Dev-C++ compiling problem

[Kenny McCormack]

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[/QUOTE]

I see. Still, I'm a little surprised. While I personally don't think
riding on the sidewalk is a good idea, I would say that it is believed
by many that it is safer (particularly for children and other infirmed
types) and it is generally not discouraged.

I know of exactly one neighborhood (in the US) where they have posted
signs forbidding riding on the sidewalk. Two comments regarding this
neightborhood:
1) The existence of these signs "sticks out", since it is rare.
2) Because of the roads and traffic, this is one neighborhood
where it would actually be useful/desirable to be on the
sidewalk (which is, of course, why they forbid it).

 

[Philip Potter]

Mark McIntyre said:

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.

A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
facilities. I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm
not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines. I
particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.

I cycle on one particular pavement which I can't avoid because it's on a
short, quiet route to university and getting off and pushing my bike for
20m kills the momentum which I have fought hard to build up. This route
is even marked on the official London cycle map! (In both cases, I give
way to pedestrians.) A friend of mine was once told in a nudge-nudge way
by a policeman to cycle on the pavement round a particular junction in
Glasgow because it was safer for both cars and cyclists.

Cycling through red lights is safer:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

Cycling facilities are inadequate:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
(I particularly like September 2007)

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Philip Potter said:

A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
facilities.

As long as you stay off the pavement, that's fine by me.

I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm

....risking a collision with a car driving across your lane at speed, and
risking the lives of the people in that car as the driver swerves to avoid
you. You are also risking the lives of the pedestrians that are struck
down by the car as it careers out of control after the swerve. Nice one.

not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines.

Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk other
people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without breaking the
law, find another means of transportation.

I
particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.

I particularly get irritated with a minority of cyclists who are prepared
to risk *my* life by cycling very fast along a narrow pavement, forcing me
to choose between being struck by a bicycle or stepping into the road and
risking being struck by a car. It happens a lot around here.

<snip>

 

[Philip Potter]

Philip Potter said:


As long as you stay off the pavement, that's fine by me.


...risking a collision with a car driving across your lane at speed, and
risking the lives of the people in that car as the driver swerves to avoid
you. You are also risking the lives of the pedestrians that are struck
down by the car as it careers out of control after the swerve. Nice one.

Richard, your argument is let down by your tacet assumptions. I don't go
through /every/ red light, and indeed if there is traffic driving across
my lane I won't cross.

Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk other
people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without breaking the
law, find another means of transportation.

So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The roads
are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle paths
are too daft.

I particularly get irritated with a minority of cyclists who are prepared
to risk *my* life by cycling very fast along a narrow pavement, forcing me
to choose between being struck by a bicycle or stepping into the road and
risking being struck by a car. It happens a lot around here.

Yes, I agree with you here.

(Incedentally, when I was small my mum would /only/ allow me to cycle on
the pavement...)

 

[santosh]

So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The
roads are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle
paths are too daft.

This is indeed the case here too. And it's really frustrating because
I'm a big fan of cycling. Not to mention it's benefits to health and
the environment.

Unfortunately money and politics rule.

<snip>

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Philip Potter said:

Richard, your argument is let down by your tacet assumptions. I don't go
through /every/ red light, and indeed if there is traffic driving across
my lane I won't cross.

Erm, in my original draft, I did have something like "...although
presumably you take care to avoid this..." - but your reply prompted me to
re-read my article, and indeed that phrase appears to have hit the
cutting-room floor. In fact, my whole reply reads far more severely than I
intended, and I apologise to you for that.

So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The roads
are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle paths
are too daft.

Yes - at least until the oil runs out, anyway. It's still just about
possible for some children to cycle to school safely, but even that is
becoming too risky in places.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

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

I see. Still, I'm a little surprised. While I personally don't think
riding on the sidewalk is a good idea, I would say that it is believed
by many that it is safer (particularly for children and other infirmed
types) and it is generally not discouraged.[/QUOTE]
here in Germany children up to a certain age (which escapes me right now)
are required to use their bikes on the pavement/sildwalk (i.e not allowed on
the street), up to a certain (higher) age they are still allowed to do this
and as of that age it's strictly forbidden, except if stated otherwise by
some traffic sign.
You'd get a ticket for riding a bike in a pedestrian area (if the police
get's you ;-))

Bye, Jojo

 

[Keith Thompson]

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.

Richard, are you sure he hasn't complained to his Usenet provider?
(It's not really an ISP, since it presumably doesn't provide his
Internet access.)

Chuck: If you haven't complained to your Usenet provider, please do
so. Mention that their interface is causing problems for others, not
just for you, and is likely to discourage others from using their
services. They can put all the advertisements they like in the header
lines.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Richard, are you sure [Chuck] hasn't complained to his Usenet provider?

Nope. But I hope he has done so or will do so.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Chuck: If you haven't complained to your Usenet provider, please
do so. Mention that their interface is causing problems for
others, not just for you, and is likely to discourage others from
using their services. They can put all the advertisements they
like in the header lines.

Frankly I consider all this fuss ridiculous. A one line added sig
by the news-server is not causing serious problems for anyone.

 

[Ian Collins]

Keith Thompson wrote:
.... snip ...

Frankly I consider all this fuss ridiculous.
True.

A one line added sig
by the news-server is not causing serious problems for anyone.

Only them, I don't sae others flocking to use their service...

 

[Keith Thompson]

Frankly I consider all this fuss ridiculous. A one line added sig
by the news-server is not causing serious problems for anyone.

It's adding *six* lines. After your own signature, there are three
blank lines, the "-- " delimiter, the "Posted via ..." message, and
another blank line.

I'm assuming the three blank lines aren't part of your own signature.
If they are, I suggest you remove them. Removing the trailing
new-line at the end of the last line of your own signature (if you can
do so) might also help. (If you could fool teranews into putting the
"-- " on the end of the last line of your own signature, that would
probably silence most objections.)

If the teranews folks insist in adding an advertisement to each posted
article, I suppose that's not entirely unreasonable in exchange for a
(nearly) free account. But they *should* append no more than a line
or two, and they *shouldn't* append a "--" delimiter if the article
already has one. For example, if each of your articles ended with:

|
|

that would be just fine.

I'd complain to teranews myself (and I still might), but I think a
complaint from one of their users would have more impact -- and, oddly
enough, I think you're the only teranews free account user I've seen.

So far, I've been mostly sympathetic to you on this issue. It will be
easier for me to continue being sympathetic if you're willing to take
the time to talk to teranews.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

If the teranews folks insist in adding an advertisement to each posted
article, I suppose that's not entirely unreasonable in exchange for a
(nearly) free account. But they *should* append no more than a line
or two, and they *shouldn't* append a "--" delimiter if the article
already has one. For example, if each of your articles ended with:

|
|

that would be just fine.

I'd complain to teranews myself (and I still might), but I think a
complaint from one of their users would have more impact -- and, oddly
enough, I think you're the only teranews free account user I've seen.

So far, I've been mostly sympathetic to you on this issue. It will be
easier for me to continue being sympathetic if you're willing to take
the time to talk to teranews.

Actually I have ISP problems with email, which I can only conquer
by sending email from yet another URL based system (and including
instructions about replies). I have emailed Teranews several
times, and never received an answer. One of these days I shall try
changing to Thunderbird, but so far I haven't found out how to make
it operate off-line and synchronize. I wouldn't even be using
teranews if my own ISPs linkage still worked. It used to, and then
they diddled something, which brought on all my troubles and work
arounds. Complaints to them don't work either, and I am reluctant
to change ISPs because the email address will foul up. It has
something to do with security. Also bear in mind that I connect
via the dial-up system, and want to keep the phone line free.

At any rate the history has made me extremely reluctant to change
anything.

(And yes - my sigs have no excess trailing blank lines.) Note that
a blank line adds only two bytes to the transmission, and to any
possible storage file. Trivial.

 

[Dann Corbit]

[snip]

At any rate the history has made me extremely reluctant to change
anything.

(And yes - my sigs have no excess trailing blank lines.) Note that
a blank line adds only two bytes to the transmission, and to any
possible storage file. Trivial.

I wonder if my teranews account will do the same goofy thing.
We'll know in a minute.

 

[Ian Collins]

I wonder if my teranews account will do the same goofy thing.
We'll know in a minute.

It did. Time to pay news.individual.net a visit...

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Frankly I consider all this fuss ridiculous. A one line added sig
by the news-server is not causing serious problems for anyone.

Failure to snip sigs in a quote doesn't cause *serious* problems for anyone
either. And your point?

 

[CBFalconer]

CBFalconer said:

Failure to snip sigs in a quote doesn't cause *serious* problems
for anyone either. And your point?

Ah, but that piles up and interferes with further correspondence.
The extra lines simply require a slightly longer snip, or a
complaint to the newsreader programmer that they do not delete
complete sigs in a reply, or an actual snip by the poor overworked
replier.

Unless they are involved in the discussion, I don't think you will
ever find unsnipped sigs in my replies, and very rarely (usually to
make a point) overlong lines. This doesn't occupy reams of time,
and is fully within the capabilities of the poorest typist.

 

[Chris Hills]

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>".

I notice that in this way OT thread it is mainly the people who used to
shout OT the most ))))

However as far as I am concerned a little OT social interaction by the
regulars doesn't hurt. Most groups are better for it. It seems to
happen in many groups on a Friday Afternoon...

The good news is that as we don't have an OT argument ensuing the thread
is some 250 posts shorter than it might have been

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Ah, but that piles up and interferes with further correspondence.

The extra lines simply require a slightly longer snip,

Chuck, it's special pleading.You're saying "it's okay for me to breach
netiquette because I don't see it as being any kind of big deal in my
case", but precisely the same argument can be made by anyone on any
breach, with just as much validity (or invalidity, rather).

It is evident, however, that you are not amenable to persuasion on this
matter, and I'm simply not interested enough to flog this dead horse any
further. But until you either fix your sig or stop complaining about other
people's netiquette breaches, your hypocrisy remains.

 

[Richard]

Frankly I consider all this fuss ridiculous. A one line added sig
by the news-server is not causing serious problems for anyone.

Wrong. As has been explained many, many times. And considering you are
the one constantly whining about people breaking conventions by using
words like "prog" then it becomes even more obvious that you are
somewhat selfish and self absorbed.

The solution is simple : sign up for another free news server.