Endless arguing

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Morris Keesan, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:

    -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best possible
    outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-

    --
    Morris Keesan --
     
    Morris Keesan, Apr 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Morris Keesan

    James Harris Guest

    On 12 Apr, 05:00, "Morris Keesan" <> wrote:

    > Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:
    >
    > -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best possible  
    > outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-


    There's some truth in the quote but there are other factors to
    consider.

    For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    the future - may believe them to be true.

    James
     
    James Harris, Apr 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Morris Keesan

    osmium Guest

    James Harris wrote:

    > On 12 Apr, 05:00, "Morris Keesan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:
    >>
    >> -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best possible
    >> outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-

    >
    > There's some truth in the quote but there are other factors to
    > consider.
    >
    > For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    > challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    > the future - may believe them to be true.


    No single human could possibly have any effect on the amount of faulty
    information that exists. You might as well decide to stop the ocean tides.
     
    osmium, Apr 12, 2010
    #3
  4. Morris Keesan

    Army1987 Guest

    On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:14:03 -0500, osmium wrote:

    >> For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    >> challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    >> the future - may believe them to be true.

    >
    > No single human could possibly have any effect on the amount of faulty
    > information that exists. You might as well decide to stop the ocean
    > tides.


    It is possible to clean all the streets in Paris in one quarter of an
    hour: all that is needed is for everybody to clean the street they live
    in.
     
    Army1987, Apr 12, 2010
    #4
  5. Morris Keesan

    stan Guest

    James Harris wrote:
    > On 12 Apr, 05:00, "Morris Keesan" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:
    >>
    >> -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best possible  
    >> outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-

    >
    > There's some truth in the quote but there are other factors to
    > consider.
    >
    > For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    > challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    > the future - may believe them to be true.


    Do you honestly think that can justify the S/N here?
     
    stan, Apr 12, 2010
    #5
  6. Morris Keesan

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <hpv9s9$q57$-september.org>,
    Army1987 <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:14:03 -0500, osmium wrote:
    >
    > >> For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    > >> challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    > >> the future - may believe them to be true.

    > >
    > > No single human could possibly have any effect on the amount of faulty
    > > information that exists. You might as well decide to stop the ocean
    > > tides.

    >
    > It is possible to clean all the streets in Paris in one quarter of an
    > hour: all that is needed is for everybody to clean the street they live
    > in.


    Sure. But if everyone else does it, and I don't, then I have an almost
    entirely clean city at no cost to me. So if I'm selfish, where's my
    incentive?

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Apr 12, 2010
    #6
  7. In article <>, stan <> wrote:
    >James Harris wrote:
    >> On 12 Apr, 05:00, "Morris Keesan" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:
    >>>
    >>> -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best possible  
    >>> outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-

    >>
    >> There's some truth in the quote but there are other factors to
    >> consider.
    >>
    >> For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    >> challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    >> the future - may believe them to be true.

    >
    >Do you honestly think that can justify the S/N here?
    >


    Right or wrong, that *is* the justification given for why the "regs"
    can't resist talking to the "trolls". In fact, that's the basic reason
    why we "trolls" post in the first place - because we can't stand to see
    the nonsense that the "regs" post go unchallenged.

    --
    (This discussion group is about C, ...)

    Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
    about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
    off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
    traumas of the participants...
     
    Kenny McCormack, Apr 12, 2010
    #7
  8. Morris Keesan

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-04-12, osmium <> wrote:
    > No single human could possibly have any effect on the amount of faulty
    > information that exists. You might as well decide to stop the ocean tides.


    Is that true? You should check snopes.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 12, 2010
    #8
  9. Morris Keesan

    jameskuyper Guest

    Army1987 wrote:
    > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:14:03 -0500, osmium wrote:
    >
    > >> For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    > >> challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    > >> the future - may believe them to be true.

    > >
    > > No single human could possibly have any effect on the amount of faulty
    > > information that exists. You might as well decide to stop the ocean
    > > tides.

    >
    > It is possible to clean all the streets in Paris in one quarter of an
    > hour: all that is needed is for everybody to clean the street they live
    > in.


    That's a bad analogy. Responding to a troll does not remove the
    garbage he's already produced; it's more closely analogous to putting
    up a flag next to the garbage, warning people of it's presence.
    Furthermore, that "flag" has a nasty side-effect: it encourages the
    troll to produce more garbage.

    Fixing up your analogy to match this reality would involve having the
    people of Paris act like idiots (and I'm not trying to suggest that
    they are): instead of removing the garbage, each one would have to put
    out a piece of food next to each piece of garbage they found on their
    own street - to warn people that there's a piece of garbage there.
    Various animals would come by to eat the food, adding their own fresh
    contribution to the garbage. The citizens of Paris would put out more
    food to mark the fresh garbage, etc... How quickly would the streets
    of Paris be cleaned up by that approach?

    Trying to combat trolls by pointing out their errors may not seem as
    stupid as the above behavior. However, it's equally counterproductive,
    and the "end" results are of comparable quality.
     
    jameskuyper, Apr 12, 2010
    #9
  10. Morris Keesan

    jacob navia Guest

    Morris Keesan a écrit :
    > Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:
    >
    > -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best possible
    > outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-
    >

    Well, there were around 270 messages in the first thread about Schildt's
    book, and there are several hundreds in the following messages.

    When I posted a request about allocators for the container library, I
    received 2 answers.

    Yes, TWO, much less than the guy that asked the answer of 0.5*0.5. This
    shows the priorities of people here. Most of them aren't able to follow
    a technical discussion or have no interest in technical discussions, the
    C language or whatever. Their only interest is showing off, inflating
    their (already bloated) egos, and similar nonsense.

    jacob
     
    jacob navia, Apr 12, 2010
    #10
  11. Morris Keesan

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-04-12, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > When I posted a request about allocators for the container library, I
    > received 2 answers.


    I don't know about the recent one, but I know I've responded to previous
    questions on that topic.

    It's not a topic I am hugely invested in, just because I don't think a
    container library is a good fit for the way I've usually seen C used, but
    I think it's interesting, and I have certainly made suggestions about it.

    Fundamentally, though, you're working on something that most of the people
    here don't think they need, and you aren't saying things which are hilariously
    over the top and obviously wrong. When you do say things which are obviously
    wrong, you get more responses, but they're all corrections.

    I suspect some of what you're seeing is inertia of various forms; most of us
    already have or don't need a list library, for instance. I quite simply
    can't comprehend when I'd end up wanting a "container". I can see when I
    want lists, or when I want arrays, but I can't conceive of ever writing a
    piece of code in which I want a container but don't care which of those it
    is, or in which my choice of list or array would change. As a result, I
    simply don't see "container" as a useful abstraction for writing code.

    A similar design for, say, a hash library, which was unambiguously a library
    for hashes and not for any other sort of thing, might be very interesting
    to me, because I've not been especially happy with the hash libraries I've
    seen.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 12, 2010
    #11
  12. Morris Keesan

    osmium Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:

    > Do you honestly think the S/N ratio will improve if the noisemakers go
    > unchallenged?


    No question at all about it, yes. Spinoza can make, maybe five posts a day,
    but attracts responses like a turd in the middle of the street attracts
    crows. Look at the Spinoza threads and see how many are made by him and how
    many are made by others.
     
    osmium, Apr 12, 2010
    #12
  13. Morris Keesan

    Default User Guest

    "stan" <> wrote in message news:...
    > James Harris wrote:


    >> For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    >> challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    >> the future - may believe them to be true.

    >
    > Do you honestly think that can justify the S/N here?


    I agree. You can't beat trolls by arguing. The only way is to completely
    freeze them out.



    Brian
     
    Default User, Apr 12, 2010
    #13
  14. Morris Keesan

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-04-12, osmium <> wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >> Do you honestly think the S/N ratio will improve if the noisemakers go
    >> unchallenged?


    > No question at all about it, yes. Spinoza can make, maybe five posts a day,
    > but attracts responses like a turd in the middle of the street attracts
    > crows. Look at the Spinoza threads and see how many are made by him and how
    > many are made by others.


    I think he makes way more than five a day. But yes, he does tend to end up
    with more responses than his original posts. And yes, I would agree that
    at this point, "challenging" the noisemakers isn't doing anything.

    Step 1: Killfile Nilges.
    Step 2: Encourage other people to do so.
    Step 3: Try to keep responses to anything in his threads strictly topical.
    Step 4: ???
    Step 5: Profit!

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 12, 2010
    #14
  15. Richard Heathfield <> writes:
    > stan wrote:
    >> James Harris wrote:
    >>> On 12 Apr, 05:00, "Morris Keesan" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:
    >>>>
    >>>> -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best
    >>>> possible outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-
    >>> There's some truth in the quote but there are other factors to
    >>> consider.
    >>>
    >>> For example, if none of the careful deceits and misrepresentations are
    >>> challenged someone reading the words - either now or at some time in
    >>> the future - may believe them to be true.

    >>
    >> Do you honestly think that can justify the S/N here?

    >
    > Do you honestly think the S/N ratio will improve if the noisemakers go
    > unchallenged?


    YES!

    The vast majority of Nilges' posts are responses to responses to his
    earlier posts. Attempts to address his technical errors, even while
    ignoring his crap, result in more of his crap.

    I don't know whether he would stop posting if everyone ignored him,
    but I suspect his volume would drop considerably, and what we're doing
    now certainly isn't working.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Apr 12, 2010
    #15
  16. Morris Keesan

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-04-12, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > The vast majority of Nilges' posts are responses to responses to his
    > earlier posts. Attempts to address his technical errors, even while
    > ignoring his crap, result in more of his crap.


    Yes. Perhaps more importantly, they almost never result even in
    *improved* crap. It's not as if he's improving.

    > I don't know whether he would stop posting if everyone ignored him,
    > but I suspect his volume would drop considerably, and what we're doing
    > now certainly isn't working.


    Usually, they escalate further and further to try to continue to
    elicit narcissistic supply (responses, especially responses which
    appear to imply that he's got some kind of point or qualification),
    and eventually melt down completely and go do something else.

    Oddly, critics are nearly as good a response as praise. They at
    least imply that he's really participating and shaping outcomes.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 12, 2010
    #16
  17. On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Seebs wrote:

    > On 2010-04-12, jacob navia <> wrote:
    >> When I posted a request about allocators for the container library, I
    >> received 2 answers.


    > I suspect some of what you're seeing is inertia of various forms; most
    > of us already have or don't need a list library, for instance. I quite
    > simply can't comprehend when I'd end up wanting a "container". I can
    > see when I want lists, or when I want arrays, but I can't conceive of
    > ever writing a piece of code in which I want a container but don't care
    > which of those it is, or in which my choice of list or array would
    > change. As a result, I simply don't see "container" as a useful
    > abstraction for writing code.


    I concur. Grouping containers by space and time efficiency seems useful,
    but only for supporting the programmer in choosing one. Abstracting an
    interface from container "backends" that are replaceable between
    "performance classes" seems leaky (or, in the other direction,
    inflexible).

    Looking back:

    From: (Ersek, Laszlo)
    Subject: Re: Idioms for iterators in C
    Date: 28 Jan 2010 20:57:50 +0100
    Message-ID: <CKNteOnyVaBo@ludens>

    > [...] With the exception of foo_close() and foo_delete(), all foo_*()
    > operations should try not to invalidate any existing iterator.
    > foo_delete() should take an iterator and try not to invalidate any
    > iterator pointing elsewhere. [...]


    From: Eric Sosman <>
    Subject: Re: Idioms for iterators in C
    Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:06:09 -0500
    Message-ID: <hjt5a9$6b7$-september.org>

    > On 1/28/2010 5:00 PM, Richard Harter wrote:
    >> On 28 Jan 2010 20:57:50 +0100, (Ersek,
    >> Laszlo) wrote:


    >>> With the exception of foo_close() and foo_delete(), all foo_*()
    >>> operations should try not to invalidate any existing iterator.
    >>> foo_delete() should take an iterator and try not to invalidate any
    >>> iterator pointing elsewhere.

    >>
    >> Sossman's iterator objects seem appropriate.

    >
    > Three points: First, concrete iterator objects are by no means
    > original with me. Second, I think you'll find it difficult to make an
    > iterator behave sensibly if the container is modified while an iteration
    > is in progress (think of a hash table that gets re-hashed when an
    > insertion makes it too crowded). Third (and most important), there are
    > only two S'es in "Sosman."


    If I ever intended to unify iterator interfaces at all, that was about the
    end of it. As soon as I wanted to bolt something "really useful" on an
    iterator interface, it was immediately shown to be container specific. I
    took it as proof that my pursuit is futile.

    lacos
     
    Ersek, Laszlo, Apr 12, 2010
    #17
  18. Morris Keesan

    jacob navia Guest

    Ersek, Laszlo a écrit :
    >
    > If I ever intended to unify iterator interfaces at all, that was about
    > the end of it. As soon as I wanted to bolt something "really useful" on
    > an iterator interface, it was immediately shown to be container
    > specific. I took it as proof that my pursuit is futile.



    I have found the solution.

    There is the "Iterator" object with 3 fields:

    GetNext
    GetPrevious
    GetFirst

    This 3 function pointers yield a pointer to each stored object,
    or NULL when there are none.

    Now, newIterator(container) builds a *container specific* structure
    with the "iterator" structure at the start. Then, it returns a pointer
    to the start. Get next receives this iterator specific structure
    and is iterator specific without the user seeing it.

    This way I have the best of both worlds: container specific code
    AND generic interface for the user:

    Iterator *it = newIterator(list_container);

    it is a pointer to the first part of the list iterator. The list
    iterator has many other fields that the user doesn't see. When you call
    void *obj = it->GetFirst(it);

    The it->GetFirst() routine is a list container specific routine that
    looks into the hidden fields of "iterator" and does its tricks!

    This works like a charm.

    I solved your problem. Now, it would be nice if you worked with me
    and we could develop this together. I can't do everything alone.

    Thanks for your contribution

    :)
     
    jacob navia, Apr 12, 2010
    #18
  19. Morris Keesan

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-04-12, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > There is the "Iterator" object with 3 fields:


    > GetNext
    > GetPrevious
    > GetFirst


    Hmm.

    > This 3 function pointers yield a pointer to each stored object,
    > or NULL when there are none.


    Okay.

    > Now, newIterator(container) builds a *container specific* structure
    > with the "iterator" structure at the start. Then, it returns a pointer
    > to the start. Get next receives this iterator specific structure
    > and is iterator specific without the user seeing it.


    Seems reasonable.

    > I solved your problem. Now, it would be nice if you worked with me
    > and we could develop this together. I can't do everything alone.


    An obvious issue suggests itself. One of the most useful containers is
    the "hash" -- that's sort of a perlism as a name, but basically, an
    associative array in which each member has a key, but keys are not necessarily
    a numerically-ordered list.

    So, if I call GetFirst() on such a thing, how/where do I find out what key
    is associated with the first item?

    Another thing to consider: Trees. Do you want to have something like
    Iterator *it = GetIterator(tree, ITERATE_DEPTH_FIRST);
    or what? (It is not necessarily an attribute of the tree itself whether
    you want to iterate over it depth-first or breadth-first!)

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
     
    Seebs, Apr 12, 2010
    #19
  20. Morris Keesan

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 04/13/10 04:45 AM, jacob navia wrote:
    > Morris Keesan a écrit :
    >> Quoting someone on a BBC radio programme from a few weeks ago:
    >>
    >> -"Remember, if you choose to argue with an idiot, the best possible
    >> outcome is that you've won an argument with an idiot."-
    >>

    > Well, there were around 270 messages in the first thread about Schildt's
    > book, and there are several hundreds in the following messages.
    >
    > When I posted a request about allocators for the container library, I
    > received 2 answers.


    But you only replied to one, so the debate never got going.

    --
    Ian Collins
     
    Ian Collins, Apr 12, 2010
    #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. Mircea Pleteriu

    Endless session

    Mircea Pleteriu, Feb 16, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    435
    Kevin Spencer
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbCBCb3Jn?=

    Endless loop on delete auth cookie/abandon session

    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbCBCb3Jn?=, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    688
    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbCBCb3Jn?=
    Feb 2, 2005
  3. Alexandre
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    562
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
    Apr 12, 2005
  4. Martin Schneider

    Soft and endless marquee script

    Martin Schneider, Sep 14, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    9,515
    Martin Schneider
    Sep 15, 2004
  5. Christopher

    Arguing efficiency. Arg!

    Christopher, Feb 26, 2013, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    228
    Christopher
    Mar 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page