Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #83117 > unrolled thread

Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 01:01 +1100
    Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:15 -0800
      Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:54 -0800
        Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 08:08 +1100
          Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-03 21:01 +1100
            Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 21:16 +1100
            Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-03 10:38 +0000
              Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:53 -0800
                Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-03 18:35 +0000
                  OT Vernacular and empire building [was Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-05 00:19 +1100
                    Re: OT Vernacular and empire building [was Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 15:22 -0800
                Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-01-08 13:10 +0000
                  Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-08 07:33 -0800
                    Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-08 19:58 +0200
        Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 15:52 -0800
      Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 08:09 +1100
        Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-01-03 15:18 +1300

#83117 — Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Ervin Hegedüs <airween@gmail.com> wrote:
> it may be at the concrete example in OP is better the glob - but
> I think in most cases the re modul gives more flexibility, I mean
> the glob modul can handle the upper/lower chars?

I'm not sure that I'd want to. Handling case insensitivity is fine
when you're restricting everything to ASCII, but it's rather harder
when you allow all of Unicode. For instance, U+0069 and U+0049 would
be considered case-insensitively equal in English, but in Turkish,
they're different letters; U+0069 upper-cases to U+0130, and U+0049
lower-cases to U+0131. Much safer, when you're writing generic tools,
to simply require case sensitivity. And you can't easily know whether
the file system is case-sensitive, case-retaining, or case-folding;
you could easily have multiple mounts that differ, so
"/home/rosuav/foo/bar/quux" might be the same as
"/home/rosuav/FOO/bar/quux", but the other four components are all
case sensitive. Yes, it really is possible.

ChrisA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#83123

On Friday, January 2, 2015 8:01:50 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I'm not sure that I'd want to. Handling case insensitivity is fine
> when you're restricting everything to ASCII, but it's rather harder
> when you allow all of Unicode. For instance, U+0069 and U+0049 would
> be considered case-insensitively equal in English, but in Turkish,
> they're different letters; U+0069 upper-cases to U+0130, and U+0049
> lower-cases to U+0131. 

So what? If you're going to go out of your way to accomadate
a small regional perversion of language semantics, then your
"fetish of multiculturalism" is even more
dangerous than i have previously thought!

SPECIAL CASES ARE NOT *SPECIAL ENOUGH* TO BREAK THE RULES!
    
This "idea" that software needs to be written to accommodate
every language of the world is complete nonsense. I would
suggest writing software that targets *only* the modern
world. Those who refuse to be a part of the modern world can
suffer the troubles of forking the code into their ancient
systems -- and i will not loose any sleep over the issue.

PROGRESS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTION OF DELICATE SENSIBILITIES!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83124

On Friday, January 2, 2015 10:45:17 PM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, January 2, 2015 8:01:50 AM UTC-6, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > I'm not sure that I'd want to. Handling case insensitivity is fine
> > when you're restricting everything to ASCII, but it's rather harder
> > when you allow all of Unicode. For instance, U+0069 and U+0049 would
> > be considered case-insensitively equal in English, but in Turkish,
> > they're different letters; U+0069 upper-cases to U+0130, and U+0049
> > lower-cases to U+0131. 
> 
> So what? If you're going to go out of your way to accomadate
> a small regional perversion of language semantics, then your
> "fetish of multiculturalism" is even more
> dangerous than i have previously thought!
> 
> SPECIAL CASES ARE NOT *SPECIAL ENOUGH* TO BREAK THE RULES!

And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules 
and (no) special cases scheme?

http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you-know-that-ough-can-be-pronounced-TEN-DIFFERENT-WAYS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83130

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
> and (no) special cases scheme?
>
> http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you-know-that-ough-can-be-pronounced-TEN-DIFFERENT-WAYS

I learned six, which is no more than there are for the simple vowel
'a' (at least, in British English; American English has a few less
sounds for 'a'). Consider "cat", "bay", "car" (that's the three most
common sounds), "watch", "water", "parent" (these three are less
common, and American English often folds them into the other three).
Now have a look at Norwegian, where the fifth of those sounds
("water") is spelled with a ring above, eg "La den gå" - and the sixth
is (I think) more often spelled with a slashed O - "Den kraften jeg
skjulte før". Similarly in Swedish: "Slå dig loss, slå dig fri" is
pronounced "Slaw di loss, slaw di free". Or let's look at another of
English's oddities. Put a t and an h together, and you get a
completely different sound... two different sounds, in fact, voiced or
unvoiced. Icelandic uses thorn instead: "Þetta er nóg" is pronounced
(roughly) "Thetta air know". And the whole notion of putting a dot on
a lower-case i and not putting one on upper-case I is pretty
illogical, but Turkish, as I mentioned in the previous post, uses the
dots to distinguish between two pronunciations of the vowel, hence
"aldırma" which would sound somewhat different with a dot on the i.

(You may be able to see a theme in my example texts, but I figured
it's time to see what I can do with full Unicode support. The cold
looks of disapproval never bothered me, anyway.)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83148

Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
>> and (no) special cases scheme?
>>
>>
http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you-know-that-ough-can-be-pronounced-TEN-DIFFERENT-WAYS
> 
> I learned six, which is no more than there are for the simple vowel
> 'a' (at least, in British English; American English has a few less
> sounds for 'a'). 

What is this thing you call "American English"? :-) 

I wouldn't want to put an exact number of distinct accents in the USA, but
it's probably in three figures. And it used to be said that a sufficiently
skilled linguist could tell what side of the street an English person was
born on, that's how fine-grained English accents used to be.


> Consider "cat", "bay", "car" (that's the three most 
> common sounds), "watch", "water", "parent" (these three are less
> common, and American English often folds them into the other three).

There's a joke about how people from certain parts of the US suffer
from "hat attacks" (heart attacks).


> Now have a look at Norwegian, where the fifth of those sounds
> ("water") is spelled with a ring above, eg "La den gå" - and the sixth
> is (I think) more often spelled with a slashed O - "Den kraften jeg
> skjulte før". Similarly in Swedish: "Slå dig loss, slå dig fri" is
> pronounced "Slaw di loss, slaw di free". Or let's look at another of
> English's oddities. Put a t and an h together, and you get a
> completely different sound... two different sounds, in fact, voiced or
> unvoiced. Icelandic uses thorn instead: "Þetta er nóg" is pronounced
> (roughly) "Thetta air know".

English used to include the letter Thorn too. Among others. Little known
fact: at one time, ampersand & (as in "and") used to be included as a
letter of the alphabet

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31904/12-letters-didnt-make-alphabet


> And the whole notion of putting a dot on 
> a lower-case i and not putting one on upper-case I is pretty
> illogical, but Turkish, as I mentioned in the previous post, uses the
> dots to distinguish between two pronunciations of the vowel, hence
> "aldırma" which would sound somewhat different with a dot on the i.
> 
> (You may be able to see a theme in my example texts, but I figured
> it's time to see what I can do with full Unicode support. The cold
> looks of disapproval never bothered me, anyway.)
> 
> ChrisA

-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83149

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
>>> and (no) special cases scheme?
>>>
>>>
> http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you-know-that-ough-can-be-pronounced-TEN-DIFFERENT-WAYS
>>
>> I learned six, which is no more than there are for the simple vowel
>> 'a' (at least, in British English; American English has a few less
>> sounds for 'a').
>
> What is this thing you call "American English"? :-)
>
> I wouldn't want to put an exact number of distinct accents in the USA, but
> it's probably in three figures. And it used to be said that a sufficiently
> skilled linguist could tell what side of the street an English person was
> born on, that's how fine-grained English accents used to be.

"American English" is the category compassing all of those accents
common to the USA. There are certain broad similarities between it and
British English, just as there are similarities between Dutch and
German; and there are certain commonalities across all accents of
American English, allowing generalizations about the number of sounds
made by the vowel "a". :)

>> Now have a look at Norwegian, where the fifth of those sounds
>> ("water") is spelled with a ring above, eg "La den gå" - and the sixth
>> is (I think) more often spelled with a slashed O - "Den kraften jeg
>> skjulte før". Similarly in Swedish: "Slå dig loss, slå dig fri" is
>> pronounced "Slaw di loss, slaw di free". Or let's look at another of
>> English's oddities. Put a t and an h together, and you get a
>> completely different sound... two different sounds, in fact, voiced or
>> unvoiced. Icelandic uses thorn instead: "Þetta er nóg" is pronounced
>> (roughly) "Thetta air know".
>
> English used to include the letter Thorn too. Among others.

Yes, but it doesn't any more. Icelandic is the only modern language
I'm aware of that retains thorn and eth (eg in "það").

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83150

On 03/01/2015 10:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> And how does this strange language called English fits into your rules
>>>> and (no) special cases scheme?
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/3989/Did-you-know-that-ough-can-be-pronounced-TEN-DIFFERENT-WAYS
>>>
>>> I learned six, which is no more than there are for the simple vowel
>>> 'a' (at least, in British English; American English has a few less
>>> sounds for 'a').
>>
>> What is this thing you call "American English"? :-)
>>
>> I wouldn't want to put an exact number of distinct accents in the USA, but
>> it's probably in three figures. And it used to be said that a sufficiently
>> skilled linguist could tell what side of the street an English person was
>> born on, that's how fine-grained English accents used to be.
>
> "American English" is the category compassing all of those accents
> common to the USA. There are certain broad similarities between it and
> British English, just as there are similarities between Dutch and
> German; and there are certain commonalities across all accents of
> American English, allowing generalizations about the number of sounds
> made by the vowel "a". :)
>

I used to get very confused watching the old westerns.  The child when 
talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an 
adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal, but what we would 
refer to in the UK as "mum" and "dad" :)

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83170

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:

> I used to get very confused watching the old westerns.  The child when 
> talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an 
> adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal, but what we would 
> refer to in the UK as "mum" and "dad" :)

Early Americans are easy to satirize since most were
schooled at home by illiterate parents. I believe the
"redneck vernacular" substituted "mother" and "father" for
"maw" and "paw" respectively. Which is not surprising since
most uneducated folks tend to favor single syllable
simplifications of words over their multi-syllable
counterparts.

Widespread centralized free schooling did not exists until
almost the 1900's. Heck, looking back at American history,
the world *SHOULD* be in awe. To go from a rag-tag
illiterate bunch of cowboys, to the worlds most powerful and
technically advanced society (in roughly one hundred years!)
has to be the most amazing transformation in the history of
the human society.

Of course with all success stories, timing and luck had a
little to do with it, but it was undoubtedly the rebellious
and self reliant nature of Americans that made them so
successful. So before you go and spouting off about how dumb
Americans are/were, ask yourself, what greatness has *MY*
country achieved in the span of a century?

*school bell rings*

PS: I've recently developed an industrial grade scraper
specially designed for removing dried egg residue from the
human face with a "minimal" amount of collateral damage. If
any of you are interested in volunteering your egg covered
faces for testing i would be thankful! Please send me a
private message as the alpha phase begins soon!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83172

On 03/01/2015 17:53, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I used to get very confused watching the old westerns.  The child when
>> talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an
>> adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal, but what we would
>> refer to in the UK as "mum" and "dad" :)
>
> Early Americans are easy to satirize since most were
> schooled at home by illiterate parents. I believe the
> "redneck vernacular" substituted "mother" and "father" for
> "maw" and "paw" respectively. Which is not surprising since
> most uneducated folks tend to favor single syllable
> simplifications of words over their multi-syllable
> counterparts.
>
> Widespread centralized free schooling did not exists until
> almost the 1900's. Heck, looking back at American history,
> the world *SHOULD* be in awe. To go from a rag-tag
> illiterate bunch of cowboys, to the worlds most powerful and
> technically advanced society (in roughly one hundred years!)
> has to be the most amazing transformation in the history of
> the human society.

I suspect that the engineers who pushed the railways across North 
America were hardly "a rag-tag illiterate bunch of cowboys".  I won't 
mention that the transformation involved wiping out 99% of the 
indigenous population.

>
> Of course with all success stories, timing and luck had a
> little to do with it, but it was undoubtedly the rebellious
> and self reliant nature of Americans that made them so
> successful. So before you go and spouting off about how dumb
> Americans are/were, ask yourself, what greatness has *MY*
> country achieved in the span of a century?

I'm not entirely sure how a little bit of gentle teasing about accents 
in fictional films translates into "spouting off about how dumb 
Americans are/were" but there you go.  Hardly a century but I believe 
that the British Empire covered 25% of the land surface on the planet. 
Quite an achievement for a tiny patch of islands sitting off the coast 
of Europe.  However I suspect that a large number of people were glad to 
see the back of us, although I still think it audacious for those people 
to actually want to run their own countries.

>
> *school bell rings*
>
> PS: I've recently developed an industrial grade scraper
> specially designed for removing dried egg residue from the
> human face with a "minimal" amount of collateral damage. If
> any of you are interested in volunteering your egg covered
> faces for testing i would be thankful! Please send me a
> private message as the alpha phase begins soon!
>

I believe that this has already been done.  Should I ever need one I'll 
probably get a cheap one, complete with its "Made in China" sticker, 
from one of the many £ stores that are springing up in the UK.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83206 — OT Vernacular and empire building [was Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files]

Dear gods, I know I'm going to regret this... 


Mark Lawrence wrote:

> On 03/01/2015 17:53, Rick Johnson wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>
>>> I used to get very confused watching the old westerns.  The child when
>>> talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an
>>> adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal, but what we would
>>> refer to in the UK as "mum" and "dad" :)

Mark, that's not very different from the plethora of terms used for mother
across the British Isles, including "mam".

- "mum" is common in the south of England;
- "mom" is used in the west midlands;
- "mam" is used in the north and Ireland;

http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/sounds/text-only/england/danesford/

Mam is usually spelled "mam", but British "mom" is always spelled "mum"
unless the author is deliberately emphasising the pronunciation by using
phonetic spelling.


Rick then said:
>> Early Americans are easy to satirize since most were
>> schooled at home by illiterate parents. I believe the
>> "redneck vernacular" substituted "mother" and "father" for
>> "maw" and "paw" respectively. Which is not surprising since
>> most uneducated folks tend to favor single syllable
>> simplifications of words over their multi-syllable
>> counterparts.

I think that is rather silly. "Uneducated folks" often have very high
linguistic skills, except that they are verbal. Linguistically, the pattern
is that languages tend to become more simpler as literacy spreads, not the
other way around.

Mum/mom and Dad has become the most common terms of address for parents in
most English-speaking countries, except in the most formal situations. I
can't imagine calling my parents "mother and father" directly, although I
will refer to them in the third person as "my mother and father".

Oh, for interest, here's an fascinating discussion on why the baby words for
mother and father are so similar across all languages:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1847

Read the comments as well as the comic.


And Rick again:
>> Widespread centralized free schooling did not exists until
>> almost the 1900's. Heck, looking back at American history,
>> the world *SHOULD* be in awe. To go from a rag-tag
>> illiterate bunch of cowboys, to the worlds most powerful and
>> technically advanced society (in roughly one hundred years!)
>> has to be the most amazing transformation in the history of
>> the human society.

A ridiculous fantasy. The USA wasn't "a rag-tag illiterate bunch of
cowboys", you've been watching too many John Wayne westerns.

The United States as a world power wasn't created by cowboys from the
midwest or farmers from the heartland. It was created by the educated
elites on the east and west coasts, and immigrants from Europe, many of who
were already intelligent, educated and cultured. The rise of the USA as a
world power was World War One: the US started to industrialise to European
standards, while the European powers were slaughtering each other in the
trenches. Had the US only had the low-population midwest states to draw on,
they could never have become a world power. It was the industrialised
high-population states, with their millions of workers, who manned the
factories that allowed the US to become a world power.


Mark replied:
> I suspect that the engineers who pushed the railways across North
> America were hardly "a rag-tag illiterate bunch of cowboys".  I won't
> mention that the transformation involved wiping out 99% of the
> indigenous population.

In fairness, most of the genocide was over before the first English arrived
in North America. Disease inadvertently introduced by the Spanish travelled
north and wiped out probably 90% of the native American population. By the
time the English arrived, the continent was already depopulated, and
defeating and killing the survivors was relatively easy. Without the effect
of disease, I expect that the Americas would be more like the bulk of
Africa and Asia. Despite European technological superiority, apart from a
few special cases, mass European migration would simply never have been
practical.


>> Of course with all success stories, timing and luck had a
>> little to do with it, but it was undoubtedly the rebellious
>> and self reliant nature of Americans that made them so
>> successful. 

Rebellious and self-reliant, it is to laugh.


>> So before you go and spouting off about how dumb 
>> Americans are/were, ask yourself, what greatness has *MY*
>> country achieved in the span of a century?
> 
> I'm not entirely sure how a little bit of gentle teasing about accents
> in fictional films translates into "spouting off about how dumb
> Americans are/were" but there you go.  Hardly a century but I believe
> that the British Empire covered 25% of the land surface on the planet.
> Quite an achievement for a tiny patch of islands sitting off the coast
> of Europe.  However I suspect that a large number of people were glad to
> see the back of us, although I still think it audacious for those people
> to actually want to run their own countries.

Yeah, the cheek of those people, wanting a say in how they are governed.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83222 — Re: OT Vernacular and empire building [was Re: How do I remove/unlink wildcarded files]

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 7:19:23 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Dear gods, I know I'm going to regret this... [...]

Yes, but *NOT* for the reason you think!

With all the intellectual and philosophical *GOLD* i have
dropped into this thread (and others), the only response you
can muster is to re-affirm your hatred for America's
Greatness and your disdain for the classical American
vernacular?

  "Is this it? Is this all you can conjure, Saruman?"
    
Hmm... yours and Marks responses are leading me to believe
that perpetual bike-shedding is not a unique phenomenon of
python-ideas after all!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83329

In article <f69874c8-48f6-4696-8678-c2a761f2f18d@googlegroups.com>,
Rick Johnson  <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, January 3, 2015 4:39:25 AM UTC-6, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I used to get very confused watching the old westerns.  The child when
>> talking about "more" and "paw" wasn't referring to possibly an
>> adjective, noun or adverb and a part of an animal, but what we would
>> refer to in the UK as "mum" and "dad" :)
>
>Early Americans are easy to satirize since most were
>schooled at home by illiterate parents. I believe the
>"redneck vernacular" substituted "mother" and "father" for
>"maw" and "paw" respectively. Which is not surprising since
>most uneducated folks tend to favor single syllable
>simplifications of words over their multi-syllable
>counterparts.
>
>Widespread centralized free schooling did not exists until
>almost the 1900's. Heck, looking back at American history,
>the world *SHOULD* be in awe. To go from a rag-tag
>illiterate bunch of cowboys, to the worlds most powerful and
>technically advanced society (in roughly one hundred years!)
>has to be the most amazing transformation in the history of
>the human society.

It isn't. The Russian transformation under Stalin from a feodalist
society with wooden plows to atomic bombs and space travel is. Most
capitalist politicians are reluctant to admit this, but e.g. Churchill
recognized this. A comboy on horse back who has ever seen a revolver
is a far cry in backwardness from a feodalist peasant who *expects* to
be flogged by a knut. Feodalism goes to the brain, like slavery does.
(It took generations for the US negroes to shed of their slavery
inheritance. )

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83348

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 7:11:45 AM UTC-6, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Rick Johnson wrote:
> >Widespread centralized free schooling did not exists until
> >almost the 1900's. Heck, looking back at American history,
> >the world *SHOULD* be in awe. To go from a rag-tag
> >illiterate bunch of cowboys, to the worlds most powerful and
> >technically advanced society (in roughly one hundred years!)
> >has to be the most amazing transformation in the history of
> >the human society.
> 
> It isn't. The Russian transformation under Stalin from a
> feodalist society with wooden plows to atomic bombs and
> space travel is.

Hmm, and i wonder where they got the technology from? Does
it count if the technology was stolen? For instance, if i
steal the source of Python and then proclaim to be the
*true* BDFL of Python, then do i get all the credit for
Python's existence?

    I DON'T THINK SO!

You're also ignoring a tiny thing called: "upward mobility".
In the 20th century, the whole of the American people gained
upward mobility. Anyone who dares to claim that a major
transformation of American society has not occurred, must be
blind to history!

Attaining advanced weaponry and scientific achievements is
nothing unless your people are benefiting *POSITIVELY* from
those advancements -- my statement was about transforming
*societies*, not about who popped the most Viagra pills and
achieved the largest erection in finite time!

---> [THUMP CHEST HERE]!

Farms did not vanish after the atomic/space ages, no,
societies still require food. But for the vast majority of
Russians, not a whole lot has changed. Sure, they have the
technology to fight wars on a global stage, but what good is
a strong arm without the guidance of a strong and *FREE*
mind? What good is ultimate power if you cannot improve you
own well being? -- just ask any genie trapped in a bottle!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57sUtvNa5o

If history has taught us anything, it is that, intelligence
will *ALWAYS* defeat brute strength, and that the *MOST*
intelligent societies are consequently those who possess
both a humbled respect for freedom, and a vile rejection of
oppression.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83362

Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com>:

> If history has taught us anything, it is that, intelligence will
> *ALWAYS* defeat brute strength, and that the *MOST* intelligent
> societies are consequently those who possess both a humbled respect
> for freedom, and a vile rejection of oppression.

Impressive. With such a high percentage of the regular participants
falling for you, I think you have passed the Turing test.

Were you programmed in Python?


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83137

On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:54:49 AM UTC-6, Rustom Mody wrote:
> And how does this strange language called English fits
> into your rules and (no) special cases scheme?

Oh i'm not blind to the many warts of the English language,
for it has many undesirable qualities indeed, however, it
*is* the "most ubiquitous language spoken" in the world.

    Note that "most ubiquitous spoken" does not mean that
    "the majority of people in the world speak English",
    rather that: "English crosses more cultural divides than
    any language spoken today" -- and because of that fact
    (for better or worse???) our public communications
    should be in English only.

I not suggesting that "supporting" multiple languages is a
sin, merely that, supporting multiple languages is a waste
of valuable time -- time that could be better spent tracking
bugs or adding features.

That is the sole reason why i detest UNICODE. UNICODE's
existence provides "life-support" for natural language
multiplicity, because it acts as a translator for selfish
alias's of ideas. Without this "translator", the technical
society would render these languages obsolete in short time.

    ============================================================
    REGIONAL LANGUAGES REPRESENT "SELFISH SYMBOL TABLES", WHO'S
    KEYS ARE MERELY "SUPERFLUOUS CODIFICATIONS" OF THE UBIQUITOUS
    "IMMUTABLE GLOBAL CONCEPTS" FOR WHICH THEY MAP, AND WE NEED
    AN OPTIMIZER TO FOREVER FREE OUR COMMUNICATIONS OF THESE
    "REDUNDANT BINDINGS"; INJECTED BY EMOTIONAL LITTLE AMATEURS,
    WHO's INTELLECTUAL BOUNDARIES END AT THE BASE OF THEIR OWN
    INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE ANT HILL!

    THE UNIVERSE SHOULD BE THE ONLY LIMIT!
    ============================================================

A tree is a tree, not matter how you spell it. A dog is dog,
velocity/mass/etc... These definitions (an many others) of
both "tangible objects" and "intangible ideas" are not in
dispute, SO WHY PERPETUATE SELFISH CODES TO DESCRIBE THEM?

Relationships such as: "dogs and cats are mammals", are
likewise not disputable, but yet we continue to codify
knowledge behind a multiplicity of selfish regional symbols --
and for what benefit?

Look, i know humans have this "instinctual need" to assemble
in herds, herds which employ unique symbols which "coddle"
their need for "sense of being" within the herd, but
these "needs" are not intellectual, they are but *cheap*
emotional remnants from our primitive days, and whist these
"herd emotions" are invaluable to the survival of primitive
lifeforms, we must realize that they serve no intellectual
purpose, and in fact, are an anchor around the necks of
advanced lifeforms such as ourselves.

    ============================================================
    WE MUST RELY ON LOGIC TO MOVE US INTO THE NEXT EVOLUTIONARY
    STAGE -- BECAUSE EMOTION WILL DESTROY US!
    ============================================================

Logic is not instinctual, neither is reason -- but emotion
*IS*! Emotion is our "basic modality" to fall back on when
the "logical system" fails us. A clear example of this "base
system" in action is the "oft-cited cop-out" of:

    "Oh, that's just semantics!"

Such a remark is nothing more than a weak "ego defense"
employed by an opponent who is either: (1) too lazy to
contemplate the intellectual depths, or (2) lacks the
intellectual *fortitude* to grasp the inherent concepts.

At some point we *ALL* need to realize that most ideas need
to be codified into a stdlib of world-wide natural language,
and then internalized within all public communication. Am i
suggesting that no one would be allowed to speak in regional
tongues...?

OF COURSE NOT!

I'm merely suggesting that only *ONE* official language be
supported for public business and public communication
purposes. You are free to speak or write whatever "slang" or
"regionally selfish code" that you want in any "non-
official" communique.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83131

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those who refuse to be a part of the modern world can
> suffer the troubles of forking the code into their ancient
> systems -- and i will not loose any sleep over the issue.

By the way, is this "loose" part of your "modern world", or is that
just a straight-up error?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83140

Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Rick Johnson
> <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Those who refuse to be a part of the modern world can
>>suffer the troubles of forking the code into their ancient
>>systems -- and i will not loose any sleep over the issue.
> 
> By the way, is this "loose" part of your "modern world", or is that
> just a straight-up error?

I think he's just let slip a clue to his secret
evil plans. Anyone who stands between him and
world domination will be anaesthetised by his
fearsome giant sleep cannon.

-- 
Greg

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web