SUO: Re: Epi*Questions
E*Q. Note 3
TJ = Tom Johnston
JS = Jon Awbrey
TJ: Do what?
JS: What I have suggested many times is what I do myself:
1. Put long papers and tutorials on my web site.
2. Use e-mail lists for discussions.
JS: Perhaps it might be useful for the SUO
to allocate space on the IEEE web site
for any members who would like to post
JS: I recommend that a subdirectory titled "members"
be set up on the SUO IEEE site. Under that would
be subdirectories for every member who requests one,
such as Awbrey, Sowa, Johnston, Andersen, etc. Each
member would have total control over what he or she
would post to that subdirectory.
There is nothing wrong with this idea,
except the little detail that it doesn't
address the problem at issue, which does
not have to do with putting more nominal
bytes in cold-code storage -- we've already
got lots and losts of cold-code-storage lockers
full of cold-code-carcasses that nobody can or
even wants to try and thaw, much less carve up,
much less cook, much less eat, much less digest,
much less essimilate, much less enjoy, much less
thrive on, and so on. So we need to ask the more
pertinent question at the present time in question:
Why is that?
Me, I have my guess, and so I am working on that.
But I have already put aside what I consider to be
far more interesting and substantive work in order
to work on these procedural issues, which I normally,
being normal myself, consider to be about as much fun
as do-it-yourself root-canal work, so I do not intend
to fritter away any more time on these epi*procedural
issues. Indeed, the habotual tendency to just keep on
1-upping every epi^k-issue to an epi^(k+1)-issue is just
another one of the classic symptoms of the "going nowhere
in a hurry syndrome" (GNIAHS), that I am trying remedy here.
So, back to the grinstone on that, at least for me ...