Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #55447 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 258 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-26 05:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 06:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2014-12-26 15:18 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-26 09:54 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2014-12-26 17:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 10:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-30 12:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 13:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-30 16:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 15:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 15:21 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 16:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 17:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 18:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-01 06:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 14:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 16:10 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 01:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 03:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 16:22 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 17:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 18:24 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 22:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 14:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 11:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:20 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 15:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 16:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-06 06:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 10:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-30 21:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk - 2015-01-04 06:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 00:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-31 01:07 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-01 08:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 10:29 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 09:51 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 12:55 -0600
Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:30 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:37 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:40 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 01:48 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-30 23:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 09:24 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 19:35 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 20:10 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 06:30 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:00 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-04 22:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-31 04:31 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 20:19 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-01 20:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-01 23:45 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:51 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:17 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 00:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 23:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 11:48 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 04:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 13:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:03 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 18:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:09 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:52 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 15:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 06:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 14:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 07:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 16:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-02 08:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-03 14:03 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 13:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:43 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:50 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:38 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-06 00:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:59 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 19:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 22:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:43 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 14:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-04 19:38 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:58 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 09:59 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2015-01-04 20:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 10:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-05 10:01 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 17:28 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 18:34 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 10:56 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:05 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 11:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 11:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:50 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:10 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:10 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 08:59 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 10:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 18:57 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:14 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:40 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 12:04 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:54 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:02 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 19:56 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:02 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 12:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:17 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-14 22:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-14 17:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 09:53 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 09:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 14:41 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 14:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-15 06:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 16:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 12:01 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 23:08 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-18 16:25 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-19 09:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 11:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 14:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 15:58 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 15:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:34 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 23:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-01-16 17:37 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 10:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 02:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 17:25 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 14:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-16 10:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 04:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-15 15:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:22 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-04 22:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 12:58 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:07 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 08:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-06 08:48 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 10:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 20:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-02 21:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? A Lurker <none@example.com> - 2015-01-03 09:27 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:25 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:44 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:59 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-01-03 22:30 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 13:58 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 22:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 11:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2015-01-04 15:07 -0400
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 13:01 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 04:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 12:27 -0700
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:48 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 01:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 02:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 04:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:42 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:57 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 01:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:05 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-03 17:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 14:39 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-03 13:47 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:16 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-04 15:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-01-03 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-01-12 15:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-12 22:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 15:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnwq4npptd.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #56323 |
asetofsymbols@gmail.com writes:
> "the exception make the rule" Maybe in the sense that when you see
> that there are a few exceptions then the rule is fine
No, that's the common misunderstanding of the phrase.
Depending on the context, a few exceptions to a rule might not
invalidate it, but they certainly don't strengthen it, which is
what the common misunderstanding of "The exception proves the rule"
would imply.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 20:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d1b97a4d-8258-4cf0-a8c0-660d81c8428f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56328 |
http://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'eccezione_conferma_la_regola Prova= mette alla prova "the exception prove the rule" "l'eccezione prova la regola" In the link there is what it means. This has origin from Phaedrus books I not say I understand that at full
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 23:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01ee1c6c-bc31-4406-aac8-00a4148e546c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56331 |
On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 5:35:00 AM UTC+1, asetof...@gmail.com wrote: > http://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'eccezione_conferma_la_regola I think I know my own language. > Prova= mette alla prova Which is the wrong verb, as "conferma" is the one used. > "the exception prove the rule" > "l'eccezione prova la regola" Which has not the same meaning. > In the link there is what it means. > This has origin from Phaedrus books > I not say I understand that at full In fact you didn't. Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 01:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0fc8d74d-785d-4df3-a6bc-2bdf458ddc8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56336 |
#se tu leggi la pagina associata al link dice che #"conferma" é la traduzione sbagliata quella giusta é #"l'eccezione prova la regola" #con Prova= mette alla prova #in poche parole significa che si puó accettare #una piccola eccezione alla regola
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 01:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e328b5f1-2a58-44b0-b5ba-427ea907e90d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56337 |
"The exception confirm the rule" if you read the page associated with the link in my above post [that use "Confirmation" ] Than the autor says it is the wrong popular translation the right one should be: "The exception proves the rule" With proves = tests In few words one can accept one little exception to the rule or law
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 01:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f2d45d86-0d79-4b86-8aa8-98aa041a944a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56338 |
On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:30:37 AM UTC+1, asetof...@gmail.com wrote: > "The exception confirm the rule" > > if you read the page associated with the link > in my above post [that use "Confirmation" ] > Than the autor says it is the wrong > popular translation the right one should be: > > "The exception proves the rule" > > With proves = tests > In few words one can accept one little exception > to the rule or law I don't see why the "popular translation" should be wrong. Simply the latin "probo-probas-probare" and the italian "provare" (along with the english "to prove") have not exactly the same meaning anymore. Fortunately we have enough contexts in which the phrase was used to infer the actual meaning of both the verb and the phrase itself, as we already wrote extensively in this thread. Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 10:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <m9bf0p$2ok$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56339 |
On 16-Jan-15 03:43, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > asetof...@gmail.com wrote: >> "The exception confirm the rule" >> >> if you read the page associated with the link in my above post >> [that use "Confirmation" ] Than the autor says it is the wrong >> popular translation the right one should be: >> >> "The exception proves the rule" >> >> With proves = tests In few words one can accept one little >> exception to the rule or law > > I don't see why the "popular translation" should be wrong. > > Simply the latin "probo-probas-probare" and the italian "provare" > (along with the english "to prove") have not exactly the same meaning > anymore. Most people aren't aware of the original meaning of "prove" (what we would now use "test" for), so the quote is often misinterpreted. Is there a similar problem with the Latin/Italian word, or does it only refer to the older meaning of "prove"? (The only modern uses of that sense of "prove" that I'm aware of are "bullet-proof", which is itself an old word and misinterpreted itself, and "proving ground". Maybe "prove yourself" too, but that one could also possibly use the modern meaning.) S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20150116093653.404@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #56354 |
On 2015-01-16, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote: > Most people aren't aware of the original meaning of "prove" (what we > would now use "test" for), so the quote is often misinterpreted. Sounds as if it may be etymologically related to "probe".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 10:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <254c6874-fe92-4ca9-b523-74ca25324bbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56354 |
On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 5:42:38 PM UTC+1, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 16-Jan-15 03:43, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > > Simply the latin "probo-probas-probare" and the italian "provare" > > (along with the english "to prove") have not exactly the same meaning > > anymore. > > Most people aren't aware of the original meaning of "prove" (what we > would now use "test" for), so the quote is often misinterpreted. > > Is there a similar problem with the Latin/Italian word, or does it only > refer to the older meaning of "prove"? > In Italian "provare" il a very versatile verb: you can use it for "try", "test" and "prove", but it also has other meanings, for example when you train yourself for your theatre course or when you repeat your speach the day before is also "provare". This is why, I guess, in the Italian version of the proverb it's not used, as it would make it even more obscure (and still there are many people who get the meaning wrong in Italian too). Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 02:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af799ee1-f006-49c8-a223-fdd23541a801@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56336 |
fmassei wrote: >On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 5:35:00 AM UTC+1, asetof...@gmail.com wrote: >> http://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'eccezione_conferma_la_regola >I think I know my own language. >> Prova= mette alla prova >Which is the wrong verb, as "conferma" is the one used. "The exception confirms the rule" or "The exception tests the rule" or "The exception proves the rule" or in italian language "l'eccezione conferma la regola" "l'eccezione prova la regola" sono tutti sinonimi come frase have all the same meaning these means that one can accept one little exception to the rule or law that so *it would be confirmed tested proved* [because it has only one little exception] >> "the exception prove the rule" >> "l'eccezione prova la regola" >Which has not the same meaning. >> In the link there is what it means. >> This has origin from Phaedrus books >> I not say I understand that at full >In fact you didn't. This show you too >Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 17:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54B83E4E.6030107@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #56321 |
On 01/15/2015 04:23 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:58:30 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 01/15/2015 03:27 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:22:26 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> fmassei@gmail.com writes: >>>>> >>>>> There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in >>>>> casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one >>>>> thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant >>>>> that anything else was allowed. >>>> >>>> How does that differ from sense 1, which goes back to Cicero, more than >>>> 2000 years ago? >>>> >>> >>> Cicero, after 1000 thousand years, is philosophy (and, as such, subject to >>> possible interpretations) >> >> "1000 thousand years"? How far back do you think recorded human history >> goes? 10 thousand years is about the upper limit. Cicero was only 2 >> thousand years ago. >> > > I said 1K as an hypothetical time shift between him and the lawyers I was > referring to. You did not say "1K" in any of the above text. You did say "1000 thousand years". Perhaps you don't realize that this phrase means "1,000,000 years"? >>> Laws, after 1000 thousand years, are old laws (and, as such, precise enough >>> to not leave space to many discussions). >> >> The Cicero citation >> <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html> was an argument >> presented in court, and is the ultimate source of the legal principle >> you cite. See also >> <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0020:text=Balb.> >> > > I think I know enough of roman rhetoric to take it for what it's worth: an > impressive application of the human language, but rarely as an example > of logic and clearness of thoughts. > As I understood the theme of this branch of the thread, we are not discussing > if Cicero was a logic expert or not: yes, he was, of course. But first of all > he was a lawyer (and later a writer - and you cannot read what we wrote > without his background in mind); we are trying to find out (in a c.l.* NG, > maybe we were not the best choice) what the origin of the way of saying was, > and how it changed during the millennia. > I wrote you how it is in Italy now, which, due to the similarity of the Italian > language to the original language, I think it's worth a shot. And I give you a > medieval law to backup the whole thing. > If I'm missing the point just tell me. You dismissed the Cicero citation as being from a work of philosophy. It was not. You might want to deny that an argument presented in a court of law has anything to do with Law, but I don't understand that denial. Either way, it very definitely wasn't from a philosophical treatise. I very much doubt that what you presented is an medieval Italian law - it has the appearance of being a medieval legal principle. In modern times, laws are passed by legislatures; in ancient times they were imposed by proclamations by royalty (or, supposedly, divinity). Either way, they can be cited by identifying the document proclaiming the law. Legal principles are created by legal experts when arguing about the meaning of the laws, and become official when those who have the authority to pass judgement on such arguments approve them. In general, you cannot cite a legal principle by identifying a document that makes it law, you can only cite a case in which an argument based upon that principle was accepted by a judge as valid. This was precisely one such argument. The validity of a legal principle often transcends the authority of the legal system where it was first recognized, and that is indeed the case with this principle. The particular legal principle you refer to seems to be the same one first described by Cicero. If you think otherwise, it would help to explain how it differs - which is what Keith originally asked you to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fmassei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 14:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b9429e71-0cf2-4109-81bb-ed7d52977412@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56325 |
On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 11:25:28 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > On 01/15/2015 04:23 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:58:30 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > >> On 01/15/2015 03:27 PM, fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:22:26 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>>> fmassei@gmail.com writes: > >>>>> > >>>>> There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in > >>>>> casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one > >>>>> thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant > >>>>> that anything else was allowed. > >>>> > >>>> How does that differ from sense 1, which goes back to Cicero, more than > >>>> 2000 years ago? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Cicero, after 1000 thousand years, is philosophy (and, as such, subject to > >>> possible interpretations) > >> > >> "1000 thousand years"? How far back do you think recorded human history > >> goes? 10 thousand years is about the upper limit. Cicero was only 2 > >> thousand years ago. > >> > > > > I said 1K as an hypothetical time shift between him and the lawyers I was > > referring to. > > You did not say "1K" in any of the above text. You did say "1000 > thousand years". Perhaps you don't realize that this phrase means > "1,000,000 years"? > Whoa - man, you're right! It was a cut-paste error :D Of course, I meant 1kys - one thousand years :) > >>> Laws, after 1000 thousand years, are old laws (and, as such, precise enough > >>> to not leave space to many discussions). > >> > >> The Cicero citation > >> <http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html> was an argument > >> presented in court, and is the ultimate source of the legal principle > >> you cite. See also > >> <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0020:text=Balb.> > >> > > > > I think I know enough of roman rhetoric to take it for what it's worth: an > > impressive application of the human language, but rarely as an example > > of logic and clearness of thoughts. > > As I understood the theme of this branch of the thread, we are not discussing > > if Cicero was a logic expert or not: yes, he was, of course. But first of all > > he was a lawyer (and later a writer - and you cannot read what we wrote > > without his background in mind); we are trying to find out (in a c.l.* NG, > > maybe we were not the best choice) what the origin of the way of saying was, > > and how it changed during the millennia. > > I wrote you how it is in Italy now, which, due to the similarity of the Italian > > language to the original language, I think it's worth a shot. And I give you a > > medieval law to backup the whole thing. > > If I'm missing the point just tell me. > > You dismissed the Cicero citation as being from a work of philosophy. It > was not. You might want to deny that an argument presented in a court of > law has anything to do with Law, but I don't understand that denial. > Either way, it very definitely wasn't from a philosophical treatise. > Medieval lawyers thought like you. Nowadays we have a different concept of logic and laws. Don't get me wrong: I can totally understand both points and I agree with none. > I very much doubt that what you presented is an medieval Italian law - > it has the appearance of being a medieval legal principle. In modern > times, laws are passed by legislatures; in ancient times they were > imposed by proclamations by royalty (or, supposedly, divinity). Either > way, they can be cited by identifying the document proclaiming the law. > Legal principles are created by legal experts when arguing about the > meaning of the laws, and become official when those who have the > authority to pass judgement on such arguments approve them. In general, > you cannot cite a legal principle by identifying a document that makes > it law, you can only cite a case in which an argument based upon that > principle was accepted by a judge as valid. This was precisely one such > argument. The validity of a legal principle often transcends the > authority of the legal system where it was first recognized, and that is > indeed the case with this principle. > I think you are thinking about the anglo-saxon laws' system, and not the central-european syteam, which is kinda different: the judge has a completely different role, and the "principles" are much more important than the laws: they are, in fact, what the laws should be based upon, and they prevail when the law is in doubt. > The particular legal principle you refer to seems to be the same one > first described by Cicero. If you think otherwise, it would help to > explain how it differs - which is what Keith originally asked you to do. > Yup, this is pretty common even in the modern times: even now, if you study Jurisprudence in Italy, Spain or France, you should know most of the Roman "principles" and how to use it in court. Ciao!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 10:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <m9bfao$42e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56325 |
On 15-Jan-15 16:25, James Kuyper wrote: > I very much doubt that what you presented is an medieval Italian law > - it has the appearance of being a medieval legal principle. In > modern times, laws are passed by legislatures; in ancient times they > were imposed by proclamations by royalty (or, supposedly, divinity). What legislatures pass are "statutes", which are merely one type of "law"; there are several others, most notably "case law" aka "common law" aka "precedent", which seems to be relevant here. > Either way, they can be cited by identifying the document proclaiming > the law. Legal principles are created by legal experts when arguing > about the meaning of the laws, and become official when those who > have the authority to pass judgement on such arguments approve them. And until the modern era, and still today in common-law systems, such "approval" often comes in the form of case law. Civil law systems prefer to codify such principles into statutes; that is the main distinction between the two, actually. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-16 10:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54b8e97b.625562@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #56317 |
fmassei@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:22:26 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > > fmassei@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > There is another option: in medieval times, the "exceptio probat regulam in > > > casibus non exceptis", was actually a juridical term: a lawyer of one > > > thousand years ago could say that a "dogs-are-not-allowed-here" sign meant > > > that anything else was allowed. > > > > How does that differ from sense 1, which goes back to Cicero, more than > > 2000 years ago? > > Cicero, after 1000 thousand years, is philosophy (and, as such, subject to > possible interpretations) Erm, no. No, very much not. Cicero was a _lawyer_, and a bitch of one. And he was very clear in what he attacked; go read his Catiline orations if you don't believe me. Venom like that would get you a contempt of court within three minutes, these days. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 04:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7145e1b9-5c85-4b1d-99d9-dd4d3b9dd4a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56279 |
per me si discute su: ogni regola ha la sua eccezione Each law has its own exceptional case (that not obey to that law)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-15 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YNQtw.569191$Mq4.551383@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #56294 |
On 2015-01-15, asetofsymbols@gmail.com <asetofsymbols@gmail.com> wrote: > per me si discute su: > ogni regola ha la sua eccezione > > Each law has its own exceptional > case (that not obey to that law) Better. Though it would need to be "each of societies laws" since the moment we find an exception to what we consider one of natures laws it becomes neccessary to rethink the law if not altogether discard it. -- http://www.softsprocket.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <54AADB8B.8000506@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #55908 |
On 01/05/2015 10:29 AM, Richard Bos wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: ... >> Exactly - the most common definition of "byte" makes it a synonym for >> "octet". > > The most common definition of "hacker" is "cracker". That doesn't make > it _correct_. We're talking now about the usage of "byte" outside the context of the C standard. Is there any relevant authority that you can appeal to for a determination of whether the definition of an English word is "correct"? There are such authorities established by law for several languages (an approach that works best for one-country languages), but I know of no universally recognized one for English. If common usage embraces this definition of "byte" (which, as far as I can tell, it has), it becomes at least one of the "correct" definitions for the term. It's in several dictionaries, along side other definitions that allow more flexibility. I feel the same way about "hacker" - common usage is changing the original meaning. I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the term with it's original meaning, except in the middle of diatribes against the new meaning. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8caub$4cc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55721 |
On 03/01/15 14:16, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it >>>> even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all. >>> [...] >>> >>> Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd >>> call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it >>> "unsigned char". >>> >> >> True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most >> people (including most C programmers). > > For obvious reasons there is much scope for confusion when talking about > what most people mean by something, but C's definition: > > 3.6 > byte > addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of > the basic character set of the execution environment > > closely matches mine and several others that I just searched for. What > did you have in mind (or, maybe I should say in what did you have in > most people's minds) when you said that? > You know /exactly/ what I had in mind - which is part of the reason that I feel it is reasonable to talk about what "most people" mean by a "byte". The word "byte" is used to mean "8 bits", except in a few rather technical cases such as the C standards, where it is explicitly given a different meaning. In any sort of hardware discussions, or software discussions outside of C standards, it means 8 bits, because that is how it is usually interpreted. Even when you work with processors with CHAR_BIT greater than 8, the word "byte" is never (in my experience) used to refer to a C "char" or anything other than an 8-bit entity. So no, standard C does not have a "byte" type on all systems - it has a "byte" type on most targets, and it has a type that the C standards refer to as a "byte" on all targets. But it is not a "byte" type in the normal usage of the word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87mw5yvwkn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #55840 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 03/01/15 14:16, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> [...] >>>>> C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it >>>>> even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd >>>> call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it >>>> "unsigned char". >>>> >>> >>> True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most >>> people (including most C programmers). >> >> For obvious reasons there is much scope for confusion when talking about >> what most people mean by something, but C's definition: >> >> 3.6 >> byte >> addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of >> the basic character set of the execution environment >> >> closely matches mine and several others that I just searched for. What >> did you have in mind (or, maybe I should say in what did you have in >> most people's minds) when you said that? > > You know /exactly/ what I had in mind - which is part of the reason > that I feel it is reasonable to talk about what "most people" mean by > a "byte". I'm sorry you think is was being disingenuous and I can see that I did not put the point very well. I should have stressed that I was wondering if the casual usage (of which, you are correct, I am perfectly well aware) really persists when people try to define a byte. I was asking if you thought the size or the addressability or the use for characters or some other attributes would win out for "most people" when it came to having to define a byte. I'm old, and have seen lots of bytes in my time, and my notion of a byte is influenced by that. I think of a small (usually addressable) unit of storage, not defined by it's size. I should probably have left it as an personal remark about *my* notion of a byte. > The word "byte" is used to mean "8 bits", Sure. But when pressed to define the term, does that remain the case? Obviously I know now that you think it does, and I am prepared to accept that you are right because I have no contradictory data. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 12:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8du81$vrt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55866 |
On 04/01/15 23:29, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 03/01/15 14:16, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> >>>> On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it >>>>>> even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all. >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd >>>>> call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it >>>>> "unsigned char". >>>>> >>>> >>>> True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most >>>> people (including most C programmers). >>> >>> For obvious reasons there is much scope for confusion when talking about >>> what most people mean by something, but C's definition: >>> >>> 3.6 >>> byte >>> addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of >>> the basic character set of the execution environment >>> >>> closely matches mine and several others that I just searched for. What >>> did you have in mind (or, maybe I should say in what did you have in >>> most people's minds) when you said that? >> >> You know /exactly/ what I had in mind - which is part of the reason >> that I feel it is reasonable to talk about what "most people" mean by >> a "byte". > > I'm sorry you think is was being disingenuous and I can see that I did > not put the point very well. I should have stressed that I was > wondering if the casual usage (of which, you are correct, I am perfectly > well aware) really persists when people try to define a byte. Fair enough. I should really have asked you to clarify your question (which you did below) - my comment was, I think, worded unnecessarily sarcastically. > I was > asking if you thought the size or the addressability or the use for > characters or some other attributes would win out for "most people" when > it came to having to define a byte. I think that for "most people", a "byte" is a unit of storage, often seen as kilobyte, megabyte or gigabyte. For this to make sense, the size of a "byte" must be consistent. Most programmers (I would even say "almost all", but please don't ask me to provide real references!) will only ever work on systems that use 8-bit bytes and have 8-bit memory addressability, and probably will not make any distinction between size, addressability and character size. They may not actually get access to individual bytes - perhaps their choice of programming language only has "integer" or they use UTF-16/UTF-32 or have other abstractions. But I cannot imagine them using the word "byte" for anything other than 8-bit sized items of memory. So while some very technical documents, usually with a long history behind them, will refer to "octets" for 8-bit bytes, or different-sized "bytes" defined in different ways, this is very much a matter of history rather than common modern usage. > > I'm old, and have seen lots of bytes in my time, and my notion of a byte > is influenced by that. I think of a small (usually addressable) unit of > storage, not defined by it's size. I should probably have left it as an > personal remark about *my* notion of a byte. "Your" notion of a byte certainly matches that of the C standards and a number of other older documents - and there was a time when it was /the/ definition of a "byte". But times change, language changes, and usage changes. Apart from a few DSP's (which, AFAIK, mostly avoid the word "byte" and certainly don't use it for sizes other than 8 bits), almost all architectures in the past few decades have had 8-bit addressable memory, and the use of "byte" reflects that. Perhaps I am just lucky never to have had to work with mainframes - when I started programming, it was with chips like the Z80 and the 6502, which had 8-bit bytes. > >> The word "byte" is used to mean "8 bits", > > Sure. But when pressed to define the term, does that remain the case? > Obviously I know now that you think it does, and I am prepared to accept > that you are right because I have no contradictory data. > Well, that all depends on how you decide how a term is defined :-) If you take the view that the term "byte" is /defined/ by an ISO document that almost no one has read, or that it is defined by the C standards documents (which in this group, we all keep under our pillows), then you are clearly correct. If you take the view that a word is defined by its common usage, then I believe /my/ definition is correct. The only answer is for the C committee to declare that in the next version of the standard, CHAR_BITS is fixed at 8 - then we can all be happy!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web