Interesting new development "in the matter of" Schildt

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by spinoza1111, May 31, 2010.

  1. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

    Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    now says he feels it was not appropriate.

    My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    the anti-Schildt cause.

    I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
    the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
    email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
    did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
    said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
    shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

    This issue is not going away.
    spinoza1111, May 31, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    <> wrote:

    >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
    >
    >Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    >now says he feels it was not appropriate.


    Ha, ha.


    >My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    >the anti-Schildt cause.


    >I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
    >the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
    >email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
    >did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
    >said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
    >shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
    >
    >This issue is not going away.


    Yes, you'll harass his mother, try to get his publisher to repudiate
    him, call him a faggot and digital Maoist, anonymously vandalize his
    page in Wikipedia. One thing you won't do is get published in Risks
    again.
    Colonel Harlan Sanders, May 31, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On May 31, 9:10 pm, Colonel Harlan Sanders <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

    >
    > >Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    > >now says he feels it was not appropriate.

    >
    > Ha, ha.


    Knew you'd love it, given your emotional age, Bubba. Hope it made your
    day. Pity, of course, that I was the one to publish the fact here.
    Rather stole your thunder, I shouldn't wonder.
    >
    > >My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    > >the anti-Schildt cause.
    > >I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
    > >the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
    > >email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
    > >did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
    > >said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
    > >shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

    >
    > >This issue is not going away.

    >
    > Yes, you'll harass his mother, try to get his publisher to repudiate
    > him, call him a faggot and digital Maoist, anonymously vandalize his
    > page in Wikipedia. One thing you won't do is get published in Risks
    > again.


    I wouldn't do any of those things, and you know it.

    Peter Seebach linked to his Mom on his blog, and I discovered that she
    wants to deprive minority kids of schooling so that middle class kids
    can get out of survey classes. I did not submit any comments to her
    public site. Instead, I found what I consider to be an explanation of
    Peter's bizarre lack of actual educational qualifications.

    I don't think Peter Neumann will ever stoop to your level, in which
    the only response is, in actuality, "**** you, faggot", or metrical
    verse.

    I might consider him unwittingly complicit as was Zhou En-Lai in a
    phenomenon of which he may be unaware; in my experience, computer
    science people agree with Thatcher and think there's no such thing as
    society.

    I don't anonymously vandalize jack shit on wikipedia, and you know
    this, faggot. Instead I sign my posts "Edward G. Nilges". When I sock
    puppeted I did so on the recommendation of a wikipedia editor who was
    vandalizing me. In actuality, many respected wikipedia editors appear
    to use sock puppets, because deviance is the norm, jerk face.

    I do not know and do not much care whether I appear in Risks again. I
    will probably submit replies for moderation. I have requested a phone
    conversation with Peter to clear up this new issue, since I think he's
    not aware that to publish his retraction appears to me to be deeply
    offensive, very discourteous, and extremely cowardly.
    spinoza1111, May 31, 2010
    #3
  4. spinoza1111

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article
    <>,
    spinoza1111 <> wrote:

    > in my experience, computer science people agree with Thatcher
    > and think there's no such thing as society.


    Except that she didn't say that.

    --
    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, May 31, 2010
    #4
  5. spinoza1111

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    (Richard Harter) wrote:

    > On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:54:00 +0100, Tim Streater
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article
    > ><>,
    > > spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> in my experience, computer science people agree with Thatcher
    > >> and think there's no such thing as society.

    > >
    > >Except that she didn't say that.

    >
    > There are two separate verb phrases there. Computer science
    > people agreeing with Thatcher and computer science people
    > thinking there's no such thing as society are separate claims.


    She said "There's no such thing as Society, there's only communities of
    interest". Which is actually what you find, when you look around.

    --
    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, May 31, 2010
    #5
  6. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Jun 1, 12:11 am, Tim Streater <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >   (Richard Harter) wrote:
    >
    > > On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:54:00 +0100, Tim Streater
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > > >In article
    > > ><>,
    > > >spinoza1111<> wrote:

    >
    > > >> in my experience, computer science people agree with Thatcher
    > > >> and think there's no such thing as society.

    >
    > > >Except that she didn't say that.

    >
    > > There are two separate verb phrases there.  Computer science
    > > people agreeing with Thatcher and computer science people
    > > thinking there's no such thing as society are separate claims.  

    >
    > She said "There's no such thing as Society, there's only communities of
    > interest". Which is actually what you find, when you look around.
    >
    > --
    > Tim
    >
    > "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    > nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689


    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

    "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no
    such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there
    are families. And no government can do anything except through people,
    and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after
    ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got
    the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations."

    Which was completely bonkers. There is such a thing as society. The
    Greater London Council organized the Marathon of 1983 which I
    completed. It was real...until Thatcher destroyed it. Also, we're
    supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves, not after we're finished
    eating.

    However, computer nerds love this kind of shit, in my experience. It
    justifies their lack of social skills when young, and utter lack of
    decency later.
    spinoza1111, May 31, 2010
    #6
  7. On 31 May, 04:15, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
    >
    > Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    > now says he feels it was not appropriate.


    thanks for the excellent news!!

    Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
    post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
    this mistake.

    > My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    > the anti-Schildt cause.


    or people opposed to ranting lunacy... (BTW I wasn't one of them)


    > I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
    > the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
    > email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length,


    it *was* very long

    > he
    > did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
    > said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
    > shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.


    well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of
    a point. I don't agree that you have a point, but the general
    principle that private individulas might suffer from bad things on the
    internet is fine. You do realise you are doing Schildt no favours by
    constantly banging on about this?


    > This issue is not going away.


    pity poor schildt.
    Nick Keighley, Jun 1, 2010
    #7
  8. spinoza1111

    iC and iC++ Guest

    On May 30, 11:15 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html
    >
    > Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    > now says he feels it was not appropriate.
    >
    > My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    > the anti-Schildt cause.
    >
    > I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
    > the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
    > email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length, he
    > did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
    > said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
    > shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.
    >
    > This issue is not going away.


    Who is Schildt? What is Shibboleths?
    iC and iC++, Jun 1, 2010
    #8
  9. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-05-31, Colonel Harlan Sanders <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    ><> wrote:
    >>http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html


    >>Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    >>now says he feels it was not appropriate.


    > Ha, ha.


    I don't see anything particularly funny here. Amusing, perhaps.

    >>My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    >>the anti-Schildt cause.


    Nilges, habitually spamming people and threatening to bombard them with
    emailed demands, assumes other people do the same.

    I don't really care either way about Schildt, though, so the fact that it
    would never even have crossed my mind to complain about that post is probably
    irrelevant. It struck me as, perhaps tenuously, related to a real risk
    that users of computers face. It was also an excellent illustration of
    the problems inherent in accepting reputation claims from an internet source.

    -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, Jun 1, 2010
    #9
  10. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-06-01, iC and iC++ <> wrote:
    > Who is Schildt?


    Schildt is a writer who has written a great number of books on C; those I
    have examined have been of poor quality, both in terms of egregious mistakes
    and in terms of significant omissions.

    > What is Shibboleths?


    There was a point in the distant past where there existed people who might
    want to infiltrate another tribe's territory. Their languages were different
    enough that the infiltrators could not pronounce certain phonemes correctly,
    not having grown up with them, and asking someone to say "shibboleth" (well,
    the word we now transliterate that way) was a reliable way to detect such
    infiltrators.

    The term is now generally used to refer to an arbitrary test for community
    membership. Nilges often asserts that Schildt's errors are merely violations
    of shibboleths, rather than genuine errors. However, a quick spin through
    a compiler shows that this is incorrect, and Schildt's errors really are
    serious errors in both his code and his explanations of C.

    -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, Jun 1, 2010
    #10
  11. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Jun 2, 6:02 am, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-06-01, iC and iC++ <> wrote:
    >
    > > Who is Schildt?

    >
    > Schildt is a writer who has written a great number of books on C; those I


    and other topics.

    > have examined have been of poor quality, both in terms of egregious mistakes
    > and in terms of significant omissions.


    You haven't adequately reviewed them nor have you the professional
    standing in the absence of academic work to make this judgement, even
    if it is true. Please stop: you look like a rather malicious fool.
    >
    > > What is Shibboleths?

    >
    > There was a point in the distant past where there existed people who might
    > want to infiltrate another tribe's territory.  Their languages were different
    > enough that the infiltrators could not pronounce certain phonemes correctly,
    > not having grown up with them, and asking someone to say "shibboleth" (well,
    > the word we now transliterate that way) was a reliable way to detect such
    > infiltrators.
    >
    > The term is now generally used to refer to an arbitrary test for community
    > membership.  Nilges often asserts that Schildt's errors are merely violations
    > of shibboleths, rather than genuine errors.  However, a quick spin through
    > a compiler shows that this is incorrect, and Schildt's errors really are
    > serious errors in both his code and his explanations of C.
    >

    We've shown you're wrong. You want C to adhere strictly to the
    standards of Linux insofar as you know them, but it massively predated
    Linux.

    People use Schildt effectively because learning is interactive in such
    a way that the mistakes of a good teacher are more instructive than
    the truths of a bad teacher. You et al. concede that Schildt is a
    clear writer, and this means he contributes to understanding. Although
    his books aren't great, I'd rather read him than your garbage on C.
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    spinoza1111, Jun 2, 2010
    #11
  12. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, Nick Keighley <>
    wrote:
    > On 31 May, 04:15, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >
    > >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

    >
    > > Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    > > now says he feels it was not appropriate.

    >
    > thanks for the excellent news!!
    >
    > Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
    > post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
    > this mistake.


    I am corresponding with Neumann with my concerns as we write. You
    know, he rejects unanswered 97% of Risks submissions and messages, yet
    I've had about 30 pieces published, so I don't think I've been
    ranting. Maybe that sound is you?

    He feels he needs to be fair to the many people who, unaccustomed to
    anything but the most overspecialized and narrow material on the job,
    think the post was off topic...not computer-related, despite the fact
    that you kinda need a computer to destroy a person's reputation
    through wikipedia.

    I have written him, saying that the problem is this "focus", this over-
    specialization, we learn in school, in a dysfunctional educational
    system, and in consequence, merely lively prose and research out of
    scale with the minimally acceptable is usually considered off topic.

    I have said he may publish my email in Risks 26.07 and 26.08.

    "Focus" shouldn't mean "ignoring basic decency and respect for
    others". But it usually does, doesn't it?
    >
    > > My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    > > the anti-Schildt cause.

    >
    > or people opposed to ranting lunacy... (BTW I wasn't one of them)
    >
    > > I have sent a private email to Neumann, requesting a retraction "of
    > > the retraction" based on the fact that while he sent me a private
    > > email saying it would be published in 26.06 because of its length,

    >
    > it *was* very long
    >
    > > he
    > > did not make any negative comments as to whether it was appropriate. I
    > > said that people like Schildt have a right not to be attacked based on
    > > shibboleths, by ignorant individuals without standing.

    >
    > well take the shibboleth word out and you *might* have a smidgeion of
    > a point. I don't agree that you have a point, but the general
    > principle that private individulas might suffer from bad things on the
    > internet is fine. You do realise you are doing Schildt no favours by
    > constantly banging on about this?
    >
    > > This issue is not going away.

    >
    > pity poor schildt.
    spinoza1111, Jun 2, 2010
    #12
  13. spinoza1111

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article
    <>,
    spinoza1111 <> wrote:

    > People use Schildt effectively because learning is interactive in such
    > a way that the mistakes of a good teacher are more instructive than
    > the truths of a bad teacher.


    Oh, good attempt at spin, Spinny! Well done - you should go far.

    --
    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, Jun 2, 2010
    #13
  14. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-06-02, Tim Streater <> wrote:
    > In article
    ><>,
    > spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >> People use Schildt effectively because learning is interactive in such
    >> a way that the mistakes of a good teacher are more instructive than
    >> the truths of a bad teacher.


    > Oh, good attempt at spin, Spinny! Well done - you should go far.


    It's a nice effort, but it's totally untrue.

    1. There's actually not much supporting the theory that Schildt is a
    "good teacher". His books seem very approachable, but we've got no
    examples on the record of people who have demonstrated themselves to
    be good programmers, and who ascribe their success to learning from
    Schildt. We do have a number of good programmers who ascribe difficulties
    they struggled to overcome to Schildt, and a number of bad programmers
    who think they learned a lot from Schildt.
    2. What makes a good teacher's mistakes useful is that the teacher can
    point them out and explain why they are mistakes. This usually
    requires an interactive environment. It also requires a willingness to
    admit that they were mistakes.
    3. It is at best irrelevant, because examples have been offered of books
    which are both accurate and good at teaching.

    -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, Jun 2, 2010
    #14
  15. On 01 Jun 2010 21:59:30 GMT, Seebs <> wrote:

    >On 2010-05-31, Colonel Harlan Sanders <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:15:31 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    >><> wrote:
    >>>http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

    >
    >>>Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    >>>now says he feels it was not appropriate.

    >
    >> Ha, ha.

    >
    >I don't see anything particularly funny here. Amusing, perhaps.


    An expression of Schadenfreude, (as expressed by Nelson in the
    Simpsons).

    It's hilarious in the context that Nilges has been talking up his
    "Article about Herb Schildt accepted at comp.risks" as a validation of
    his thesis:

    On Sun, 9 May 2010 04:47:44 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    <> wrote:
    >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.06.html#subj12
    >This shall shortly also be on the Digest, to where people may respond
    >to it. However, responses are competently moderated.


    He can't follow his instinct to call Neumann a digital Maoist mobster
    or whatever after that, but give him a few weeks and when he realises
    Neumann won't relent, he'll be abusing Neumann as roundly as he does
    you, me, Jimmy Wales, and anyone else who fails to fall in line, or
    worse, contradicts him.









    >>>My guess is that he was spammed by protests from people invested in
    >>>the anti-Schildt cause.

    >
    >Nilges, habitually spamming people and threatening to bombard them with
    >emailed demands, assumes other people do the same.
    >
    >I don't really care either way about Schildt, though, so the fact that it
    >would never even have crossed my mind to complain about that post is probably
    >irrelevant. It struck me as, perhaps tenuously, related to a real risk
    >that users of computers face. It was also an excellent illustration of
    >the problems inherent in accepting reputation claims from an internet source.
    >
    >-s
    Colonel Harlan Sanders, Jun 2, 2010
    #15
  16. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Jun 2, 2:27 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    > On 2010-06-02, Tim Streater <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > ><>,
    > >  spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > >> People use Schildt effectively because learning is interactive in such
    > >> a way that the mistakes of a good teacher are more instructive than
    > >> the truths of a bad teacher.

    > > Oh, good attempt at spin, Spinny! Well done - you should go far.

    >
    > It's a nice effort, but it's totally untrue.
    >
    > 1.  There's actually not much supporting the theory that Schildt is a
    > "good teacher".  His books seem very approachable, but we've got no
    > examples on the record of people who have demonstrated themselves to


    Who's we? How many Microsoft programmers do you know that can stand
    you?

    > be good programmers, and who ascribe their success to learning from
    > Schildt.  We do have a number of good programmers who ascribe difficulties
    > they struggled to overcome to Schildt, and a number of bad programmers
    > who think they learned a lot from Schildt.


    You're not a good programmer. You make incredibly stupid mistakes,
    such as off by one in a strlen when you had "all the time in the
    world" to test and review before you posted it. You claimed that a
    tool replaced %p when it replaced &*. You use fallthrough in switch.
    You declare preprocessor variables and then not use them in 50% of
    cases. You fail to initialize variables.

    Your error rate is incredibly high. It was 100% in the strlen and we
    can find far more errors in your code than you have found in Schildt.



    > 2.  What makes a good teacher's mistakes useful is that the teacher can
    > point them out and explain why they are mistakes.  This usually
    > requires an interactive environment.  It also requires a willingness to
    > admit that they were mistakes.


    There is of course no such thing as an absolute mistake for the SAME
    reason "all code has bugs" (your code has far more than the usual).
    That is: the correctness of any program is a social truth and is
    constituted in whether it is useful and safe, not that it is "free of
    bugs". Your code is useless and unsafe, whereas most of the bugs you
    point out in Schildt are under circumstances that rarely occur.

    > 3.  It is at best irrelevant, because examples have been offered of books
    > which are both accurate and good at teaching.
    >
    > -s
    > --
    > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / ://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    spinoza1111, Jun 2, 2010
    #16
  17. spinoza1111

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article
    <>,
    spinoza1111 <> wrote:

    > On Jun 2, 2:27 pm, Seebs <> wrote:


    > > 2.  What makes a good teacher's mistakes useful is that the teacher can
    > > point them out and explain why they are mistakes.  This usually
    > > requires an interactive environment.  It also requires a willingness to
    > > admit that they were mistakes.

    >
    > There is of course no such thing as an absolute mistake for the SAME
    > reason "all code has bugs" (your code has far more than the usual).
    > That is: the correctness of any program is a social truth and is
    > constituted in whether it is useful and safe, not that it is "free of
    > bugs". Your code is useless and unsafe, whereas most of the bugs you
    > point out in Schildt are under circumstances that rarely occur.


    Was this reply to Seebs typed by a human or some of those
    monkeys-at-keyboards whose output will eventually include the works of
    the world's finest authors?

    Spinny's burblings here are the best example of a non-sequitur that I've
    seen in a coon's age!

    --
    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, Jun 2, 2010
    #17
  18. On 2 June, 05:07, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, Nick Keighley <>
    > > On 31 May, 04:15, spinoza1111 <> wrote:


    > > >http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/26.07.html

    >
    > > > Peter Neumann has apologized for publishing my article on Schildt. He
    > > > now says he feels it was not appropriate.

    >
    > > thanks for the excellent news!!

    >
    > > Even you must have thought your derranged rant was an odd thing to
    > > post on RISKS. I was considering ceasing to read RISKS simply based on
    > > this mistake.

    >
    > I am corresponding with Neumann with my concerns as we write. You
    > know, he rejects unanswered 97% of Risks submissions and messages,


    I'm amazed! Are those genuine submissions are does he get spammed?

    > yet
    > I've had about 30 pieces published, so I don't think I've been
    > ranting. Maybe that sound is you?


    I didn't say your other RISKS posts were rants. I said that one was.
    You'll be pleased to hear you've had 29 more posts accepted to RISKS
    than I.

    > He feels he needs to be fair to the many people who, unaccustomed to
    > anything but the most overspecialized and narrow material on the job,
    > think the post was off topic...not computer-related, despite the fact
    > that you kinda need a computer to destroy a person's reputation
    > through wikipedia.


    he said that or you "read between the lines"? I'd say destroying a
    reputation on Wikipedia (I'm not agreeing that this is so in this
    case) is indeed computer related.


    > I have written him, saying that the problem is this "focus", this over-
    > specialization, we learn in school, in a dysfunctional educational
    > system, and in consequence, merely lively prose and research out of
    > scale with the minimally acceptable is usually considered off topic.
    >
    > I have said he may publish my email in Risks 26.07 and 26.08.
    >
    > "Focus" shouldn't mean "ignoring basic decency and respect for
    > others". But it usually does, doesn't it?


    no not necessarily.


    <snip>
    Nick Keighley, Jun 2, 2010
    #18
  19. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    Seebs, Jun 2, 2010
    #19
  20. spinoza1111

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-06-02, Tim Streater <> wrote:
    > In article
    ><>,
    > spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    >> On Jun 2, 2:27 pm, Seebs <> wrote:
    >> > 2.  What makes a good teacher's mistakes useful is that the teacher can
    >> > point them out and explain why they are mistakes.  This usually
    >> > requires an interactive environment.  It also requires a willingness to
    >> > admit that they were mistakes.


    >> There is of course no such thing as an absolute mistake


    Amusingly, this is his dodge to get around a criticism of a previous post
    in which he insisted that there were in fact mistakes.

    >> for the SAME
    >> reason "all code has bugs" (your code has far more than the usual).
    >> That is: the correctness of any program is a social truth


    That is to say: Nilges is completely obsessed with whether people like
    him, and since caring whether things are technically correct would make
    him look bad, he has to reject it.

    >> and is
    >> constituted in whether it is useful and safe, not that it is "free of
    >> bugs".


    I would say that useful usually implies reliable, and something which is
    reliable and safe is probably "free of bugs" in a practical sense.

    >> Your code is useless and unsafe, whereas most of the bugs you
    >> point out in Schildt are under circumstances that rarely occur.


    This is an interesting allegation, but not particularly true; many of the
    things pointed out in Schildt's code happen pretty much constantly in the
    real world.

    > Was this reply to Seebs typed by a human or some of those
    > monkeys-at-keyboards whose output will eventually include the works of
    > the world's finest authors?


    > Spinny's burblings here are the best example of a non-sequitur that I've
    > seen in a coon's age!


    It's not really a non-sequitur, except in the usual way that his impressive
    NPD makes him completely immune to the concept of truth as a statement about
    the world rather than a statement about his personal importance.

    He's claimed that Schildt's books aren't bad. He tried the tactic of
    claiming that, because Schildt is a good teacher, the mistakes are
    instructive. When I said something that made him not feel like this
    argument was winning, he immediately switched to a set of "beliefs" (I
    use the term loosely) under which it was irrelevant.

    The sole goal here is for him to experience the "win" of feeling as though,
    for each thing someone has said that he dislikes, he has said something
    which, if it were true, would make them wrong. He is not in a place to
    comprehend the notion that it matters that his defenses are mutually
    exclusive. There's no semantic content here; there's no underlying set of
    beliefs about whether any given program is buggy or not, or what that
    would imply. There's only a general assertion that other people are wrong.

    -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, Jun 2, 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. spinoza1111

    In the matter of Herb Schildt

    spinoza1111, Sep 25, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    372
    Colonel Harlan Sanders
    Oct 5, 2009
  2. spinoza1111

    Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt

    spinoza1111, Dec 22, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    785
    spinoza1111
    Dec 26, 2009
  3. spinoza1111
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    2,041
    David Thompson
    May 17, 2010
  4. spinoza1111
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    490
    Jens Thoms Toerring
    Apr 10, 2010
  5. spinoza1111
    Replies:
    137
    Views:
    2,102
    spinoza1111
    May 28, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page