Collage 003               H u m o u r N e t                    1994

Hi, kids!

It's me, and I've once again compiled some roadside litter from the
Information Superhighway, as forwarded to me by our beloved Internet
Turf Surfers. Apologies in advance for the Star Trek thing--but hey,
I'm not a Trekkie, and even *I* found it amusing.

Enjoy!

- Vince Sabio
  HumourNet Moderator
  HumourNet@telephonet.com
____________________________________________________________________
          Opener (above) Copyright 1994 by Vincent Sabio
  Permission is hereby granted to forward or post this "Collage";
  please observe the guidelines stated at the end of the message.
____________________________________________________________________

>I have to justify to our head office in New York why I feel they should
>develop their client server strategy around PC clients and not Macs.
>I need some statistical backup for any arguments. Can anyone point me in the
>right direction.

Sure. Here are some statistics for you.

    37.5% of Macintosh users are criminal perverts with at least
    one recent conviction for drunk driving.

    Last year, construction of Apple Macintosh computers
    consumed over seven hundred thousand tons of rare tropical
    hardwoods from unmanaged forests, and released four and a
    half million cubic metres of toxic gases into the atmosphere.

    Federal studies show that prolonged use of Macintosh
    computers can cause impotence, brain damage and
    incontinence.

    PC users have, on average, IQs that are 10-12 points higher
    than their Mac-using counterparts.

    Macintosh computers wilfully throw away 17% of all Ethernet
    packets and typically cause network data collisions
    reducing the efficiency of the network by 68%.

    Apple Macintoshes are 14.6% more likely than PC compatibles
    to break out at night, steal the keys from the transport
    pool and go out cruising for chicks in the director's
    limousine.

    Macintosh computers were responsible for 37% of all
    reported felonies in 1992, have been implicated in 71% of
    all major aviation disasters, and are more than three times
    as likely as PC compatibles to be involved in a fatal
    shooting.

Will those do?

========================[ H U M O U R N E T ]=======================

 Top Forty-two Reasons Why Captain Kirk is Better Than Captain Picard

 42. One Word: Hair.
 41. Kirk can beat up a Klingon bare-handed.
 40. Kirk would date Beverly Crusher -- and damn the consequences!!
 39. Kirk never drinks tea.  Ever.
 38. Diplomacy for Kirk is a phaser and a smirk.
 37. Kirk would never sing to children in a crisis.
 36. Kirk can almost drive a stick shift.
 35. Kirk made do with obviously low performance technology.
 34. Kirk never pretends to be a barber in order to gain a tactical
     advantage.
 33. Kirk never once stood up and had to straighten his shirt.
 32. Kirk looks good with a ripped shirt.
 31. Kirk's first officer NEVER tells him to stay on the bridge.
 30. Kirk never leaves the room to bawl somebody out.
 29. Kirk doesn't rely on the wisdom of some dumb old
     janitor to get him out of intergalactic scrapes.
 28. Kirk never asks his bartender for advice.
 27. Kirk never once said "Abandon ship!  All hands abandon ship!"
 26. Kirk never got "dumped" by a woman for an intergalactic busy body
     named after a letter of the alphabet.
 25. If something doesn't speak English -- it's toast.
 24. If Kirk finds a strange spinning probe, he blows it up.
 23. Picard never met Joan Collins.
 22  Picard hasn't fathered any children;  Kirk -- probably millions.
 21. Kirk has a cool phaser -- not some pansy Braun mix-master.
 20. Kirk knows how to deal with peace-loving hippy goofs.
 19. Kirk once fought a Greek god.  And won.
 18. Kirk barely asks for suggestions.  And if he does, he asks Spock only.
 17. Kirk doesn't let the doctor tell him what to do.
 16. One Word: Fisticuffs.
 15. You can never lock up Kirk for very long.
 14. Kirk plays god with lesser cultures, and then exploits them for
     resources.
 13. Kirk's son would never drop out to become a musician.
 12. Kirk can climb up a Jeffries Tube and fix anything.
 11. Kirk never hired an engineer with punk glasses.
 10. The Klingons didn't have a word for surrender -- until they met Kirk.
  9. Kirk's bridge is not beige.
  8. Picard allows cats on board, while Kirk beams away even really cute
     things, like Tribbles.
  7. Kirk specifically ordered a swivel LA-Z-BOY for the bridge.
  6. Kirk would never touch SYNTHAHOL.
  5. Kirk can infiltrate Gangsters, Nazis, and even the Pentagon -- easily.
  4. When Kirk says "Boldly Go," he MEANS it.
  3. Kirk traveled through The Great Barrier, met God, and wasn't even
     impressed.
  2. Kirk would never let his Chief of Security wear a ponytail.
  1. Three Words:  Flying Leg Kick

========================[ H U M O U R N E T ]=======================

Didn't you know?  All the graphics in Star Trek are done on a
Macintosh, especially the supposedly Dos based Holodeck. ;)

Also the phasers are obviously Mac oriented, just point and click.

========================[ H U M O U R N E T ]=======================

Why shouldn't blind people bungee jump?
Because it scares the crap out of their dogs!

========================[ H U M O U R N E T ]=======================
                     CAFFIENATED SOFT DRINKS:
                       The State of the Art

                          By: Ted Bahr

Copied without permission from _Computer Language_, April 1989

Perhaps the most universally recognized tool for improving a professional
programmer's productivity is C.  Not the C language (after all, this *is*
the April issue, not February), but the C additive, Caffiene.

P.J. Plauger would have us begin this review with a definition:

caf-feine \ka-'fen, 'ka-,\ n[G kaffein, fr. kafee coffee, fr. F cafe']
(ca. 1828): a bitter alkaloid C  H   N  O   found esp. in coffee, tea, and
                               8  10  4  2
kola nuts and used medicinally as a stimulant and diuretic.

Much has happened in the Cola wars to date, and the intent here is to bring
you up to speed on what seven leading contenders have to offer today.  Table
1 shows a comparison of basic features, Table 2 compares performance, and
Table 3 ranks the products on a variety of tests.

*** Diet Coke ***

Diet Coke is an ably launched sequel to Coca-Cola's well-known, high
calorie drinks.  It scours well in the mouth and the taste is surprisingly
full-bodied for a soda drained of all sugar.  As a member of the Coke
family, Diet Coke places well in the performance tests with 46 mg. of
caffiene per can.

Diet Coke supplies the user with excellent documentation, taking care to
list a variety of vitamins and minerals of which it supplies less than
2% of the U.S. Recommended Allowances (U.S. RDA).  The documentation is
not perfect, however; one particular problem is sloppy indexing.  Diet
Coke notes that the product contains phenylalanine, a danger to phenyl-
ketoneurics, but does so in tiny letters on the front of the can, not
with the ingredients where one would naturally search for it (by contrast,
Diet Pepsi places this information with the other ingredients in a
bright red color).

A toll-free help line is provided to support all the Coke products--their
commercials play in the background while you are on hold.  Diet Coke is an
excellent reproduction of the market leader and maintains its good perfor-
mance for programmers while nodding to the increased helath-consciousness
of the world today.

*** Mountain Dew ***

Long the late-night programmer's favorite with 17.4% more caffeine than
any member of the Coke family and over 40% more caffeine than Pepsi,
Mountain Dew means business.  Clearly the heavyweight choice of this
review, The Dew powers its way to a first place finish in both calories
(178.8) and sugar(44.4 mg.).  Its performance pales in comparison only
to Jolt.

Mountain Dew's taste is sickly sweet--the refreshing images of people
splashing around in ponds are clearly in reference to the energy derived
from the drink's effect, not the taste.  And the participants in the ads
are certainly not programmers (imagine--swimming!).  The scouring test
was disappointing--the tiny bubbles seemed buried by the high fructose
corn syrup.

Documentation was generally good, with more information revealed about
chemical content than any product except Diet Coke.  A toll-free help
number is offered on the can and questions to the technical support
staff were handled efficiently and pleasantly.

Mountain Dew is still sporting its peace-and-love 1960s logo.  The
outdated packaging combined with levels of caffeine and sugar that
show almost total disregard for the 1980s health-consciousness reveal
parent Pepsico's intent to market Mountain Dew as a niche product.  With
only Jolt to battle head-to-head on the high end, that's not such a
bad idea.

*** Pepsi ***

Pepsi may be the choice of a new generation, but definitely *not* a
new generation of programmers.  Finishing dead last in performance and
buried in the middle of the pack with respect to calories, Pepsi is a
generally uninspired product.  The user interface (taste) is distinctive,
but its caffeine engine lacks the punch of the other products we surveyed.

Pepsi offers a toll-free help line and has adequate documentation, but
finished at the bottom of the heap in the Grindstone (teeth-grinding
after one six-pack slurped down in a two-hour period), ANSI (American
Neurological Speed Institute) conformity, and compatibility with UNIX
programmers.  Although drinking Pepsi while chained to a 100,000 line
Ada program for 36 hours will not make you a raving maniac, it probably
won't keep you awake either.  John Scully left for Apple years ago,
and we cannot recommend this product for serious programmers.

*** New Coke ***

Coca-Cola's new upstart is a worthy alternative to sleeping at normal
hours.  It placed second in both the scouring test and the Wetstone
(thirst quenching).  The kid brother to Classic (real) Coke has a taste
somewhere between the thinner, less-sweet Diet Coke and the heavy
syrup of the original.  Despite its less-sugary taste, Coke (its real
name) actually has more carbohydrates than Classic Coke, leading this
reviewer to wonder if the programmers who created New Coke were drinking
Pepsi while they wrote the algorithms.

Coke's performance matches its siblings at 46 mg. of caffeine per can,
topping all but the specialty pops aimed directly at software developers.
With three relatively high-performance products to choose from in the Coke
family, a programmer really can have it all.

*** Classic Coke ***

Also known as "real Coke," this product seems to be adrift in a sea of
specialized competition.  Various tests provided some pretty mediocre
scores for what has traditionally been considered by the general public
the most high-powered cold liquid stimulant (unless you favor cold
espresso).

Documentation is thin for Classic Coke drinkers and thus tends to favor
users who have some familiarity with the product.  What's more, the
toll-free help number was not printed on any of the cans we tested!
While clearly a stalwart and founding member of the caffeine collection,
advantages offered by a number of competitors may be worth a taste
before settling on the real thing.

*** Dr. Pepper ***

While barely edging out Pepsi in caffeine performance level and defin-
itely qualifying as a "boutique" soft drink, Dr. Pepper's unique user
interface qualified it for review.  Bottled by Pepsi, Dr. Pepper has
had little national advertising in the past few years, being seen as
a perennially big seller in Texas and a fancy alternative to root beer.
Despite this, Dr. P weighs in as a reasonable choice for programmers.

The taste is somewhat lemony, light, and fruity.  Documentation is
good, but Dr. P lacks a toll-free number for support.  When I did call
technical support, the Pepper People seemed confused.  I bounced seven
times before finding the right person at the right number.  However,
once I got there, support was excellent and very cordial.

Although Dr. Pepper cannot be recommended outright due to its mediocre
performance, slipping a few in between a long night of Classic Cokes
may be just the change you need.

*** Jolt ***

Taking on the established Cola giants is a brash move for a little
company in Rochester, N.Y., and Jolt is playing its role as spoiler
to the hilt.  In the face of a huge tide of "caffeine-free" soft
drinks, Jolt boasts that it has "all the sugar and twice the caffeine."
On the surface, at least, it seems as if the programmer's ship has
come in.

Jolt's user interface is good, containing the bite and "look and feel"
of Classic Coke and winning the scouring test.  Performance is stellar
with 32% more caffeine than Mountain Dew, 55% more than the Coke family,
and a whopping 85% more than Pepsi.  Unfortunately, none of these
percentages back up the slogan aimed most directly at the programming
market:  "twice the caffeine."

While documentation is adequate, technical support was rather dismal.
Jolt had the ambience of a small company, with the receptionist answer-
ing my questions in an annoyed manner.  She said the company doesn't
release information on sugar content, which is odd for a company that
boasts about it on the can.  When pressed about the "twice the caffeine"
claim, she said it referred to sodas other than the ones we tested but
wouldn't reveal which ones.

Despite a shaky feeling about the company's ethics, programmers will
find much to like in a can of Jolt.  The only side effect may be too
much of a good thing--the Grindstone test left me unable to bear the
sight of a monitor, and soon found me lurching from lane to lane at
80 mph on Rte. 101, alternately screeching at songs on the radio and
babbling incoherently to myself about RISC chips.  Use Jolt with
caution.

*** The Winners ***

A close look at the seven contenders in this review confirmed some
suspicions and raised others.  Pepsi's performance rated too poorly
to recommend, and Dr. Pepper's only real benefit is its unique user
interface.

Any member of the Coke family can be recommended for general-purpose
long bouts of coding and the company is to be lauded for maintaining
performance levels in its newest releases.  Jolt, the hands-down
winner in pure performance, is too jarring to be recommended for
prolonged use, but can be excellent for short bursts ofr quick patches.
Based on overall excellence, the winner and sultan of swig for pro-
grammer productivity is still Mountain Dew.

___---- Table 1.

Comparison of basic features

                        Classic Coca   Diet Mountain                Dr.
                         Coke   Cola   Coke   Dew    Jolt   Pepsi  Pepper
                       --------------------------------------------------
Carbonated water         Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes
High-fructose corn-
  syrup/sugar            Yes    Yes    No     Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes
Caramel color            Yes    Yes    Yes    No     Yes    Yes    Yes
Phosphoric acid          Yes    Yes    Yes    No     Yes    Yes    Yes
Caffeine                 Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes
Citric acid              No     No     Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    No
Sodium benzoate
  ("A preservative")     No     No     No     Yes    No     No     Yes
Potassium benzoate       No     No     Yes    No     No     No     No
Natural flavorings       Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes
Proud sponsor of the
  U.S. Olympic Team      Yes    Yes    Yes    No     No     No     No
All-aluminum can         Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes
Toll-free help number    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    Yes    No

___---- Table 2.

Performance

                        Classic Coca   Diet Mountain                Dr.
                         Coke   Cola   Coke   Dew    Jolt   Pepsi  Pepper
                       --------------------------------------------------
Calories(per 12 fl. oz.) 144    154    0      179    170    159     144
Sugar (grams/12 fl. oz.) 37.20  40.00  .30    44.40  NA     39.60   38.00
Caffeine (mg/12 fl. oz.) 46.00  46.00  46.00  54.00  71.20  38.40   40.80

___---- Table 3.

Additional rankings (1-10)
1 - Excellent, 10 - Poor

                        Classic Coca   Diet Mountain                Dr.
                         Coke   Cola   Coke   Dew    Jolt   Pepsi  Pepper
                       --------------------------------------------------
Compatibility with
  Unix Programmers        2      6      3      1      4       7      5
Scouring effect           4      2      3      7      1       6      5
Wetstone(1)               3      2      1      5      4       6      7
Grindstone(2)             3      4      5      2      1       7      6
ANSI Conformity(3)        3      5      4      1      2       7      6
Sleeve of Eratosthenes(4) 4      3      7      1      2       5      6

Notes:
   (1)  Thirst-quenching.
   (2)  Teeth-grinding after one six-pack in a two-hour period.
   (3)  American Neurological Speed Institute.
   (4)  Staining power test conducted on standard Beefy T-shirt.

========================[ H U M O U R N E T ]=======================

Well, after hearing numerous requests for a retrans, here it is: the original
Twinky I, or "science and the twinky" in all it's retransmitted glory.....

-----------------------------------

"Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, or Food?"

In an effort to clarify questions about the purported durability and unusual
physical characteristics of Twinkies, we subjected the Hostess snack logs to
the following experiments:

EXPOSURE:
Twinkie was left on a window ledge for four days, during which time an inch and
a half of rain fell.  Many flies were observed crawling across the Twinkie's
surface, but contrary to hypothesis, birds -- even pigeons -- avoided this
potential source of sustenance.  Despite the rain and prolonged exposure to
the sun, the Twinkie retained its original color and form.  When removed the
Twinkie was found to be substantially dehydrated. Cracked open, it was observed
to have taken on the consistency of industrial foam insulation; the filling,
however, retained its adverstised "creaminess."

RADIATION:
A Twinkie was placed in a conventional microwave oven, which was set for
precisely 4 minutes -- the approximate cooking time of bacon.  After 20 seconds,
the oven began to emit the Twinkie's rich, characteristic aroma of artificial
butter.  After 1 minute, this aroma began to resemble the acrid smell of burning
rubber. The experiment was aborted after 2 minutes, 10 seconds, when thick, foul
smoke began billowing from the top of the oven.
A second Twinkie was subjected to the same experiment; this Twinkie leaked
molten white filling.  When cooled, this now epoxylike filling bonded the
Twinkie to its plate, defying gravity; it was removed only upon application of
a butter knife.

EXTREME FORCE:
A Twinkie was dropped from a ninth-floor window, a fall of approximately 120
feet.  It landed right side up and then bounced onto its back.  The expected
"splatter" effect was not observed. Indeed, the only discernible damage to the
Twinkie was a narrow fissure on its underside; otherwise, the Twinkie remained
structurally intact.

EXTREME COLD:
A Twinkie was placed in a conventional freezer for 24 hours. Upon removal, the
Twinkie was not found to be frozen solid, but its physical properties had
noticeably "slowed."  The filling was found to be the approximate consistency
of acrylic paint, while exhibiting the mercurylike property of not adhering to
practically any surface.  It was noticed that the Twinkie had generously
absorbed freezer odors.

EXTREME HEAT:
A Twinkie was exposed to a gas flame for 2 minutes.  While the Twinkie smoked
and blackened and the filling in one of its "cream holes" boiled, the Twinkie
did not catch fire.  It did, however, produce the same "burning rubber" aroma
noticed during the irradiation experiment.

IMMERSION:
A Twinkie was dropped into a large beaker filled with tap water.  The Twinkie
floated momentarily, began to list and sink.  Viscous yelow tendrils ran off
its lower half, possibly consisting of a water-soluable artifical coloring.
After 2 hours, the Twinkie had bloated substantially. Its coloring was now a
very pale tan -- in contrast to the yellow, urine-like water that surrounded
it.  The Twinkie bobbed when touched, and had a gelatinous texture.  After 72
hours, the Twinkie was found to have bloated to roughly 200 percent of its
original size.  The water had turned opaque, and a small, fan-shaped spray of
filling had leaked from one of the "cream holes."  Unfortunately, efforts to
remove the Twinkie for further analysis were abandoned when, under light
pressure, the Twinkie disintegrated into an amorphous cloud of debris.  A
distinctly sour odor was noted.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The Twinkie's survival of a 120-foot drop, along with some of the unusual
phenomena associated with the "creamy filling" and artificial coloring, should
give pause to those observers who would unequivocally categorize the Twinkie as
"food."  Further clinical inquiry is required before any definite conclusions
can be drawn.

This article reprinted in condensed form from SPY magazine, July 1989.

========================[ H U M O U R N E T ]=======================

Ah, science.

Catch'yall later!

- Vince

********************************************************************
 Anyone Without a Sense of Humor Is At The Mercy of The Rest of Us.
********************************************************************

"HumourNet" is brought to you by Lyris -- an innovative new e-mail
list server from The Walter Shelby Group, Ltd. For more information
on Lyris, see <http://www.lyris.com/>.

To subscribe to the "HumourNet" mailing list, send the following
command to <lyris@lyris.net>:

subscribe HumourNet your_name, your_city, your_state or country

where "your_name" is your real name, etc. If you run into problems,
then either (1) send any message to <HumourNet-info@lyris.net> for
a more detailed set of instructions, (2) subscribe via Lyris's Web
interface at <http://www.lyris.net/>, or (3) send a *detailed*
description of the problem to <Listmom@telephonet.com>.

To unsubscribe, visit our Web interface at <http://www.lyris.net/>
or refer to your Welcome message for detailed instructions.

For instructions on contributing to HumourNet, send any message to
<contribution-guidelines@lyris.net>.

>>> Note: Attributions in Collage openers are to the contributors,
not necessarily the authors. Authors' credits are included in the
text wherever possible. <<<

The HumourNet archives can be accessed via the Web and FTP:

    Web: <http://www.humournet.com/HumourNet/>
    FTP: <ftp://ftp.humournet.com/pub/HumourNet/Collage.Archives/>

Permission is granted to forward or post this Collage, provided that
1) the message is forwarded/posted in its ENTIRETY, from the line
containing the Collage number and date to the end of this trailer,
and 2) no fee is charged.

There are "relaxed" forwarding/posting guidelines available; for a
copy of them, send any message to <posting-guidelines@lyris.net>, or
refer to your Welcome message.

********************************************************************
    "HumourNet" is a trademark of HumourNet Communications, Ltd.
********************************************************************
</collage003>