![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 7, 2002, at 15:55:17
Hi Friends,
You know messages are a very important part of society.
It is very important that information not be lost in messages.It the telecommunications world, it is especially important that information
not be lost in messages.Certainly we don't want our information that we send over the internet
or our cellular telephones to be lost or mangled. That would be bad.So to protect from the loss of information, clever people have come up
with ways to protect messages from losing their value.One of the most popular techniques is a method called "convolutional encoding."
The message is "convoluted" to a new format that contains extra information to
protect it from noise that may be introduced over wires, the air waves, etc.A really good example of this is how we communicate with satellites. Look, we use
convolution to communicate with extraterrestrial entities (The Mars Rover!).Here is an example of how message convolution works.
I'll use the scheme that uses a "veterbi decoder", the most popular method
very nicely described on this web site:http://pw1.netcom.com/~chip.f/viterbi/algrthms.html
http://pw1.netcom.com/~chip.f/viterbi/tutorial.htmlI'll start with a message:
“LOVE”
This translates to ascii (bits 1’s and 0’s) on a Windows based PC:
0100 1100 0100 1111 0101 0110 0100 0101 (Love in 1’s and 0’s)
Using “convolution” (I will use the exact encoding mechanism described on that web page;
refer to the state diagrams provided) the convoluted message becomes:00 11 10 11 11 01 01 11 00 11 10 11 11 01 10 10
01 00 10 00 10 00 01 01 11 11 10 11 00 11 10 00The message balloons by a factor of 2 (from 32 bits to 64 bits), but this makes the message safer
to transmit. The receiver of the message just needs to decode the convoluted
message (Like the Mars Rover does on Mars!).So, for fun I would like to leave you with an important “convoluted” message.
Maybe this message can/should be sent to Mars!
You can decode it if you are clever and read through that web page.
PS, the ascii code dump is for a Windows based system.START MESSAGE
00 00 11 10 11 00 11 10 11 11 10 00 10 00 10 11
00 11 01 01 00 10 11 00 00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00
10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 00 11 01 01 00 01 10
01 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 10 11 00 11 01 10
01 00 01 01 11 00 00 11 10 00 01 10 01 00 10 11
00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 00 01 10 01 11 11 01
01 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 01 01 00 01 10 10
01 00 01 01 00 01 10 01 11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 11 01 10 01 00 10 11 00 11 01 01 00 10 11 00
00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 11 01 01 00 01 10 10
01 00 01 01 11 00 00 11 10 00 01 01 11 11 10 11
00 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 01 10 01 00 10 11
00 11 01 01 00 01 10 10 01 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 11 01 10 01 00 10 11 00 11 01 01 00 10 11 00
00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 11 10 11 00 00 11 01 01 00 01 10 01 11 11 10
11 11 01 01 00 01 10 10 01 00 01 10 01 00 01 10
01 00 01 01 00 01 10 01 11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 11 01 01 00 01 10 10 01 00 01 01 11 11 01 01
11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 10 11 11 01 01 11
00 11 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 00 01 01 11 11 01 01
11 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 11 10
11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 00 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 11 10 11 00 11 10 00 10 00 10 11 11 01 10 10
01 00 10 11 11 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 00 11 10 00 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
00 11 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 11 10 11 11 10 00 10
11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 00 11 01 10 01 00 01
01 11 11 10 00 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 00 10 11 11
END MESSAGE
Hollywood
Posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 7, 2002, at 17:57:53
In reply to A convoluted message for everyone :-), posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 7, 2002, at 15:55:17
Dr. Bob,Can you remove my above message from the board.
It was a bit silly and meant to be "social", but I feel the board ought to focus on support.Thanks,
HJ
Posted by JohnDoenut on April 12, 2002, at 21:35:48
In reply to please delete. Thanks, posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 7, 2002, at 17:57:53
> Dr. Bob,
>
> Can you remove my above message from the board.
> It was a bit silly and meant to be "social", but I feel the board ought to focus on support.
>
> Thanks,
> HJOh no! Please dont delete it! we need to know what makes the minds of some of the readers out there tick! Tick tock!
Im all for silliness. Im very silly. I post silly things.
Im not sure however how many people out there while perhaps entertained or merely confused as not being technical would want to take the time to do the math as it were. :) I may later though.
I need to finish reading about Sar first. . .JohnD
Posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 12, 2002, at 22:58:58
In reply to Re: please delete. Thanks, posted by JohnDoenut on April 12, 2002, at 21:35:48
> > Dr. Bob,
> >
> > Can you remove my above message from the board.
> > It was a bit silly and meant to be "social", but I feel the board ought to focus on support.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > HJ
>
> Oh no! Please dont delete it! we need to know what makes the minds of some of the readers out there tick! Tick tock!
> Im all for silliness. Im very silly. I post silly things.
> Im not sure however how many people out there while perhaps entertained or merely confused as not being technical would want to take the time to do the math as it were. :) I may later though.
> I need to finish reading about Sar first. . .
>
> JohnDI didn't want the post to detract from the more important issues taking place. (support and caring was needed). (Plus I was a bit manic at the time).
HJ
Posted by Jonathan on April 13, 2002, at 19:39:48
In reply to Re: please delete. Thanks, posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 12, 2002, at 22:58:58
Posted by jane d on April 14, 2002, at 14:35:06
In reply to Re: please delete. Thanks, posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 12, 2002, at 22:58:58
Posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 22, 2002, at 3:02:13
In reply to A convoluted message for everyone :-), posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 7, 2002, at 15:55:17
> Hi Friends,
>
> You know messages are a very important part of society.
> It is very important that information not be lost in messages.
>
> It the telecommunications world, it is especially important that information
> not be lost in messages.
>
> Certainly we don't want our information that we send over the internet
> or our cellular telephones to be lost or mangled. That would be bad.
>
> So to protect from the loss of information, clever people have come up
> with ways to protect messages from losing their value.
>
> One of the most popular techniques is a method called "convolutional encoding."
>
> The message is "convoluted" to a new format that contains extra information to
> protect it from noise that may be introduced over wires, the air waves, etc.
>
> A really good example of this is how we communicate with satellites. Look, we use
> convolution to communicate with extraterrestrial entities (The Mars Rover!).
>
> Here is an example of how message convolution works.
>
> I'll use the scheme that uses a "veterbi decoder", the most popular method
> very nicely described on this web site:
>
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~chip.f/viterbi/algrthms.html
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~chip.f/viterbi/tutorial.html
>
> I'll start with a message:
>
> “LOVE”
>
> This translates to ascii (bits 1’s and 0’s) on a Windows based PC:
>
> 0100 1100 0100 1111 0101 0110 0100 0101 (Love in 1’s and 0’s)
>
> Using “convolution” (I will use the exact encoding mechanism described on that web page;
> refer to the state diagrams provided) the convoluted message becomes:
>
> 00 11 10 11 11 01 01 11 00 11 10 11 11 01 10 10
> 01 00 10 00 10 00 01 01 11 11 10 11 00 11 10 00
>
> The message balloons by a factor of 2 (from 32 bits to 64 bits), but this makes the message safer
> to transmit. The receiver of the message just needs to decode the convoluted
> message (Like the Mars Rover does on Mars!).
>
> So, for fun I would like to leave you with an important “convoluted” message.
> Maybe this message can/should be sent to Mars!
> You can decode it if you are clever and read through that web page.
> PS, the ascii code dump is for a Windows based system.
>
> START MESSAGE
> 00 00 11 10 11 00 11 10 11 11 10 00 10 00 10 11
> 00 11 01 01 00 10 11 00 00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00
> 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 00 11 01 01 00 01 10
> 01 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 10 11 00 11 01 10
> 01 00 01 01 11 00 00 11 10 00 01 10 01 00 10 11
> 00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 00 01 10 01 11 11 01
> 01 11 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 01 01 00 01 10 10
> 01 00 01 01 00 01 10 01 11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 11 01 10 01 00 10 11 00 11 01 01 00 10 11 00
> 00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 11 01 01 00 01 10 10
> 01 00 01 01 11 00 00 11 10 00 01 01 11 11 10 11
> 00 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 01 10 01 00 10 11
> 00 11 01 01 00 01 10 10 01 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 11 01 10 01 00 10 11 00 11 01 01 00 10 11 00
> 00 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 11 10 11 00 00 11 01 01 00 01 10 01 11 11 10
> 11 11 01 01 00 01 10 10 01 00 01 10 01 00 01 10
> 01 00 01 01 00 01 10 01 11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 11 01 01 00 01 10 10 01 00 01 01 11 11 01 01
> 11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 11 10 11 11 01 01 11
> 00 11 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 00 01 01 11 11 01 01
> 11 11 01 01 11 11 10 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 11 10
> 11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 00 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 11 10 11 00 11 10 00 10 00 10 11 11 01 10 10
> 01 00 10 11 11 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 00 11 10 00 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 00
> 00 11 10 11 11 10 11 00 00 11 10 11 11 10 00 10
> 11 00 11 10 11 00 00 00 00 00 11 01 10 01 00 01
> 01 11 11 10 00 01 01 00 10 11 11 10 00 10 11 11
> END MESSAGE
>
>
> HollywoodThis is the really alias JohnX2
(Hollwood Jerry is a can-of-worms pseudonym).
I can't get in on my JohnX2 passoword, so I'm going back
to Jerry (who was supposed to be retired) for this post.No, I really thing this post should be discarded, as it is junk.
And here is why, I have been learning/coping, etc about passive aggressive personality
disorder and I'm starting to think that this is a core issue with anger
issues that I need to deal with (yes they flare up worse when agitated/manic), but
I think I would be kidding myself to say that I don't use this gross tool otherwise.
It probably a learned behaviour from my father, but that's no excused for the cruelty that could be inferred from
this post (in my view) and the timing of the post (just after SAR's death).This may get redirected to admin...sorry
Look, there was a spat about an interview by Jannelle (sorry , SP) regarding status
of people taking LOA from work (I believe). And a few things lead to
some bickering regarding the appopriateness of such a post. At the time I
was angry, mainly because I had specifically spent a substantial amount
of my time helping Jannelle with her problem. There are *MANY* problems
with this above post of mine (with a line of thinking):A) I should not had gotton angry at Lou (and I was attacking 2 things, I'll describe
below), because of past bias working with Jannelle.B) I was expressing my thoughts in a passive aggressive manner (the pseudonism, etc).
This is wrong. A personality defect on my behalf? that I must work on (deeling with/finding new
coping skills for anger). Passive aggressive behavior leads to uncertainty amongt the group on where people
stand. And is coverty chaotic and deceptive.C) On Lou's behalf, Jannelles survey frankly was a bit insulting to
people who may not have the "priveledges" of others. I did not feel uncomfortable answering
the survey for my own reasons. But I could definately see where this would
be an affront to people with other situations/histories/means. This is my opinion.
No passive aggression bullshit. This is my thought. (I think if the survey was
set up right and volunteery, I dunno, maybe there would have been a good system,
tough call don't get me into that debate.D) Here is the big can of worms. The message that was sent was a
quote from Lou's previous post, "The 7 Gates on the Road on the Crown of Life."
Well, to but it lightly, THIS WAS WRONG. I was trying to do something to be
offensive to Lou, but instead of choosing something like "SHUT UP LOU!" (still wrong).
I just grabbed his last post title. Now I realize, being confused about my
own spiritual feelings, that this indirectly was a major attack on an entire
group. This may practicly be construed as "your belief system is
wrong". Whoa, uncivil and disguisting! Personally I don't quite grasp my own
spiritual feelings, much less others...need to work on this area.E) In order to understand the message you may need
means not available to everyone (like an engineering
type background). NOW I see that this relates to issue C.
This may really piss people off understandably.F) Instead of thinking carefully through my thoughts and expressing
them or not expressing them, I was so worried about being within the
bounds of what is socially acceptable that I resorted to passive aggressive
behavior. Sorry this was to be a slam on Bob, I should just make my opinions
on Bob's civilty rules clearly, AND as a seperate issue.G) The timing with SAR's death. This problem I realized after coming
off my anger bit and understanding the issues at hand (which lead to the
follow up post asking to delete the post). It wasn't deleted. In the follow
up I mentioned that the post was "silly" but it light of A-G I would say
it was not "silly".So basically I owe an apology to the newsboard. To Lou and
the people offended/hurt, and to Dr. Bob.Maybe I should be banned for my actions in proportion to the others who
were banned, Lou, Zoe..whoever else. I dunno rememeber the fallout was
bad (sorry to drudge this up, but I want to get closure).Anyways, this was just one of a few situation were I behaved very
inappropriately as of late. I have set my priority to better learn to deal
with feelings of anger (where they come from), also will need to work hard to
come to terms with my spiritual thoughts/confusion.Thanks for your time (if you could stand reading this).
Why I went into posting under a pseudonym is another big ugly
discussion, which I intend to clear the water on.JohnX2
Posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 22, 2002, at 3:19:55
In reply to Re: Whoa, Passive Aggressive Behavior, posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 22, 2002, at 3:02:13
>
> This is the really alias JohnX2
> (Hollwood Jerry is a can-of-worms pseudonym).
> I can't get in on my JohnX2 passoword, so I'm going back
> to Jerry (who was supposed to be retired) for this post.
>
> No, I really thing this post should be discarded, as it is junk.
>
> And here is why, I have been learning/coping, etc about passive aggressive personality
> disorder and I'm starting to think that this is a core issue with anger
> issues that I need to deal with (yes they flare up worse when agitated/manic), but
> I think I would be kidding myself to say that I don't use this gross tool otherwise.
> It probably a learned behaviour from my father, but that's no excused for the cruelty that could be inferred from
> this post (in my view) and the timing of the post (just after SAR's death).
>
> This may get redirected to admin...sorry
>
> Look, there was a spat about an interview by Jannelle (sorry , SP) regarding status
> of people taking LOA from work (I believe). And a few things lead to
> some bickering regarding the appopriateness of such a post. At the time I
> was angry, mainly because I had specifically spent a substantial amount
> of my time helping Jannelle with her problem. There are *MANY* problems
> with this above post of mine (with a line of thinking):Oh crud, rephrase "Janelle with her problem" with "the issues Jannelle was
trying to tackle at the time.">
> A) I should not had gotton angry at Lou (and I was attacking 2 things, I'll describe
> below), because of past bias working with Jannelle.
>
> B) I was expressing my thoughts in a passive aggressive manner (the pseudonism, etc).
> This is wrong. A personality defect on my behalf? that I must work on (deeling with/finding new
> coping skills for anger). Passive aggressive behavior leads to uncertainty amongt the group on where people
> stand. And is coverty chaotic and deceptive.
>
> C) On Lou's behalf, Jannelles survey frankly was a bit insulting to
> people who may not have the "priveledges" of others. I did not feel uncomfortable answering
> the survey for my own reasons. But I could definately see where this would
> be an affront to people with other situations/histories/means. This is my opinion.
> No passive aggression bullshit. This is my thought. (I think if the survey was
> set up right and volunteery, I dunno, maybe there would have been a good system,
> tough call don't get me into that debate.
>Sorry "have the priveledges" may be misconstriued.
I really may have said "access to certain
resources". Also Lou makes good point that survey may bring up bad
memories from the past.> D) Here is the big can of worms. The message that was sent was a
> quote from Lou's previous post, "The 7 Gates on the Road on the Crown of Life."
> Well, to but it lightly, THIS WAS WRONG. I was trying to do something to be
> offensive to Lou, but instead of choosing something like "SHUT UP LOU!" (still wrong).
> I just grabbed his last post title. Now I realize, being confused about my
> own spiritual feelings, that this indirectly was a major attack on an entire
> group. This may practicly be construed as "your belief system is
> wrong". Whoa, uncivil and disguisting! Personally I don't quite grasp my own
> spiritual feelings, much less others...need to work on this area.
>
> E) In order to understand the message you may need
> means not available to everyone (like an engineering
> type background). NOW I see that this relates to issue C.
> This may really piss people off understandably.
>
> F) Instead of thinking carefully through my thoughts and expressing
> them or not expressing them, I was so worried about being within the
> bounds of what is socially acceptable that I resorted to passive aggressive
> behavior. Sorry this was to be a slam on Bob, I should just make my opinions
> on Bob's civilty rules clearly, AND as a seperate issue.
>
> G) The timing with SAR's death. This problem I realized after coming
> off my anger bit and understanding the issues at hand (which lead to the
> follow up post asking to delete the post). It wasn't deleted. In the follow
> up I mentioned that the post was "silly" but it light of A-G I would say
> it was not "silly".
>
> So basically I owe an apology to the newsboard. To Lou and
> the people offended/hurt, and to Dr. Bob.
>
> Maybe I should be banned for my actions in proportion to the others who
> were banned, Lou, Zoe..whoever else. I dunno rememeber the fallout was
> bad (sorry to drudge this up, but I want to get closure).
>
> Anyways, this was just one of a few situation were I behaved very
> inappropriately as of late. I have set my priority to better learn to deal
> with feelings of anger (where they come from), also will need to work hard to
> come to terms with my spiritual thoughts/confusion.
>
> Thanks for your time (if you could stand reading this).
>
> Why I went into posting under a pseudonym is another big ugly
> discussion, which I intend to clear the water on.
>
> JohnX2
Posted by Zo on April 22, 2002, at 16:51:18
In reply to Re: Whoa, Passive Aggressive Behavior, posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 22, 2002, at 3:02:13
Really, an admirable amount of work on yourself and a clear accounting. I find that sometimes I benefit more when someone mops up, becomes accountable, and gracefully so. .. I'm real glad you shared this.
Zo
Posted by beardedlady on April 23, 2002, at 6:08:04
In reply to Re: Whoa, Passive Aggressive Behavior, posted by Hollywood Jerry on April 22, 2002, at 3:02:13
John:
I think you're wrong. Sorry, but I do. And here are the reasons.
1. Passive/Agressive Behavior is not a big deal. Lots of people have that type of personality. It is not a psychological problem; it is a personality trait. No biggie d. Some people (me) are tough. Some people (not me) are nice. Some people (me) are honest. Those can be really bad traits at times--harmful to yourself and others.
2. If I called you a "noh sddjp;r nsdystf [oh/," what difference would it make what I was actually saying if only I know what I said? Making fun of someone isn't nice. But doing it in a way that no one on the planet can figure out? That IS nice. That's a way of getting out your own anger (recognizing it as your own anger!) without hurting another soul. You find a problem with this why?
3. People deal with grief differently. Kid A disappeared. Some folks cursed. Some got angry at others and took out their anger in a non-passive-aggressive way that hurt someone else. Some people told jokes to cheer others up because they feel so uncomfortable. I didn't know Sar. It was a terrible thing that she couldn't make it and a sad thing that others had to deal with her grief. But I and others weren't actually grieving, not having had much contact with her. Some of us actually welcomed the relief of your post, the challenge of occupying our minds with something else. (I think I'm missing something. Was your post actually in a Sar string? If so, that's the part that was wrong. If not, not.)
4. Nothing was wrong with Janelle's survey. It WAS voluntary, and it was innocent. Please, let's not dredge that mess up again.
5. Sometimes helping others helps us. Case in point: I woke up last week feeling totally miserable every day. But I thought two people on the board were in trouble, and I spent about 30 minutes each morning responding thoughtfully to their posts. I actually felt a great deal better focusing on someone else in need for a change. My problems somewhat resolved themselves.
I guess the only thing I'd pick on is the Hollywood Jerry moniker. I don't know if everyone knew Hollywood Jerry was you. (Did you sign your posts John X2?) If they did (if you did), where's the harm?
Stop beating yourself up. Your guilty conscience is what needs a paddlin'.
beardy : )>
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.