the gun was a poorly-designed grenade and the whole building blows up.

*Eiffel:*
You take out a contract on your foot.  The precondition is that there's a bullet in the gun, the postcondition is that there's a hole in your foot.

*Forth:*
You yourself foot in shoot.

*Fortran:*
You shoot yourself in each toe, iteratively, until you run out of toes, then you read in the next foot and repeat.  If you run out of bullets, you continue anyway because you have no exception-processing ability.

*Java:*
You shoot yourself in the foot.  Everyone else who accesses your website leaves hobbling and cursing.

*Lisp:*
You try to shoot yourself in the foot, but the gun jams on a stray parenthesis.
or You shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds...

*Scheme:*
You shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds ...  but none of the other appendages are aware of this happening.

*Pascal:*
The compiler won't let you shoot yourself in the foot.

*Modula-2:*
After realizing that you can't actually accomplish anything in the language, you shoot yourself in the head.

*Perl:*
You shoot yourself in the foot.  You then decide it was so much fun that you invent another six completely different ways to do it.

*PL/I:*
You consume all available system resources, including all the offline bullets.  The Data Processing & Payroll Department doubles its size, triples its budget, acquires four new mainframes, and drops the original one on your foot.
or Since the bullet is a different type from your foot, the bullet automatically gets converted to another foot on arrival.  It's still difficult to walk afterwards

*Prolog:*
You attempt to shoot yourself in the foot, but the bullet, failing to find its mark, backtracks to the gun which then explodes in your face.
or You tell your program you want to be shot in the foot.  The program figures out how to do it, but the syntax doesn't allow it to explain.

*sh, csh, etc.:*
You can't remember the syntax for anything, so you spend five hours reading manual pages before giving up.  You then shoot the computer and switch to C.

*Smalltalk:*
You spend so much time playing with the graphics and windowing system that your boss shoots you in the foot, takes away your workstation, and makes you develop in COBOL on a character terminal or You shoot yourself in the foot, and your foot sends "doesNotUnderstand:
Pain" to your brain.

*Snobol:*
You grab your foot with your hand, then rewrite your hand to be a bullet.  The act of shooting the original foot then changes your hand/bullet into yet another foot (a left foot)
or If you succeed, shoot yourself in the left foot.  If you fail, shoot yourself in the right foot.

*Paradox:*
Not only can you shoot yourself in the foot, your users can too.

*Revelation:*
You'll be able to shoot yourself in the foot just as soon as you figure out what all these bullets are for.

*English:*
You put your foot in your mouth, then bite it off.

*Clipper:*
You grab a bullet, get ready to insert it in the gun so that you can shoot yourself in the foot, and discover that the gun that the bullet fits has not yet been built, but should be arriving in the mail REAL SOON NOW.

*SQL:*
You cut your foot off, send it out to a service bureau and when it returns, it has a hole in it, but will no longer fit the attachment at the end of your leg.

*370 JCL:*
You send your foot down to MIS with a 4000-page document explaining how you want it to be shot.  Three years later, your foot comes back deep- fried.

*Unix:*
% ls foot.c foot.h foot.o toe.c toe.o % rm * .o rm: .o: No such file or directory % ls %
*Concurrent Euclid:*
You shoot yourself in somebody else's foot.

*HyperTalk:*
Put the first bullet of the gun into foot left of leg of you.  Answer the result.

*Motif:*
You spend days writing a UIL description of your foot, the trajectory, the bullet, and the intricate scrollwork on the ivory handles of the gun.  When you finally get around to pulling the trigger, the gun jams.

The list may be rather out-of-date - e.g., it doesn't seem to mention Python - so, I guess that and some other languages might need to be added to bring it up-to-date.
From experience, I have to say that some of them (e.g., including Assembly language, Fortran, Basic, Cobol, APL, Algol, Java), though amusing, may be (depressingly) pretty accurate.