A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Xah Lee, Sep 29, 2005.

  1. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum

    Xah Lee, 200509

    On Guido van Rossum's website:
    http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196
    dated 20050826, he muses with the idea that he would like to remove
    lambda, reduce(), filter() and map() constructs in a future version
    Python 3000.

    Guido wrote:
    «filter(P, S) is almost always written clearer as [x for x in S if
    P(x)], and this has the huge advantage that the most common usages
    involve predicates that are comparisons, e.g. x==42, and defining a
    lambda for that just requires much more effort for the reader (plus the
    lambda is slower than the list comprehension)»

    the form “[x for x in S if P(x)]†is certainly not more clear than
    “filter(P, S)â€. The latter is clearly a function. What the **** is
    the former? A function every programer in any language can understand
    and appreciate its form and function. What the **** would anyone to
    expect everyone to appreciate a Python syntactical idiosyncrasy “[x
    for ...]�

    also, the argument that the from “filter(F,S)†being cumbersome
    because the first argument is a function and that mostly likely it
    would be a function that returns true and false thus most people will
    probably use the form “lambda†and that is quite cumbersomethan if
    the whole thing is written with the syntactical idiosyncrasy “[x for
    ....]â€, is rather inane, as you can now see.

    The filter(decision_function,list) form is clean, concise, and helps
    thinking. Why it helps thinking? Because it condenses the whole
    operation into its mathematical essence with the most clarity. That is,
    it filters, of a list, and by a yes/no decision function. Nothing is
    more, and nothing can be less. It is unfortunate that we have the
    jargon Lambda and Predicate developed by the morons in the tech geekers
    of the functional programing community. The lambda could be renamed
    Pure Function and the Predicate could be called True/False function,
    but the world being the way they are already, it is unwise to rewrite
    every existing Perl program just because somebody invented another
    language.

    If the predicate in lambda in filter() is cumbersome, so would exactly
    the same thing appear in the syntactical idiosyncrasy “[x for x in S
    if P(x)]â€.

    Guido added this sting as a afterthought:
    «(plus the lambda is slower than the list comprehension)»

    Which is faster is really the whim and capacity of Python
    implementators. And, just before we were using criterion of simplicity.
    The concept of a function every programer understands, what the **** is
    a List Comprehension?
    Why don't you scrap list comprehension in Python 3000 and create a
    table() function that's simpler in syntax and more powerful in
    semantics? ( See http://xahlee.org/perl-python/list_comprehension.html
    )

    Guido wrote:
    «Why drop lambda? Most Python users are unfamiliar with Lisp or
    Scheme, so the name is confusing; also, there is a widespread
    misunderstanding that lambda can do things that a nested function can't
    -- I still recall Laura Creighton's Aha!-erlebnis after I showed her
    there was no difference! Even with a better name, I think having the
    two choices side-by-side just requires programmers to think about
    making a choice that's irrelevant for their program; not having the
    choice streamlines the thought process. Also, once map(), filter() and
    reduce() are gone, there aren't a whole lot of places where you really
    need to write very short local functions; Tkinter callbacks come to
    mind, but I find that more often than not the callbacks should be
    methods of some state-carrying object anyway (the exception being toy
    programs).»

    In the outset Guido here assumes a moronitude about the set of Python
    users and what they are familiar of. Python users 10 years ago are not
    the same Python users today, and will certainly not be the same 10
    years later if you chop off lambda. Things change, math literacy
    advances, and what users you have changes with what you are. A pure
    function (lambda) is the gist of a mathematical idea embodied in
    computer languages, not something from LISP or Scheme as tech geeking
    morons wont to think.

    Guido wrote:
    «... there is a widespread misunderstanding that lambda can do things
    that a nested function can't...».

    One is so insulted by a bigshot in the industry of quoting something so
    disparate then shot it down as if showing his perspicacity.

    A lambda is a syntax for function or a name for the concept of
    function. What the **** does it mean that a lambda isn't as powerful as
    nested function??

    The lambda in Python is really ill. It is designed with a built-in
    limitation in the first place, and regarded as some foreign substance
    in the Imperative crowd such as the Pythoners. If there's any problem
    with lambda, it is with lambda in Python and Pythoner's attitude.

    Guido wrote:
    «Also, once map(), filter() and reduce() are gone, there aren't a
    whole lot of places where you really need to write very short local
    functions;»

    Of course, you begin to write things like Java, in three thousand words
    just to state you are a moron.

    The removing of elements in a language is in general not a good idea.
    Removing powerful features so that morons can use it is moronic. (e.g.
    Java) Removing “redundant†constructs is not always smart (e.g.
    Scheme), because it pinches on practicality. Removing existing language
    features by a visionary upgrade is exceedingly moronic. It forces
    unnecessary shakeup and can cause death.

    Guido wrote:
    «So now reduce(). This is actually the one I've always hated
    most,...»

    The existence of reduce() in Python is probably caused by tech geeking
    clowns of the computing industry. Basically, nobody really have a clear
    understanding of mathematics or computing semantics, but every elite
    tech geeker knew about bags of constructs of various languages. So, you
    add this, i want that, and the language becomes a incoherent soup of
    constructs, with the backlash of wanting to chop off things again, with
    that good things.

    Suggestions: lambda, reduce(), filter() and map() all should stay. I'm
    not sure exactly what's the ins and outs of Python 3000. If one wants
    to shake things up based on a vision: don't. There are already
    gazillion languages and visions; the world don't really need another
    bigshot's say for their personal advancement. As for improvement,
    lambda in Python should be expanded to remove its built-in limitation
    (and Imperative Programing Crowd such as Pythoners should cease to have
    lambda attitude problem). The function map() could also be considered
    for expansion. (see “What is Expresiveness in a Computer Languageâ€
    at http://xahlee.org/perl-python/what_is_expresiveness.html ) Function
    reduce() should stay because it's already there, even if it is not very
    useful and odd. filter() should stay as it is as it is superb and
    proper.

    ---------
    This post is archived at:
    http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_3000.html

    Xah

    ∑ http://xahlee.org/
     
    Xah Lee, Sep 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    addendum:

    reduce() in fact embodies a form of iteration/recursion on lists, very
    suitable in a functional language environment. If Python's lambda and
    other functional facilities are more powerful, reduce() would be a good
    addition. For instance, in functional programing, it is a paradigm to
    nest or sequence functions. (most readers will be familiar in the form
    of unix shell's “pipeâ€). When you sequence functions, you can't
    stop in the middle and do a loop construct. So, reduce() and other
    functional forms of iteration are convenient and necessary.

    ----------
    For version with slight professionalism (sans “fuckâ€), see:
    http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_3000.html

    Note: Guido certainly isn't a moron. But, this post of his shows his
    haughtiness, and rather unfamiliarity with functional programing. (i.e.
    has he, worked in a functional language in any significant length or
    project?) However, he's got the audacity to assert things, probably due
    to bigshot status.

    Guido's stumble isn't a rare instance in the industry, and i don't take
    him to be of any sinister nature. (i don't know much about Guido the
    person or personality.)

    There are quite a lot fucking liers and charlatans in the computing
    industry, especially the OpenSourcers, from the fucking
    a-dime-a-million students with their “FREE†irresponsible homeworks
    on the net to fuckheads like James Gosling of Java , Larry Wall of
    Perl, Linus Torvolts of Linux kernel, and that fuckhead C++ Berjo
    something, the unix advocating fuckers, and those “gang of fourâ€
    Design Patterns shit and the criminals of eXtreme Programing and UML...
    with these pundits begets one generation of fucking tech geeking coding
    monkeys, thinking that they know something, while creating a mass of
    garbage that crashes and fucks us up everyday in the computing world.

    (disclaimer: this post is pure opinion.)

    "The required techniques of effective reasoning are pretty formal, but
    as long as programming is done by people that don't master them, the
    software crisis will remain with us and will be considered an incurable
    disease. And you know what incurable diseases do: they invite the
    quacks and charlatans in, who in this case take the form of Software
    Engineering gurus." —Edsger Dijkstra 1930-2002.

    Xah

    ∑ http://xahlee.org/
     
    Xah Lee, Sep 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Xah Lee

    Matt Guest

    Xah Lee wrote:
    >There are quite a lot f___ing liers and charlatans in the computing
    >industry, especially the OpenSourcers, from the f___ing
    >a-dime-a-million students with their "FREE" irresponsible homeworks
    >on the net to f___heads like James Gosling of Java , Larry Wall of
    >Perl, Linus Torvolts of Linux kernel, and that f___head C++ Berjo
    >something, the unix advocating f___ers, and those "gang of four"
    >Design Patterns shit and the criminals of eXtreme Programing and UML...
    >with these pundits begets one generation of f___ing tech geeking coding
    >monkeys, thinking that they know something, while creating a mass of
    >garbage that crashes and f___s us up everyday in the computing world.


    OK... your post seems to indicate a belief that everyone else is
    somehow incompetent. Sounds a bit like the "I am sane, it is everyone
    else who is crazy" concept. Can you suggest a technology or
    technologist who, in your expert opinion, has gotten it right?

    Perhaps the language you have developed and others are using
    successfully fits all of our needs?
     
    Matt, Sep 29, 2005
    #3
  4. "Matt" <> writes:

    > OK... your post seems to indicate a belief that everyone else is
    > somehow incompetent.


    Xah's just a troll - best to just ignore him. He posts these diatribes
    to multiple groups hoping to start a fight.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Sep 29, 2005
    #4
  5. On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:44:28 -0700, Matt wrote:

    > OK... your post seems to indicate a belief that everyone else is
    > somehow incompetent. Sounds a bit like the "I am sane, it is everyone
    > else who is crazy" concept. Can you suggest a technology or
    > technologist who, in your expert opinion, has gotten it right?


    Folks, Xah Lee is a classic Internet troll, and has been polluting this
    newsgroup for a long time. Ask yourself, why would anyone rational cross
    post criticism of Python to perl, lisp and scheme newsgroups? Does he
    perhaps think that the Lisp and Scheme language developers are about to
    remove the functional programming features from Lisp and need to be
    shown Python as a warning?

    He is the equivalent of one of those bored, spoiled teenagers who urinate
    on public transport just to see the shocked reactions of other people. You
    can't engage him in rational debate. Until we find a way to send electric
    shocks through the Internet, all we can do is ignore him. To argue with
    him just gives him the sick entertainment he wants.


    --
    Steven.
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Sep 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Xah Lee

    Kalle Anke Guest

    On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:44:28 +0200, Matt wrote
    (in article <>):

    > OK... your post seems to indicate a belief that everyone else is
    > somehow incompetent. Sounds a bit like the "I am sane, it is everyone
    > else who is crazy" concept. Can you suggest a technology or
    > technologist who, in your expert opinion, has gotten it right?



    He has posted similar posts about other things to at least one other mailing
    list, the tone and arguments of these post were exactly the same.
     
    Kalle Anke, Sep 30, 2005
    #6
  7. Xah Lee

    Guest

    In comp.lang.perl.misc Kalle Anke <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:44:28 +0200, Matt wrote
    > (in article <>):


    >> OK... your post seems to indicate a belief that everyone else is
    >> somehow incompetent. Sounds a bit like the "I am sane, it is everyone
    >> else who is crazy" concept. Can you suggest a technology or
    >> technologist who, in your expert opinion, has gotten it right?


    > He has posted similar posts about other things to at least one other mailing
    > list, the tone and arguments of these post were exactly the same.


    I wonder if his postings are related to the phases of the moon? It
    might explain a lot.

    Axel
     
    , Sep 30, 2005
    #7
  8. writes:

    > I wonder if his postings are related to the phases of the moon? It
    > might explain a lot.


    Yes, it would. Note that the word lunatic is derived from the Latin word
    luna, meaning moon.

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Sep 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Re: OT: Phases of the moon

    Steven D'Aprano <> writes:

    > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:02:14 -0400, Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    >> writes:
    >>
    >>> I wonder if his postings are related to the phases of the moon? It
    >>> might explain a lot.

    >>
    >> Yes, it would. Note that the word lunatic is derived from the Latin word
    >> luna, meaning moon.

    >
    > Yes, lunatic is derived from luna, but that doesn't mean the two are
    > connected. The ancients believed a lot of crap


    *whoosh*

    That, my friend, was the sound of a joke flying past and completely
    missing you. ;-)

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Oct 1, 2005
    #9
  10. OT: Phases of the moon [was Re: A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum]

    On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:02:14 -0400, Sherm Pendley wrote:

    > writes:
    >
    >> I wonder if his postings are related to the phases of the moon? It
    >> might explain a lot.

    >
    > Yes, it would. Note that the word lunatic is derived from the Latin word
    > luna, meaning moon.


    Yes, lunatic is derived from luna, but that doesn't mean the two are
    connected. The ancients believed a lot of crap (the world is flat, black
    people aren't human, thunder is the sound of god's fighting, buying
    over-valued dot-com stock is a good investment) and "phases of the moon
    affecting behaviour" was one of them.

    People are really bad at connecting cause and effect. See this thread for
    a simple example:

    http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=000228;p=1

    A skeptical policeman who says he doesn't actually believe the moon
    affects behaviour nevertheless reports that "last weekend" things were
    really crazy, and it was a full moon. Somebody writes in to correct him:
    no, the full moon is actually "tomorrow".

    This shows how cognitive biases can fool us. Even though he was skeptical,
    the cop noticed the extra crazy behaviour on this particular weekend, and
    manged to fool himself into thinking it matched a full moon.

    See here for more details, plus references to research:

    http://skepdic.com/fullmoon.html


    --
    Steven.
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Oct 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Xah Lee

    Guest

    Re: OT: Phases of the moon [was Re: A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum]

    Steven D'Aprano wrote:
    > On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:02:14 -0400, Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    > > writes:
    > >
    > >> I wonder if his postings are related to the phases of the moon? It
    > >> might explain a lot.

    > >
    > > Yes, it would. Note that the word lunatic is derived from the Latin word
    > > luna, meaning moon.

    >
    > Yes, lunatic is derived from luna, but that doesn't mean the two are
    > connected. The ancients believed a lot of crap (the world is flat, black
    > people aren't human, thunder is the sound of god's fighting, buying
    > over-valued dot-com stock is a good investment) and "phases of the moon
    > affecting behaviour" was one of them.
    >
    > People are really bad at connecting cause and effect. See this thread for
    > a simple example:
    >
    > http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=000228;p=1
    >
    > A skeptical policeman who says he doesn't actually believe the moon
    > affects behaviour nevertheless reports that "last weekend" things were
    > really crazy, and it was a full moon. Somebody writes in to correct him:
    > no, the full moon is actually "tomorrow".
    >
    > This shows how cognitive biases can fool us. Even though he was skeptical,
    > the cop noticed the extra crazy behaviour on this particular weekend, and
    > manged to fool himself into thinking it matched a full moon.
    >
    > See here for more details, plus references to research:
    >
    > http://skepdic.com/fullmoon.html


    But correlations can exist even if the cause does not. There is a
    correlation between the equinox and balancing an egg. But not
    _because_ of the equinox, but because people only try it on the
    equinox. Hence, egg balancing only happens on the equinox is a
    true assertion.

    >
    >
    > --
    > Steven.
     
    , Oct 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Xah Lee

    Guest

    I have an excellent idea. Create your own programming language and do
    whatever you want with it. Until then, I'm thinking that Guido can do
    whatever he wants with his. But I'm guessing that your programming
    skills will be in the same place as your greatness - in your own head.
     
    , Oct 1, 2005
    #12
  13. Re: OT: Phases of the moon

    On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:18:44 -0400, Sherm Pendley wrote:

    > *whoosh*
    >
    > That, my friend, was the sound of a joke flying past and completely
    > missing you. ;-)



    Wouldn't be the first time, and surely not the last. *wink*


    --
    Steven.
     
    Steven D'Aprano, Oct 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Xah Lee

    Bart Lateur Guest

    Re: OT: Phases of the moon [was Re: A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum]

    Steven D'Aprano wrote:

    >A skeptical policeman who says he doesn't actually believe the moon
    >affects behaviour nevertheless reports that "last weekend" things were
    >really crazy, and it was a full moon. Somebody writes in to correct him:
    >no, the full moon is actually "tomorrow".


    As a similar example: I've been told by various women independently,
    that "there are more babies born near a full moon."

    So... is there a correlation between insanity and babies being born? :)

    --
    Bart.
     
    Bart Lateur, Oct 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    the programers in the industry, including bigwigs such as Guido or that
    Larry Wall fuckhead, really don't know shit about computer languages.
    Sometimes i get pissed by Stephen Wolfram's megalomaniac cries, but in
    many ways, i think his statements about the fucking moronicities of the
    academicians and otherwise dignitaries are justified.

    here i will try to illuminate some miscellaneous things regarding the
    lambda in Python issue.

    as i have hinted
    ( http://xahlee.org/perl-python/list_comprehension.html ), the
    so-called List Comprehension is just a irregular syntax to facilitate
    generating lists. The name is a terrible jargon, and the means is also
    quite fucked up. The proper name should be something like
    ListGenerator, and the proper means should be the plain function.

    For instance, Python's range() is such a list generator, only that it
    is limited in scope.

    For a example of a powerful list generator, see Mathematica's Table
    function:
    http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/functions/Table

    i'm running a project that will code Table in Perl and Python and Java.
    You can read about the spec and source code here:
    http://xahlee.org/tree/Table.html
    (note: the Python version there isn't complete)

    Note Table's power in generating not just flat lists, but trees. And if
    one really want flat lists, there's the Flatten function that flats any
    nested lists. (Python should have this too)

    Python's reduce() is Mathematica's Fold. See
    http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/functions/Fold
    Besides Fold, there's FoldList, FixedPoint, FixedPointList, Nest,
    NestList and others. In Python's terms, FoldList is like reduce()
    except it returns a list of each steps. FixedPoint recursively applies
    a function to itself until the result no longer changes (or when a
    optional function returns true) Nest is similar except it limits the
    iteration by a number. The NestList and FixedPointList are similar
    except that they return a list, containing all the steps.

    All these can be written as a loop, but they make the code condensed
    and meaning clear. More so, they are important when programing in a
    functional style. In functional programing, you don't litter lots of
    variables or temporary functions or intermediate loops here or there on
    every other line. The code is usually tight and inline. When sequencing
    a series of functions, you can't stop in the middle and do some loop or
    auxiliary calculation. All these are made inline into a function. (that
    is: constructed as lambda) A block of code usually corresponds to a
    unit of the algorithm used, as opposed to the particular unit of the
    implementation of the algorithm. You don't read the minute details of
    the code. You read the algorithmic unit's comments, or just the input
    and output of a code block.

    Also, these inline loop constructs are not just for computing numbers
    as Guido likes to ignorantly think. They are specialized forms of
    generic loop constructs. Their first argument is a function, and second
    argument is a list. Their generality lies with the fact that their
    first argument is a function. If a language does not provide a
    convenient way to represent the concept of a function, than these
    functional loop constructs will suffer in usability.

    The Python morons, did not provide a convenient way to represent a
    function. (they tried, with their limited implementation of lambda and
    shun it like a plaque)

    The way Guido puts it gives us a nice glimpse of their retarded
    mentality: “Also, once map(), filter() and reduce() are gone, there
    aren't a whole lot of places where you really need to write very short
    local functions;â€

    As we can see here, in Pythoner's mind, lambda is for “very short
    local functionsâ€.

    Python's limited lambda coupled with their lambda attitude problem
    among imperative morons, therefore functional programing suffers in
    Python, and consequently one becomes so stupid as to come up with a
    bunch of feelings about lambda, map, reduce, filter.

    For Python's map(), look at Mathematica's Map on how it might be
    extended.
    http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/functions/Map
    Note the ability to map to not just flat lists but trees (nested
    lists). Note the power of expressing the concept of levels of a tree.

    For Python's filter(), check out the equivalent in Mathematica's
    Select:
    http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/functions/Select
    Note how it provides a third option for picking just the first n items.
    Also note, that Select is just a way to pick elements in a list.
    Mathematica provides a set to do these: Part, Take, Drop, Select,
    Cases. All uniformly uses the function syntax and all operate
    semantically by returning a new list. In Python and other imperative
    clown's language, usually they provide a limited varieties to do such a
    task, and also inconsistent like piled on. (e.g. alist[5:9], filter(),
    alist.remove(...), del alist[...]). Some modify the list in-place, some
    returns a new list.

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

    one is quite sorry to read a big shot contemplating on petty issues
    with a ambitious name Python THREE THOUSAND.

    For the grand Python THREE THOUSAND, what about supporting non-trivial
    things such as built-in transparent fractions? What about a smart
    exact-arithmetics once for all? What about supporting pattern matching?
    (not textual pattern matching (e.g. regex) as Imperative Morons wont to
    understand, but patterns of list structures and data types.)

    the features of Mathematica mentioned above existed over a decade ago.
    But today, OpenSourcing bigwigs can contemplate and dither nothing but
    which lipstick to use.

    A good number of the industrial dignitaries are just fucking liers. And
    today we have the fucking Java and fucking Perl and their bosses
    trumpeting their fucking state-of-the-art-ness. Go **** your wifes.

    (disclaimer: all mentions of any real person are just opinion.)

    -----
    See also:
    http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_3000.html

    Xah

    ∑ http://xahlee.org/
     
    Xah Lee, Oct 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Re: OT: Phases of the moon [was Re: A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum]

    Bart Lateur wrote:

    > As a similar example: I've been told by various women independently,
    > that "there are more babies born near a full moon."


    That's also a myth.

    Paul
     
    Paul F. Dietz, Oct 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Re: OT: Phases of the moon [was Re: A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum]

    Paul F. Dietz wrote:
    > Bart Lateur wrote:
    >
    >> As a similar example: I've been told by various women independently,
    >> that "there are more babies born near a full moon."

    >
    > That's also a myth.


    Right, everybody knows that it's not natural (moon) light that
    influences reproductive behavior, it's artificial light -- TV.

    When TV is turned off by a power failure, lots of people that usually
    never have sex start making love, and lots of people that usually use
    contraception lose their minds and forget about it.

    9 months later more babies are born, unless that's also a myth.

    --
    We're glad that graduates already know Java,
    so we only have to teach them how to program.
    somewhere in a German company
    (credit to M. Felleisen and M. Sperber)
     
    Ulrich Hobelmann, Oct 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Re: OT: Phases of the moon

    Bart Lateur <> writes:

    > As a similar example: I've been told by various women independently,
    > that "there are more babies born near a full moon."
    >
    > So... is there a correlation between insanity and babies being born? :)


    If you weren't insane before the baby was born, you will be soon after. ;-)

    sherm--

    --
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
     
    Sherm Pendley, Oct 1, 2005
    #18
  19. Xah Lee

    Running Bare Guest

    Re: OT: Phases of the moon [was Re: A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum]

    Ulrich Hobelmann <> writes:

    > When TV is turned off by a power failure, lots of people that
    > usually never have sex start making love, and lots of people that
    > usually use contraception lose their minds and forget about it.
    >
    > 9 months later more babies are born, unless that's also a myth.


    http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/blackout.htm

    "Despite initial reports of New York City hospitals' seeing a
    dramatic increase in the number of births nine months after the
    1965 blackout, later analyses showed the birth rate during that
    period to be well within the norm."
     
    Running Bare, Oct 1, 2005
    #19
  20. Xah Lee

    Matt Garrish Guest

    Re: [OT] A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum

    "Lucas Raab" <> wrote in message
    news:9GS%e.7067$...
    > Xah Lee wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>(they tried, with their limited implementation of lambda and
    >> shun it like a plaque)

    >
    > Can't say I've heard that expression before...
    >


    Burns: I'm afraid it's not that simple. As punishment for your desertion,
    it's company policy to give you the plague.
    Smithers: Uh, sir, that's the plaque.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Oct 2, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Xah Lee

    A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum

    Xah Lee, Sep 29, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,200
    Cruise Director
    Oct 12, 2005
  2. Gerrit Holl

    Re: A Moronicity of Guido van Rossum

    Gerrit Holl, Sep 30, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    372
    Mike Meyer
    Oct 1, 2005
  3. Ilias Lazaridis
    Replies:
    104
    Views:
    1,579
    M.-A. Lemburg
    Jan 13, 2006
  4. Akira Kitada
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    928
    Paul Rubin
    Feb 12, 2009
  5. Pierre O'Dee
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    231
    llanitedave
    Apr 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page