Dev-C++ compiling problem

[Kenny McCormack]

No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I don't give
two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't affect me one bit
(I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two hoots about is the
contrast between your demands that other people should observe netiquette
conventions and your own special pleading that netiquette conventions do
not apply to you. It's hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason,
enforce the conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are
in no position to demand such enforcement from others.

Exactly. Well put.

(Wow, will wonders never cease?)

Note, BTW, that there are those (not me) who are not bothered by hypocrisy.
I.e., if you truly are doing the Lord's work (whether you be a wayward
Usenet poster or a wayward Senator from Idaho), that fact is not reduced
by the fact that you are unable to heal thyself. I.e., you are still
doing the Lord's work.

Obviously, sensible people don't buy this sh*t, but Republicans
generally do.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

CBFalconer said:


I go by what I see in the newsgroup. That's all I *can* go by.

Lets say all posts from RJH got mangled by some malicious server, so
that everyone reading in say Southeastern US and Myanmar saw a comment
postpended linking Jesus and Budda in a sexual act, or even (heavens
forfend) a 30-line advert for that news server, would that be _your_
fault? Would _you_ personally have to do something about it?

I am responsible for the articles I post here, and you are responsible for
yours.

To the extent you have any control. Don't pretend you don't
understand the point.

If my news service habitually hacked my articles to add
advertisements, I'd find a different news service.

Perhaps you would, perhaps you wouldn't. Would you break a 12-month
contract? What if it was tied to a deal for cheap webhosting? What if
your ISP blocked port 119 except for this particular service?

No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that.

Your comment above that it is hyprocisy can be seen as nothing other
than trouble-making. What other purpose did it serve?

What I do give two hoots about is the
contrast between your demands that other people should observe netiquette
conventions and your own special pleading that netiquette conventions do
not apply to you. It's hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason,
enforce the conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are
in no position to demand such enforcement from others.

Strawman (to quote yourself). That argument is worthy only of the
Daily Mail.

I've no doubt for example that many of us speed and take office
stationery home. Both are failures to abide by rules of society. Does
that mean we are ineligible from asking others not to burgle or
assault us, or from sitting on a jury?
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[santosh]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

I've no doubt for example that many of us speed and take office
stationery home. Both are failures to abide by rules of society. Does
that mean we are ineligible from asking others not to burgle or
assault us, or from sitting on a jury?

Not ineligible but hypocritic to do so.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre wrote:



Not ineligible but hypocritic to do so.

By that brush we are all hypocrites and the word has no meaning, for
who amongst us can claim _never_ to have broken a rule?

Personally, I reserve pejorative words for where they're deserved,
rather than where priggishness might put them.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

No, Chuck, I'm not, and you ought to know me better than that. I
don't give two hoots about how long your sig is, since it doesn't
affect me one bit (I'm on broadband nowadays). What I do give two
hoots about is the contrast between your demands that other people
should observe netiquette conventions and your own special
pleading that netiquette conventions do not apply to you. It's
hypocritical. If you cannot, for whatever reason, enforce the
conventions of netiquette on your own articles, then you are in no
position to demand such enforcement from others.

So, according to your lights, if we write a letter to the editor
(of some journal, newspaper, etc.) and the editor edits that before
publication (without checking with the author) we are still
responsible for that altered content? Isn't this a reasonable
interpretation?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

CBFalconer said:


I go by what I see in the newsgroup. That's all I *can* go by.

Lets say all posts from RJH got mangled by some malicious
server[...]? Would _you_ personally have to do something about it?

Never mind "have to"; I would choose to do something about it. In the
circumstance you describe there is not much I could do. But if the
malicious server were the one to which I subscribed, I could at least
change my news service - and would indeed do so.

To the extent you have any control. Don't pretend you don't
understand the point.

I understand the point full well. Chuck can choose whether or not to post
articles through a broken news service. He chooses to do so. He could
choose not to do so. Nobody is holding him at gunpoint and forcing him.

Perhaps you would, perhaps you wouldn't. Would you break a 12-month
contract?

No, I'd find a different news service.

What if it was tied to a deal for cheap webhosting?

I do my own webhosting. Kind of hard to beat free.

What if your ISP blocked port 119 except for this particular service?

In that case I'd find a different ISP.

Your comment above that it is hyprocisy can be seen as nothing other
than trouble-making.
Wrong.

What other purpose did it serve?

It is an attempt to encourage Chuck not to act in a hypocritical manner.
Now, I know that we're all hypocrites to a greater or lesser degree,
myself certainly included, but I would like to think that we are at least
*unwitting* and *unwilling* hypocrites who, on being shown our
hypocritical behaviour, are capable of attempting to modify that behaviour
so as to reduce the amount of hypocrisy we demonstrate.

Strawman (to quote yourself).

I don't see why you think it is a strawman argument. I do not agree that it
is. Please feel free to try to convince me.

That argument is worthy only of the Daily Mail.

Please stick to facts rather than opinions. It is certainly a fact that
Chuck criticises netiquette violations committed by others, and it is
certainly a fact that the sig block in Chuck's own articles violates
netiquette.

I've no doubt for example that many of us speed and take office
stationery home.

The one shows disdain for the safety of other road users, and the other is
theft.

Both are failures to abide by rules of society. Does
that mean we are ineligible from asking others not to burgle or
assault us,

You can *ask*... but it is hypocritical to ask others not to drive too
quickly if you drive too quickly, and it is hypocritical to ask other
people not to steal if you yourself steal.

or from sitting on a jury?

Yes, it does mean precisely that. If you have recently (last ten years)
been imprisoned for the offences you list, i.e. dangerous driving or theft
(or indeed for any other reason), you are disqualified from sitting on a
jury. Cf Juries Act 1974, Schedule I, Part II, Persons Disqualified.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

So, according to your lights, if we write a letter to the editor
(of some journal, newspaper, etc.) and the editor edits that before
publication (without checking with the author) we are still
responsible for that altered content? Isn't this a reasonable
interpretation?

It's not a great analogy (because a letter to a newspaper typically appears
only in that newspaper and therefore is read only by readers of that
newspaper, whereas a Usenet article will be transmitted to many servers,
most of which do not share your server's "editorial policy"), but let's
run with it for now, and let us assume that the editor's modifications are
in some way "bad". For example, we might imagine that the editor in'sert's
a grocer's apo'strophe before every 's in your mi's'sive.

The first time you write a letter to a newspaper and discover that it has
been detrimentally edited, you certainly have the right to be surprised
and annoyed by it. But if you write a great many letters to the editor,
and every single one is detrimentally edited, then that isn't really
enough - but you do have some options:

(1) take it up with the editor;
(2) write to some other newspaper instead;
(3) stop writing letters altogether;
(4) continue as you are doing.

(1) and (2) both make sense. It would be unfair on you to recommend (3).
But (4) implies an acceptance of an editorial policy that violates basic
rules of punctuation, in which case it would be somewhat hypocritical to
start complaining about people who, say, keep inserting wayward, commas,
in, their, letters.

In Usenet terms, you can:

(1) complain to your ISP;
(2) use a different ISP;
(3) stop using Usenet;
(4) ignore the problem.

(1) is a reasonable course. So is (2). Nobody is suggesting (3). (4) is
what you are doing at the moment. This, too, is a not unreasonable course,
but it does mean that every single article you post breaches netiquette
conventions. Whilst this is perfectly understandable in your situation, it
significantly weakens your justification for criticising other people's
netiquette breaches.

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer said:
.... snip ...

In Usenet terms, you can:

(1) complain to your ISP;
(2) use a different ISP;
(3) stop using Usenet;
(4) ignore the problem.

(1) is a reasonable course. So is (2). Nobody is suggesting (3).
(4) is what you are doing at the moment. This, too, is a not
unreasonable course, but it does mean that every single article
you post breaches netiquette conventions. Whilst this is
perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
weakens your justification for criticising other people's
netiquette breaches.

I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because the
so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
requirement.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:


I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because the
so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
requirement.

So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the failure
to snip signatures.

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer said:

So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the
failure to snip signatures.

And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
<whatever>".

 

[Kenny McCormack]

And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
<whatever>".

In CLC-speak, "Please" is a demand.
I think this is pretty well understood.

(To the extent that anyone can make a demand in the online-world...)

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
<whatever>".

Fine. Please do fix your sig block to conform to netiquette conventions or,
failing that, please don't advise others about conforming to netiquette
conventions.

Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
you yourself won't do?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre said:


I understand the point full well. Chuck can choose whether or not to post
articles through a broken news service. He chooses to do so. He could
choose not to do so. Nobody is holding him at gunpoint and forcing him.

AFAIK you have no actual knowledge the reasons for Chuck's adherence
to this server. Meanwhile I seem to recall you have some 'dead' pages
on the internet somewhere which are now potentially misleading - why
haven't you taken them down? I can't see any reason why you've failed
to do this. Hypocritical is a word that some might use, but I'm more
prepared to believe there are good reasons.
..

No, I'd find a different news service.

Even if it cost you several hundred quid?

I do my own webhosting. Kind of hard to beat free.

I'll just point out here that you have deliberately ignored the
question - presumably because you have no answer.

In that case I'd find a different ISP.

And lost your email / webhost / 12 months contract / tied voip deal ?

Richard, you frequently tell JN not to keep digging - why not take
your own advice?

Please stick to facts rather than opinions.

Sorry, but I can't help if if you write lengthy fact-free
self-justifications.

You can *ask*... but it is hypocritical to ask others not to drive too
quickly if you drive too quickly, and it is hypocritical to ask other
people not to steal if you yourself steal.

I can't decide whether this is the comment of a sanctimonious prig or
a hypocrite. I absolutely do not believe that you yourself have
*never* committed any minor crime which you disapprove of in the
absolute. We all do it, even the most saintly of us,

Yes, it does mean precisely that.

False.

If you have recently (last ten years) been imprisoned

But thats the point rather isn't it? We all commit minor offenses - be
it jaywalking, swearing in public, driving at 1mph over the limit,
peeing in the swimming baths, using office postit notes, cycling on
the pavement, whatever. None of this renders you ineligible in law
from sitting on a jury - until and unless you are found guilty of an
actual offense..
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
you yourself won't do?

Talk about sanctimonious prats.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Mark McIntyre]

CBFalconer said:

So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the failure
to snip signatures.

if this is such a HUGE deal to you that you feel it necessary to write
thousands of lines of justification for your sanctimoniousness, why
not just killfile Chuck?

After all, *you* don't need his advice on C any more than you need it
on usenet ettiquette.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

AFAIK you have no actual knowledge the reasons for Chuck's adherence
to this server. Meanwhile I seem to recall you have some 'dead' pages
on the internet somewhere which are now potentially misleading - why
haven't you taken them down?

Because it would be a criminal offence to hack into the server.

I can't see any reason why you've failed to do this.

I can.

Hypocritical is a word that some might use, but I'm more
prepared to believe there are good reasons.

In this case there are good reasons. I do not, however, claim to be free of
hypocrisy. To do so would be hypocritical.

Even if it cost you several hundred quid?

It does. But we know that cheaper services exist that nevertheless do not
corrupt the messages sent through them.

I'll just point out here that you have deliberately ignored the
question - presumably because you have no answer.

On the contrary, you asked me what I'd do, and I answered the question you
asked. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.

And lost your email / webhost / 12 months contract / tied voip deal ?

Sure, why not? It's a lousy ISP anyway (see above), so why would I want to
continue in a business relationship with it?

Richard, you frequently tell JN not to keep digging - why not take
your own advice?

Mark, I have never told JN not to keep digging, at least not according to
Google Groups, which is the closest thing we have to an archive nowadays.

Sorry, but I can't help if if you write lengthy fact-free
self-justifications.

I can parse this, but I don't see in it any relevance to the foregoing
discussion.

I can't decide whether this is the comment of a sanctimonious prig or
a hypocrite. I absolutely do not believe that you yourself have
*never* committed any minor crime which you disapprove of in the
absolute. We all do it, even the most saintly of us,

I don't consider dangerous driving and theft (the examples you gave) to be
minor crimes.

False.

So you're saying the Juries Act is wrong?

But thats the point rather isn't it? We all commit minor offenses - be
it jaywalking,

Not an offence in the UK.

swearing in public,

I don't do this.

driving at 1mph over the limit,

I don't do this, either. (Yes, I have driven over the speed limit in the
past, and I was appropriately punished by the judiciary. I have not done
so since that occasion.)

peeing in the swimming baths,

Speak for yourself.

using office postit notes,

For their proper purpose, yes. That's what they're there for. For private
use? No - why bother? I have a notebook.

cycling on the pavement, whatever.

Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

Clearly, you think you have a strong argument, as is so often the case when
you choose to sneer at me, but (as is, again, so often the case) I'm at a
loss to understand /why/ you think you have a strong argument. I don't see
it myself.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

Talk about sanctimonious prats.

I'm sorry, Mark, but I think it would be a really bad idea for me to start
talking about some of the sanctimonious prats I see around Usenet. It
might be hurtful to them, and in any case it would be off-topic. And it
would take too long. And it wouldn't even be fun. Mind you, nor is going
on about this stupid sig block thing.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
for me)

But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
over here in the US (where else would you cycle? [*]) Is it really
different in the UK?

[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
your wheels.

 

[Tony Quinn]

Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
for me)

But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
over here in the US (where else would you cycle? [*]) Is it really
different in the UK?

[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
your wheels.

What we call the pavement, you call the sidewalk

 

[santosh]

(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
for me)

But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
thing?

Er, because it's meant for pedestrians?

I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
complicated than "road".

We do. Pavement means footpath.

In any case, we cycle on the road all the
time over here in the US (where else would you cycle? [*]) Is it
really different in the UK?

[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
your wheels.

IIRC, most of Europe has a small "bicycle lane" between the footpath and
the road proper, which is the "proper" place to cycle.