Warning to newbies

S

spinoza1111

Yeah.  This is a great example of where precision of terminology is important;
NaN is a value, but Not a Number.

They had a laugh at Gauss' expense
When he said the square root of negative one:
NAN is something which I can calculate-with
NAN is something with which we can have fun.
The ignorant take numbers seriously
I have a laugh at their expense
By showing that structurally
NaN is a number, now and from hence.
Clerks need precision of terminology
The wise laugh at them from Parnassus
Clerks understand not philosophy
And require the bridge of asses.
NaN plus one is NaN, a meaningful result:
Therefore NaN is a number, not an insult.
 
C

Colonel Harlan Sanders

Because this article harmed Schildt,

You're lying.
He brought out 3 more editions of the same book, without bothering to
correct the errors. He wasn't harmed, he didn't and doesn't care.

and I saw people harmed by office
politics in the corporation in the same way, therefore it amuses me to
show how much malice was there.

Yes, we know you're obsessed with this. But no one else cares; not
Schildt certainly despite your absurd claims to know his thoughts, so
bringing into every single post you make is very, very tedious.


Very funny.

comp.risks obscure?

Yes. EVERY newsgroup is obscure to those who don't frequent it.
You're probably implying that it's important and that anyone who
doesn't know that is an idiot. It's importance and utility are quite
different from the fact that it is obscure. And, I was personally
acquainted with the group before it was mentioned here. I'm not so
self centred that I think that an obscure fact or publication that I
know is general knowledge. So **** you and your doggerel.

No, I don't.

Liar. Random example in this thread:
"Computions". Once is a typo. Two is a subliterate trying to tell me
something.

Anyway, enough wasting time on you.
 
S

Seebs

You're lying.

This is unknowable.
He brought out 3 more editions of the same book, without bothering to
correct the errors. He wasn't harmed, he didn't and doesn't care.

Incorrect on two counts.

1. Several easily-fixed errors are definitely fixed in the 4th
edition.
2. Only the 4th edition has come out since I wrote my critique.

I would point out, though, that the 4th edition still has some very
serious misunderstandings in it.
Yes, we know you're obsessed with this. But no one else cares; not
Schildt certainly despite your absurd claims to know his thoughts, so
bringing into every single post you make is very, very tedious.

More importantly, he's done nothing to demonstrate the existence of this
alleged malice. Showing that someone was harmed by something doesn't
demonstrate malice; you'd have to show that the *purpose* was to do harm.

-s
 
C

Colonel Harlan Sanders

This is unknowable.


Incorrect on two counts.

1. Several easily-fixed errors are definitely fixed in the 4th
edition.
2. Only the 4th edition has come out since I wrote my critique.

I would point out, though, that the 4th edition still has some very
serious misunderstandings in it.

OK, I had assumed you reviewed the 1st edn. But the point remains if
there was "just" a single new edition, few books are so successful, so
it's hard to see evidence of "harm". (Of course, Nilges could assert
your review forestalled a fifth edition.)

And to the question of "lying": Nilges has often asserted that
"Schildt was harmed" by the review, and never backed it up with any
evidence, other than he "knows" it from Schildt, he implies, but can't
reveal how. So we have no evidence either way, but I feel it's a safe
bet that Nilges just made it up. And I'm pretty sure he makes up or
vastly exaggerates all his supposed connections with important people
and institutions.

I do not think it accurate to call it "decades ago" when I think it's
actually under 15 years. Well, maybe 15-16, but still. Another four
years and it'll be "DECADES AGO". (By which time I hope to have gotten

Well, I'm not sure if you have to have two or more to justify a
plural, you do say "one and a half decades". But make it "over a
decade" if you want to be safe.
 
S

Seebs

OK, I had assumed you reviewed the 1st edn. But the point remains if
there was "just" a single new edition, few books are so successful, so
it's hard to see evidence of "harm". (Of course, Nilges could assert
your review forestalled a fifth edition.)

I actually am more bothered by the fact that the garbage I found was
in the *third* edition.
And to the question of "lying": Nilges has often asserted that
"Schildt was harmed" by the review, and never backed it up with any
evidence, other than he "knows" it from Schildt, he implies, but can't
reveal how. So we have no evidence either way, but I feel it's a safe
bet that Nilges just made it up. And I'm pretty sure he makes up or
vastly exaggerates all his supposed connections with important people
and institutions.

Quite possibly. However, "lying" requires not only that he be making
stuff up, but that he be at some consciously-accessible level *aware*
of this. I have seen nothing to suggest that he is capable of detecting
when he flatly contradicts himself, suggesting a fairly minimal tendency
towards any form of introspection.

In short, while I agree that all the evidence suggests a consistent pattern
of misrepresentation, the pattern it suggests is one which does not incline
me to believe that he is aware that the things he makes up are made up by
him, or that they are false.
Well, I'm not sure if you have to have two or more to justify a
plural, you do say "one and a half decades". But make it "over a
decade" if you want to be safe.

I think that's safe.

-s
 
M

Michael Foukarakis

On Jan 31, 5:15 am,spinoza1111<[email protected]> wrote:
[snipping article because, really, there's no point]
You know, Nilges does serve a purpose; the more rant threads he

Logical analysis, metrical verse, and constant returns to on-topic
matters aren't rants. The problem is that the "hacker ethos" and mass
culture have normalized deviance here to the extent that nondeviance
seems like ranting.

I can imagine the book title now; "The Conformant Spinoza" - you could
go on with the Che references ad infinitum.
Look, we're all just supposed to work 16 hour days so that clowns like
Steve Jobs can take the credit for our work (and mistakenly market a
brain damaged Newton as the next big thing). Then we are REQUIRED, not
permitted, to fly to product releases and applaud the Big Man like
attendees at a speech by Kim il Jong.

Aw..You have rights, you know. You're supposed to work 8 hours a day.
Too many people fought for you to throw it in the dumpster. If you're
struggling for 16 hours a day to make something work, then it's only
natural for others, be it clowns or generally more capable
businessmen, to profit upon your efforts while your acts of masochism
(because it can only be described as such) prove detrimental to you
and those around you. Those aren't superficial opportunities - my
grandma used to say (loosely translated; there must be a similar
expression in English but I don't know of one) "he who has no mind,
has legs", you should try to understand it.
In this "digital Maoism" (as Jared Lanier calls it), individuals
dependent on a paycheck who are one job away from homelessness are
called "ranters" who "rock the boat" and who "bite the hand that feeds
them" where the language conceals the reality as effectively as any
newspeak.

It's Jaron Lanier, his "digital Maoism" quote is not relevant (I'm
sure the word collective in the Wikipedia article confused you), and
do you even have anything original to say, or will you keep quoting
people with one-half of a syllogism behind whatever it is they try to
say?
 
N

Nick Keighley

[...] all pretty words
about the love of Jesus, but behind the facade he's twisted with hate
and bitterness.

A text-book whited sepulcher.

thanks, I had to look that one up. Handy phrase.
 
J

jamm

spinoza1111 said:
Beware of certain buzzwords including "sequence points" and

WOW THANKS FOR THE TIP GUY. moving on...

--
*From the 1966 TV series:*
Robin: You can't get away from Batman that easy!
Batman: Easily.
Robin: Easily.
Batman: Good grammar is essential, Robin.
 
N

Nick Keighley

I do not think it accurate to call it "decades ago" when I think it's
actually under 15 years.  

yes, I like to be precise about these things. A physical science based
education seems to sensitise you to these things.

I think an important point, though, is that you pretty much stand by
what you wrote. I don't think spinoza is doing Mr Schildt any favours!

Amazon recomended me a schildt book just the other day!
Well, maybe 15-16, but still.  Another four
years and it'll be "DECADES AGO".  (By which time I hope to have gotten
around to writing a new one for CTCR4E, and mothballed the previous one
as "comments on the third edition".)



Yes.  I believe he's got Twink and Kenny (if those are in fact two people),

I don't think they have opinions I think they just like being
contrary.

and I think perhaps also the "daemon helper" spammer.  I think Jacob Navia has
been more sympathetic to his views than some other people, which sort of
surprised me actually.

I think Jacob's divided. He probably thinks "the regs" deserve a
roasting and having the p- taken out of them, But he's criticised
Richard heathfield for responding to spinoza and continuing long off
topic threads. I don't mind 'em as long as they are confined to a
single thread with near zero technical content. You don't have to read
em if you don't want to.


--
Look, I am French, and even worst, I live in Paris. I know
something about fads really.
Jacob Navia
 
S

spinoza1111

OK, I had assumed you reviewed the 1st edn. But the point remains if
there was "just" a single new edition, few books are so successful, so
it's hard to see evidence of "harm". (Of course, Nilges could assert
your review forestalled a fifth edition.)

And to the question of "lying": Nilges has often asserted that
"Schildt was harmed" by the review, and never backed it up with any
evidence, other than he "knows" it from Schildt, he implies, but can't
reveal how. So we have no evidence either way, but I feel it's a safe
bet that Nilges just made it up. And I'm pretty sure he makes up or
vastly exaggerates all his supposed connections with important people
and institutions.

I sent Schildt email informing him of my campaign and asking him if he
felt it was appropriate. Herb said it was and confirmed that the anti-
Schildt campaign harmed him. Herb thanked me very deeply after I was
able to get the wikipedia article cleaned up.

I have always described my connections with important and noteworthy
people and institutions with a great deal of care. I have here
described exactly how I was affiliated with Princeton as an employee
in Information Centers for five years and how during that time Nash
was referred to me for assistance on a specific question about C,
which I answered. Occasionally Nash asked other questions of me and
other staffers.
 
S

spinoza1111

[snipping article because, really, there's no point]
You know, Nilges does serve a purpose; the more rant threads he
Logical analysis, metrical verse, and constant returns to on-topic
matters aren't rants. The problem is that the "hacker ethos" and mass
culture have normalized deviance here to the extent that nondeviance
seems like ranting.

I can imagine the book title now; "The Conformant Spinoza" - you could
go on with the Che references ad infinitum.
Look, we're all just supposed to work 16 hour days so that clowns like
Steve Jobs can take the credit for our work (and mistakenly market a
brain damaged Newton as the next big thing). Then we are REQUIRED, not
permitted, to fly to product releases and applaud the Big Man like
attendees at a speech by Kim il Jong.

Aw..You have rights, you know. You're supposed to work 8 hours a day.
Too many people fought for you to throw it in the dumpster. If you're
struggling for 16 hours a day to make something work, then it's only
natural for others, be it clowns or generally more capable
businessmen, to profit upon your efforts while your acts of masochism
(because it can only be described as such) prove detrimental to you
and those around you. Those aren't superficial opportunities - my
grandma used to say (loosely translated; there must be a similar
expression in English but I don't know of one) "he who has no mind,
has legs", you should try to understand it.
In this "digital Maoism" (as Jared Lanier calls it), individuals
dependent on a paycheck who are one job away from homelessness are
called "ranters" who "rock the boat" and who "bite the hand that feeds
them" where the language conceals the reality as effectively as any
newspeak.

It's Jaron Lanier, his "digital Maoism" quote is not relevant (I'm
sure the word collective in the Wikipedia article confused you), and
do you even have anything original to say, or will you keep quoting
people with one-half of a syllogism behind whatever it is they try to
say?

"Decisions made in the formative years of computer networking, for
instance, promoted online anonymity, and over the years, as millions
upon millions of people began using the Web, Mr. Lanier says,
anonymity has helped enable the dark side of human nature. NASTY,
ANONYMOUS ATTACKS on individuals and institutions have flourished, and
what Mr. Lanier calls a “CULTURE OF SADISM” has gone mainstream. In
some countries anonymity and MOB BEHAVIOR have resulted in actual
witch hunts. “In 2007,” Mr. Lanier reports, “a series of ‘Scarlet
Letter’ postings in China incited online throngs to hunt down accused
adulterers. In 2008, the focus shifted to Tibet sympathizers.”
 
M

Michael Foukarakis

[snipping article because, really, there's no point]
You know, Nilges does serve a purpose; the more rant threads he
Logical analysis, metrical verse, and constant returns to on-topic
matters aren't rants. The problem is that the "hacker ethos" and mass
culture have normalized deviance here to the extent that nondeviance
seems like ranting.
I can imagine the book title now; "The Conformant Spinoza" - you could
go on with the Che references ad infinitum.
Aw..You have rights, you know. You're supposed to work 8 hours a day.
Too many people fought for you to throw it in the dumpster. If you're
struggling for 16 hours a day to make something work, then it's only
natural for others, be it clowns or generally more capable
businessmen, to profit upon your efforts while your acts of masochism
(because it can only be described as such) prove detrimental to you
and those around you. Those aren't superficial opportunities - my
grandma used to say (loosely translated; there must be a similar
expression in English but I don't know of one) "he who has no mind,
has legs", you should try to understand it.
It's Jaron Lanier, his "digital Maoism" quote is not relevant (I'm
sure the word collective in the Wikipedia article confused you), and
do you even have anything original to say, or will you keep quoting
people with one-half of a syllogism behind whatever it is they try to
say?

"Decisions made in the formative years of computer networking, for
instance, promoted online anonymity, and over the years, as millions
upon millions of people began using the Web, Mr. Lanier says,
anonymity has helped enable the dark side of human nature. NASTY,
ANONYMOUS ATTACKS on individuals and institutions have flourished, and
what Mr. Lanier calls a “CULTURE OF SADISM” has gone mainstream. In
some countries anonymity and MOB BEHAVIOR have resulted in actual
witch hunts. “In 2007,” Mr. Lanier reports, “a series of ‘Scarlet
Letter’ postings in China incited online throngs to hunt down accused
adulterers. In 2008, the focus shifted to Tibet sympathizers.”

You, like many others before you, are confusing accountability and
security. Intentionally misunderstanding and mixing of concepts in
hope of appearing knowledgeable - unsuccessfully.

If you want a world clear of "nasty" attacks, sadism, mob behaviour
and other offenses against human rights (one of which you are
perpetrating as you type), you should seek to promote education,
culture and ethics (first on yourself, then your family, then
everybody else) instead of falling into the same trap others fell
before you - patchwork.

Goodbye.
 
S

spinoza1111

[snipping article because, really, there's no point]
You know, Nilges does serve a purpose; the more rant threads he
Logical analysis, metrical verse, and constant returns to on-topic
matters aren't rants. The problem is that the "hacker ethos" and mass
culture have normalized deviance here to the extent that nondeviance
seems like ranting.

I can imagine the book title now; "The Conformant Spinoza" - you could
go on with the Che references ad infinitum.
Look, we're all just supposed to work 16 hour days so that clowns like
Steve Jobs can take the credit for our work (and mistakenly market a
brain damaged Newton as the next big thing). Then we are REQUIRED, not
permitted, to fly to product releases and applaud the Big Man like
attendees at a speech by Kim il Jong.

Aw..You have rights, you know. You're supposed to work 8 hours a day.

In Silicon Valley, you were in my experience supposed to meet the
deadline. We could come in any time (one guy arrived at 3PM and worked
until 3AM: I would come in at ten and work until ten PM or later).

And like many developers, I liked the pace back in the day. This,
however, is what Marx called false consciousness...where people feel
"good" about working against their own real interests.
Too many people fought for you to throw it in the dumpster. If you're

Give me a break. Nobody fought for me.
struggling for 16 hours a day to make something work, then it's only

Macho bullshit. You clowns struggle to write coherent English and
can't come up with sensible answers to many technical questions. I'm
sure you either have sinecures or struggle 16 hours a day.
natural for others, be it clowns or generally more capable
businessmen, to profit upon your efforts while your acts of masochism

It is well known that software is hard, and it is also well known that
companies rush to market with software in such a manner that rel. 1.0
is a joke. The only people who don't know this are developers who are
paid not to be aware of their exploitation.
(because it can only be described as such) prove detrimental to you
and those around you. Those aren't superficial opportunities - my
grandma used to say (loosely translated; there must be a similar
expression in English but I don't know of one) "he who has no mind,
has legs", you should try to understand it.

The bourgeoisie is fond of copy-book maxims and market failures in
equal measure. The people who do the real work of the world are
encouraged to blame themselves for the failings of capitalism. We all
have "tough grannies" and do not see the dead. Charles Manson's Mom
sold him for a pitcher of beer, and this is what life was like back in
the day: a sordid and miserable struggle for everyone.
It's Jaron Lanier, his "digital Maoism" quote is not relevant (I'm
sure the word collective in the Wikipedia article confused you), and
do you even have anything original to say, or will you keep quoting
people with one-half of a syllogism behind whatever it is they try to
say?

"Decisions made in the formative years of computer networking, for
instance, promoted online anonymity, and over the years, as millions
upon millions of people began using the Web, Mr. Lanier says,
anonymity has helped enable the dark side of human nature. NASTY,
ANONYMOUS ATTACKS on individuals and institutions have flourished, and
what Mr. Lanier calls a “CULTURE OF SADISM” has gone mainstream. In
some countries anonymity and MOB BEHAVIOR have resulted in actual
witch hunts. “In 2007,” Mr. Lanier reports, “a series of ‘Scarlet
Letter’ postings in China incited online throngs to hunt down accused
adulterers. In 2008, the focus shifted to Tibet sympathizers.”
 
J

James

The evaluation of an expression at compile time. The intent of the
expression was to test whether a number exceeded long precision. The
Microsoft compiler stayed inside long precision, the Borland compiler
did not.

Hey, that's very nice of you to help him out Nilges. I personally think it's
neat to be able to help an extremely talented individual such as, John Nash;
WOW!

;^)




BTW, I personally think that you were able to "convert" one other "clever"
person that writes to this "humble" little list from time to time. That
would be 'Chris M. Thomason' based on the following thread:


http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/6b84114d94f44a09


Please Nilges, teach me how you managed to get an "apparent" asshole like
Chris T to treat you with respect!? I read that thread, and he seemed fairly
disrespectful to you at __first__? Then, he, well, changed?????




NEAT!

:^)
 
S

spinoza1111

[snipping article because, really, there's no point]
You know, Nilges does serve a purpose; the more rant threads he
Logical analysis, metrical verse, and constant returns to on-topic
matters aren't rants. The problem is that the "hacker ethos" and mass
culture have normalized deviance here to the extent that nondeviance
seems like ranting.
I can imagine the book title now; "The Conformant Spinoza" - you could
go on with the Che references ad infinitum.
Look, we're all just supposed to work 16 hour days so that clowns like
Steve Jobs can take the credit for our work (and mistakenly market a
brain damaged Newton as the next big thing). Then we are REQUIRED, not
permitted, to fly to product releases and applaud the Big Man like
attendees at a speech by Kim il Jong.
Aw..You have rights, you know. You're supposed to work 8 hours a day.
Too many people fought for you to throw it in the dumpster. If you're
struggling for 16 hours a day to make something work, then it's only
natural for others, be it clowns or generally more capable
businessmen, to profit upon your efforts while your acts of masochism
(because it can only be described as such) prove detrimental to you
and those around you. Those aren't superficial opportunities - my
grandma used to say (loosely translated; there must be a similar
expression in English but I don't know of one) "he who has no mind,
has legs", you should try to understand it.
In this "digital Maoism" (as Jared Lanier calls it), individuals
dependent on a paycheck who are one job away from homelessness are
called "ranters" who "rock the boat" and who "bite the hand that feeds
them" where the language conceals the reality as effectively as any
newspeak.
It's Jaron Lanier, his "digital Maoism" quote is not relevant (I'm
sure the word collective in the Wikipedia article confused you), and
do you even have anything original to say, or will you keep quoting
people with one-half of a syllogism behind whatever it is they try to
say?
"Decisions made in the formative years of computer networking, for
instance, promoted online anonymity, and over the years, as millions
upon millions of people began using the Web, Mr. Lanier says,
anonymity has helped enable the dark side of human nature. NASTY,
ANONYMOUS ATTACKS on individuals and institutions have flourished, and
what Mr. Lanier calls a “CULTURE OF SADISM” has gone mainstream. In
some countries anonymity and MOB BEHAVIOR have resulted in actual
witch hunts. “In 2007,” Mr. Lanier reports, “a series of ‘Scarlet
Letter’ postings in China incited online throngs to hunt down accused
adulterers. In 2008, the focus shifted to Tibet sympathizers.”

You, like many others before you, are confusing accountability and
security. Intentionally misunderstanding and mixing of concepts in
hope of appearing knowledgeable - unsuccessfully.

If you want a world clear of "nasty" attacks, sadism, mob behaviour
and other offenses against human rights (one of which you are
perpetrating as you type), you should seek to promote education,
culture and ethics (first on yourself, then your family, then
everybody else) instead of falling into the same trap others fell
before you - patchwork.

Part of indoctrination is the cultivation of abstract language,
unmoored to anything concrete. For example, what is "education,
culture, and ethics"?

Is taking pride, as Seebach takes pride, in not completing a single CS
class "promoting education"?

And what's "cultured" about a digital mob consisting of people like
Harlan and Rosenau who confine their comments to condemning the person
they've identified as The Target?

And what's "ethical" about destroying Schildt's good name, or
deliberately buttfucking a comp.risks search so as to be able to say
that "Nilges is not in comp.risks"?

You're like middle class Germans who kept on talking even after 1945
about "education, culture and ethics" without facing the reality of
death camps.

It would take forensic analysis of posts going back to 1999 in
comp.programming and comp.lang.c to show that in all cases, I entered
these discussions with interesting and well-received topics and ideas
but a literacy that in this written medium exceeded by a large margin
that of the regs. These were greeted by "digital Maoism" in the form
of self-appointed "elder brothers" (a phrase from the Cultural
Revolution in China) who found my conclusions and style unacceptable,
and who incited mob violence.

I may have to perform this forensic analysis on behalf of my attorney,
but so be it. This issue is not going away, and the bullying in these
newsgroups is going to stop.
 
M

Michael Foukarakis

[snipping article because, really, there's no point]
You know, Nilges does serve a purpose; the more rant threads he
Logical analysis, metrical verse, and constant returns to on-topic
matters aren't rants. The problem is that the "hacker ethos" and mass
culture have normalized deviance here to the extent that nondeviance
seems like ranting.
I can imagine the book title now; "The Conformant Spinoza" - you could
go on with the Che references ad infinitum.
Look, we're all just supposed to work 16 hour days so that clowns like
Steve Jobs can take the credit for our work (and mistakenly market a
brain damaged Newton as the next big thing). Then we are REQUIRED, not
permitted, to fly to product releases and applaud the Big Man like
attendees at a speech by Kim il Jong.
Aw..You have rights, you know. You're supposed to work 8 hours a day.
Too many people fought for you to throw it in the dumpster. If you're
struggling for 16 hours a day to make something work, then it's only
natural for others, be it clowns or generally more capable
businessmen, to profit upon your efforts while your acts of masochism
(because it can only be described as such) prove detrimental to you
and those around you. Those aren't superficial opportunities - my
grandma used to say (loosely translated; there must be a similar
expression in English but I don't know of one) "he who has no mind,
has legs", you should try to understand it.
In this "digital Maoism" (as Jared Lanier calls it), individuals
dependent on a paycheck who are one job away from homelessness are
called "ranters" who "rock the boat" and who "bite the hand that feeds
them" where the language conceals the reality as effectively as any
newspeak.
It's Jaron Lanier, his "digital Maoism" quote is not relevant (I'm
sure the word collective in the Wikipedia article confused you), and
do you even have anything original to say, or will you keep quoting
people with one-half of a syllogism behind whatever it is they try to
say?
"Decisions made in the formative years of computer networking, for
instance, promoted online anonymity, and over the years, as millions
upon millions of people began using the Web, Mr. Lanier says,
anonymity has helped enable the dark side of human nature. NASTY,
ANONYMOUS ATTACKS on individuals and institutions have flourished, and
what Mr. Lanier calls a “CULTURE OF SADISM” has gone mainstream. In
some countries anonymity and MOB BEHAVIOR have resulted in actual
witch hunts. “In 2007,” Mr. Lanier reports, “a series of ‘Scarlet
Letter’ postings in China incited online throngs to hunt down accused
adulterers. In 2008, the focus shifted to Tibet sympathizers.”
You, like many others before you, are confusing accountability and
security. Intentionally misunderstanding and mixing of concepts in
hope of appearing knowledgeable - unsuccessfully.
If you want a world clear of "nasty" attacks, sadism, mob behaviour
and other offenses against human rights (one of which you are
perpetrating as you type), you should seek to promote education,
culture and ethics (first on yourself, then your family, then
everybody else) instead of falling into the same trap others fell
before you - patchwork.

Part of indoctrination is the cultivation of abstract language,
unmoored to anything concrete. For example, what is "education,
culture, and ethics"?

Is taking pride, as Seebach takes pride, in not completing a single CS
class "promoting education"?

And what's "cultured" about a digital mob consisting of people like
Harlan and Rosenau who confine their comments to condemning the person
they've identified as The Target?

And what's "ethical" about destroying Schildt's good name, or
deliberately buttfucking a comp.risks search so as to be able to say
that "Nilges is not in comp.risks"?

You're like middle class Germans who kept on talking even after 1945
about "education, culture and ethics" without facing the reality of
death camps.

It would take forensic analysis of posts going back to 1999 in
comp.programming and comp.lang.c to show that in all cases, I entered
these discussions with interesting and well-received topics and ideas
but a literacy that in this written medium exceeded by a large margin
that of the regs. These were greeted by "digital Maoism" in the form
of self-appointed "elder brothers" (a phrase from the Cultural
Revolution in China) who found my conclusions and style unacceptable,
and who incited mob violence.

I may have to perform this forensic analysis on behalf of my attorney,
but so be it. This issue is not going away, and the bullying in these
newsgroups is going to stop.



Please continue. Your monologues will be of great comical value for
future generations.
 
S

spinoza1111

This is unknowable.


Incorrect on two counts.

1.  Several easily-fixed errors are definitely fixed in the 4th
edition.
2.  Only the 4th edition has come out since I wrote my critique.

I would point out, though, that the 4th edition still has some very
serious misunderstandings in it.


More importantly, he's done nothing to demonstrate the existence of this
alleged malice.  Showing that someone was harmed by something doesn't
demonstrate malice; you'd have to show that the *purpose* was to do harm.

Your malice would certainly be plain to an American jury. An attorney
would simply demonstrate that your were envious of Herb's academic
qualifications and angry that McGraw Hill wouldn't pay you enough.

I would in fact describe you as "malicious" both in your conduct
towards Herb and towards me. I offered you a chance to discuss our
differences by way of email even as McGraw Hill offered to pay you an
honorarium, and in both cases you turned these opportunities down.
This was an unfriendly and malicious thing to do.

You are also fond, here, of calling people "morons" and "insane". And
shove your *tu quoque*, Seebach, since I don't label people: I analyze
beliefs and criticise behavior.

There are serious flaws in the C standard, and it's a waste of ink,
since no one understands it here or elsewhere. It doesn't have the
clarity a standard should have because it tried to square the circle,
and wound up labeling running code "undefined" when in most cases this
code has a defined result. That is because it's junk science which
bends over backward to make existing compilers unchangeable so as to
protect vendor profits.

A sensible "C standard" would have in fact defined a new C free of
these problems:

"Examples of undefined behavior are:
accessing outside the bounds of an array
overflowing a signed integer
reaching the end of a non-void function without finding a return
statement, when the return value is used
reading the value of a variable before initializing it
These operations are all programming errors that could occur using
many programming languages; C draws criticism because its standard
explicitly identifies numerous cases of undefined behavior, including
some where the behavior could have been made well defined, and does
not specify any run-time error handling mechanism."

I can see where the programmer could be responsible for "accessing
outside the bounds of an array" or "overflowing a signed integer".

But "reaching the end of a non-void function" and falling off the end
of the world is flat-earth thinking, the unnecessary preservation of
the mistakes of the past and the limitations of old machines. You
should have FORCED vendors to hire compiler developers to FIX this
problem by simply adding a machine language return statement behind
ALL such functions as a guard, or behind functions where the return is
missing. This isn't rocket science.

"Evaluating actual parameters right to left, or left to right, or ****
all, such that a(b, b++) is undefined" is additional malarkey. I
encountered this issue in compiling variable length parameter lists
with no fixed bound in my book compiler, and, since storage is cheap,
I simply built a temporary TABLE so as to evaluate left to right in
the event that a leftward parameter calculated a needed result, and I
did so in Visual Basic.

This was simple in VB .Net. I could see it being a problem in a
compiler running on a limited machine, and in that (unlikely)
scenario, you'd want to emit stacking code in one pass. But this is to
take an absurd delight in living in the past, since it would be
foolish (IMO) to use a limited machine for compilation when large
machines are available...although I learned at Motorola that there's
no upper bound to the foolishness of geeks (the lads in Schaumburg
wanted to use a Z80 to compile when they had an IBM mainframe, in
1979).

As to "reading the value of a variable before initializing it", it is
indeed common practice in many programming languages to let the
programmer take the fall if he creates a variable without assigning
it, and many languages, including modern C, make it easy to initialize
and declare in one line.

The problem in the C99 standard was that you clowns gave this common
situation a pompous and silly name ("trap representation") which both
implied you'd done something other than said "yup, sure is a problem".

As in the case of "sequence points", you named a bug in order to make
it look like you'd done real work. This in your case, I believe, was
because you'd not studied computer science in the uni environment,
where students are given the chance to cultivate integrity.

Naming problems and making them into apparent features and bogus
solutions, and clubs with which to beat both newbies and intelligent
senior programmers new to C (or as in my case, revisiting this zoo) is
what MIS creeps do, not scientists.
 
S

spinoza1111

Hey, that's very nice of you to help him out Nilges. I personally think it's
neat to be able to help an extremely talented individual such as, John Nash;
WOW!

It was neat. I hardly thought about it at the time, but a year after I
left Princeton, I opened up Time magazine to see Nash featured, and my
former boss called me a week later to be a source for Sylvia Nasar,
then with the New York Times, who wrote the book that became the
movie.

I was also privileged at Princeton to meet Cornel West, the
distinguished African American philosopher, Ralph Nader, Brian
Kernighan and David Hansen. At Bell Northern Research I met Whit
Diffie and Bob Gaskins (who invented Power Point).

None of these individuals had the toxic insecurity of the regs here
that causes the regs here to lash out at people, renarrating their
accomplishments as shit because their lives are shit.
;^)

BTW, I personally think that you were able to "convert" one other "clever"
person that writes to this "humble" little list from time to time. That
would be 'Chris M. Thomason' based on the following thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/browse_frm/thread/6b84114d...

Please Nilges, teach me how you managed to get an "apparent" asshole like
Chris T to treat you with respect!? I read that thread, and he seemed fairly
disrespectful to you at __first__? Then, he, well,    changed?????

I remember that exchange. I wasn't as good a poet back then, but we
did successfully work together. This is what this newsgroup is for.
Unfortunately, such outcomes are rare. And that discussion was spammed
by the regs, who were enraged that Chris and I were actually working
together and solving a problem.

The problem was one of computer science, but Kiki, filled with
resentment if not hate, kept whining that it was off topic because C
Sharp could handle the problem with ease.

Such exchanges are all too rare and the reasons are

Richard Heathfield
Keith Thompson
Peter Seebach
"Colonel Harlan Sanders"
Herbert Rosenau

and a few others.

Couldn't we set up a Facebook group?
 
S

spinoza1111

[snipping article because, really, there's no point]
You know, Nilges does serve a purpose; the more rant threads he
Logical analysis, metrical verse, and constant returns to on-topic
matters aren't rants. The problem is that the "hacker ethos" and mass
culture have normalized deviance here to the extent that nondeviance
seems like ranting.
I can imagine the book title now; "The Conformant Spinoza" - you could
go on with the Che references ad infinitum.
Look, we're all just supposed to work 16 hour days so that clowns like
Steve Jobs can take the credit for our work (and mistakenly market a
brain damaged Newton as the next big thing). Then we are REQUIRED, not
permitted, to fly to product releases and applaud the Big Man like
attendees at a speech by Kim il Jong.
Aw..You have rights, you know. You're supposed to work 8 hours a day.
Too many people fought for you to throw it in the dumpster. If you're
struggling for 16 hours a day to make something work, then it's only
natural for others, be it clowns or generally more capable
businessmen, to profit upon your efforts while your acts of masochism
(because it can only be described as such) prove detrimental to you
and those around you. Those aren't superficial opportunities - my
grandma used to say (loosely translated; there must be a similar
expression in English but I don't know of one) "he who has no mind,
has legs", you should try to understand it.
In this "digital Maoism" (as Jared Lanier calls it), individuals
dependent on a paycheck who are one job away from homelessness are
called "ranters" who "rock the boat" and who "bite the hand that feeds
them" where the language conceals the reality as effectively as any
newspeak.
It's Jaron Lanier, his "digital Maoism" quote is not relevant (I'm
sure the word collective in the Wikipedia article confused you), and
do you even have anything original to say, or will you keep quoting
people with one-half of a syllogism behind whatever it is they try to
say?
"Decisions made in the formative years of computer networking, for
instance, promoted online anonymity, and over the years, as millions
upon millions of people began using the Web, Mr. Lanier says,
anonymity has helped enable the dark side of human nature. NASTY,
ANONYMOUS ATTACKS on individuals and institutions have flourished, and
what Mr. Lanier calls a “CULTURE OF SADISM” has gone mainstream.. In
some countries anonymity and MOB BEHAVIOR have resulted in actual
witch hunts. “In 2007,” Mr. Lanier reports, “a series of ‘Scarlet
Letter’ postings in China incited online throngs to hunt down accused
adulterers. In 2008, the focus shifted to Tibet sympathizers.”
You, like many others before you, are confusing accountability and
security. Intentionally misunderstanding and mixing of concepts in
hope of appearing knowledgeable - unsuccessfully.
If you want a world clear of "nasty" attacks, sadism, mob behaviour
and other offenses against human rights (one of which you are
perpetrating as you type), you should seek to promote education,
culture and ethics (first on yourself, then your family, then
everybody else) instead of falling into the same trap others fell
before you - patchwork.
Part of indoctrination is the cultivation of abstract language,
unmoored to anything concrete. For example, what is "education,
culture, and ethics"?
Is taking pride, as Seebach takes pride, in not completing a single CS
class "promoting education"?
And what's "cultured" about a digital mob consisting of people like
Harlan and Rosenau who confine their comments to condemning the person
they've identified as The Target?
And what's "ethical" about destroying Schildt's good name, or
deliberately buttfucking a comp.risks search so as to be able to say
that "Nilges is not in comp.risks"?
You're like middle class Germans who kept on talking even after 1945
about "education, culture and ethics" without facing the reality of
death camps.
It would take forensic analysis of posts going back to 1999 in
comp.programming and comp.lang.c to show that in all cases, I entered
these discussions with interesting and well-received topics and ideas
but a literacy that in this written medium exceeded by a large margin
that of the regs. These were greeted by "digital Maoism" in the form
of self-appointed "elder brothers" (a phrase from the Cultural
Revolution in China) who found my conclusions and style unacceptable,
and who incited mob violence.
I may have to perform this forensic analysis on behalf of my attorney,
but so be it. This issue is not going away, and the bullying in these
newsgroups is going to stop.

Please continue. Your monologues will be of great comical value for
future generations.

Look, I will probably be forgotten when I'm dead, but if I'm
remembered, it won't be as comic relief: humor changes too rapidly for
that. People don't read Swedenborg, whom Kant sent up in "Dreams of a
Spirit Seeker", although Swedenborg was hilarious. I might be
remembered as A Heartbreakingly Wonderful Genius Who Was Laughed At By
Buffoons, but frankly, I'd rather be in a hot tub in Wanchai with a 20
year old hottie right now unless my kids or grandchildren could get
rich by selling my bones.

In order to make me a spirit of fun, in fact, it seems that you'd have
to be yourself a genius like Shakespeare or Kant. The unfortunate
Greene and his "Groat's Worth of Wit" is remembered only because of
Shakespeare even as Kant is why we remember Swedenborg.

Nope, I just like discussing ideas and laughing at fools.
 
S

spinoza1111

spinoza1111wrote:

So, you are a CS drop out.

....who dropped out because of kids and the job, who has respect for
education, and who was so qualified as to teach CS as an adjunct
professor...
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top