why I cannot stop this loop at 50 points? (code)

[jameskuyper]

HfC has a history of posting deliberately misleading responses to new
posters. You suggest we ignore this, and letting those responses
stand? Just let him do whatever he likes without interference?

No, just reply with a correction, as you'd do for anyone else posting
incorrect information.

[...]

By reading replies to HfC's posts, we can see when he's causing actual
damage and warn people about it. It's not a perfect solution, but I'm
not going to read everything he posts, for reasons I've already
stated.

Again, treat his posts like any other: if they claim incorrect things,
reply with a correction. That will carry much more weight than
complaining.

Trolls post incorrect information for the delight of seeing the
experts respond with corrections, like pavlovian dogs. Correcting his
errors would encourage him to continue making them, and even to try to
engage us in dialog about those corrections. It would require us to
pay attention to his messages, and even more attention to his
responses to our corrections; that's an annoyance I would just as soon
do without.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Keith Thompson wrote: [...]

HfC has a history of posting deliberately misleading responses to new
posters. You suggest we ignore this, and letting those responses
stand? Just let him do whatever he likes without interference?

No, just reply with a correction, as you'd do for anyone else posting
incorrect information.

I'd have to remove him from my killfile. I won't do that.

You just keep saying that. Just keep saying it.
Believe that maybe some day, somebody will believe you.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

No, just reply with a correction, as you'd do for anyone else posting
incorrect information.

In order to do that, he'd have to admit to not really killfiling him.

Hence the need to always do it via a piggyback.

 

[Richard Bos]

So how would you suggest dealing with the situation? Seriously.

Seriously, by now, I wouldn't. This group collectively, and all too many
participants individually, gets so turned on by debating its own ego,
that any attempt to handle the trolling - from _any_ side! - sanely is
doomed to failure. And for this, _all_ those individuals must share part
of the blame: the active trolls, the self-stroking enablers and the
complete fools, some less, some more, but none should 'scape whipping.
This group is rotten to the core; what we need is not brushing, but
drilling.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Ouch.

A bit of Googling indicates that time_t represents the number of
seconds since the epoch. Earlier releases used an epoch of Jan 1,
1900, but later releases use the POSIX epoch of Jan 1. 1970 (but
there's a mechanism to redefine the epoch used).

One obvious disadvantage is that the resolution varies over time. For
times sufficiently close to the epoch, you can distinguish between one
yottasecond and the next. By now, the resolution (given FLT_RADIX ==
16 and DBL_MANT_DIG == 14, thus 56 bits of precision) is around 3.7
nanoseconds, and it will remain there for some time. If that's finer
than the resolution of the system time-of-day clock, I suppose that's
not a real problem.

Seems fine to me. For times close to the epoch, you want sub-second
resolution. Historians and calculators of long-term rents want times
accurate to a day - who cares whether Caecilius was born at 17:45 or at
17:46, or whether your mortgage is paid off twenty years from now at six
in the afternoon or at five? Fossilologists and futurists don't care
about more than years, if that; if you don't even _know_ whether your
specimen is twenty thousand years old or nineteen, or whether the
hivemind will emerge in the year 3535 or in 4545, why care about
expressing the difference?

Really, if I were to design a time system completely from scratch,
starting with zero at 2000-01-01T00:00:00.0 and a long double counting
both ways from then in seconds seems almost ideal to me, for all
practical purposes. The only drawback is that it would surprise too many
hide-bound Unixheads.
Actually, there is another problem, but that isn't because of the
floating point type, but because of the Standard (and probably because
of pre-Standard adhoccery). When I have a long double as my time_t, I
want my error value to be + or -INF (*), not one second before Jigsaw
Moment. But as said, that's not the floating time_t's fault.

Richard

(*) Not NAN, because you want to be able to ask if (time(0) == TIME_ERR)

 

[Keith Thompson]

Seems fine to me. For times close to the epoch, you want sub-second
resolution. Historians and calculators of long-term rents want times
accurate to a day - who cares whether Caecilius was born at 17:45 or at
17:46, or whether your mortgage is paid off twenty years from now at six
in the afternoon or at five? Fossilologists and futurists don't care
about more than years, if that; if you don't even _know_ whether your
specimen is twenty thousand years old or nineteen, or whether the
hivemind will emerge in the year 3535 or in 4545, why care about
expressing the difference?

[...]

I don't necessarily want sub-second resolution for times close to the
epoch; it's likely to be more useful to have sub-second resolution
for times close to *now*, or times close to some particular event
of interest. Picoseconds relative to a collision in a particle
accelerator are more useful than picoseconds since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC.

You probably wouldn't use time_t for such measurements, though.

 

[Herbert Rosenau]

Of course you have. That's because your buddy Heathfield recommended
its use. You'd also defend the use of fflush(stdin) if Heathfield
recommended that. Funny that there are instances of you in the
archives protesting against the use of srand(time(NULL)), the only
difference being that your buddy Heathfield wasn't involved
at those times.

It makes really fun to read what twits like you and twink are pissing
around in this group.

Please, please, don't never stop fill this grouß with your garbidge.
This group will loose any good feeling if you and your compagions
Twit, ops Twink, Navia (his real name, as he aively ignores the
standard) would stop your harassments and goes to really helpfull -
but sure none of yours will be in one single second nearly so helpfull
as the persons you'll never reach interlectual as they are, so pleas
fill this group with more junk until the last reader who tries to get
help gives up this group!

Oh, yes, my knowledge of the language C is much better than the one of
englich.

--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert

Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2R Deutsch ist da!

 

[Guest]

It makes really fun to read what twits like you and twink are pissing
around in this group.

It's best not to respond to trolls. They enjoy yhe attention.

<snip>

Troll list:

Twit, ops Twink, Navia (his real name, as he aively ignores the
standard)

You may disagree with Jocob Navia, but he's no troll. There's a
huge difference between technical disagreement and attempts to
activly
disrupt the ng.

<snip>