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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #128008 > unrolled thread

Most popular Technologies:

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

Contents

  Most popular Technologies: Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2018-03-19 12:50 -0400
    Re: Most popular Technologies: scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-03-19 17:05 +0000
      Re: Most popular Technologies: "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 01:36 +0800
      Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 19:53 +0800
        Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving   pedestrian Unsteadyken <unsteadyken@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:20 +0000
          Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 22:24 +0800
          Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Big Al <Big_Al@invalid.com> - 2018-03-20 10:26 -0400
          Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-03-20 11:24 -0400
            Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 23:48 +0800
              Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-03-20 15:41 -0400
                Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-03-20 19:47 +0000
          Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving   pedestrian Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-03-20 09:51 -0700
            Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving   pedestrian "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-03-20 19:10 +0000
              Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving   pedestrian Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 04:54 -0700
                Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving   pedestrian Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 05:44 -0700
            Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-03-20 15:46 -0400
              Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-03-21 09:56 -0700
                Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 10:01 -0700
                Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-03-21 13:24 -0400
                  Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-03-21 16:17 -0700
                    Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-03-21 19:49 -0400
                      Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-03-22 11:52 -0700
                        Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-03-22 22:05 -0400
                        Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 21:20 -0700
        Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-03-21 10:21 -0700
          Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-03-21 21:39 +0000
            Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-03-21 20:13 -0400
          Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-21 22:05 -0700
        Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 18:06 +0000
          Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 21:18 -0700
        Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-03-24 05:12 +0200
      Re: Most popular Technologies: Davs <johndemeert0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 20:42 -0700
    Re: Most popular Technologies: "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 01:35 +0800
      Re: Most popular Technologies: Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 15:29 -0700
    Re: Most popular Technologies: GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 19:26 +0100
      Re: Most popular Technologies: Real Troll <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> - 2018-03-19 17:59 -0400
        Re: Most popular Technologies: GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 23:08 +0100
          Re: Most popular Technologies: Real Troll <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> - 2018-03-19 18:25 -0400
            Re: Most popular Technologies: GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 00:39 +0100
            Re: Most popular Technologies: Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 22:19 -0700
        Re: Most popular Technologies: Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-03-20 12:27 +0000
          Re: Most popular Technologies: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-03-20 09:29 -0700
        Re: Most popular Technologies: scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-03-20 13:43 +0000
        Re: Most popular Technologies: jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2018-03-20 06:55 -0700
    Re: Most popular Technologies: Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2018-03-19 19:55 +0000
      Re: Most popular Technologies: "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 03:58 +0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#128008 — Most popular Technologies:

Over 100,000 respondents from around the world participated this year, 
making it the world’s largest and most comprehensive developer survey.

<https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dev-survey-2018-promotion#technology>

C:  23%
C++ : 25.4%
C#:  34.4%


So C is falling behind year after year.  In 5 years time we might not be 
able to get anybody using C

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#128011

Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> writes:
>Over 100,000 respondents from around the world participated this year, 
>making it the world’s largest and most comprehensive developer survey.
>
><https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dev-survey-2018-promotion#technology>
>
>C:  23%
>C++ : 25.4%
>C#:  34.4%
>
>
>So C is falling behind year after year.  In 5 years time we might not be 
>able to get anybody using C
>
>

Garbage in, garbage out.

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

#128015

On 20/3/2018 01:05, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> C:  23%
>> C++ : 25.4%
>> C#:  34.4%
>>
>> So C is falling behind year after year.  In 5 years time we might not be
>> able to get anybody using C
>
> Garbage in, garbage out.

That law applies to ALL programming languages.

And think about artificial intelligence, which is just programs. :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

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

#128084 — Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 20/3/2018 01:05, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> Garbage in, garbage out.
>

Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving 
pedestrian

<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe>

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

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

#128090 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

In article <p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>, 
toylet.toylet@gmail.com says...
> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving 
> pedestrian
> 
If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the 
implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did 
not involve pedestrians. 
I think Uber should come clean about these shocking deaths, or headline 
writers should learn to right proper English like what I do.

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

#128098 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 20/3/2018 21:20, Unsteadyken wrote:
> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
> not involve pedestrians.
> I think Uber should come clean about these shocking deaths, or headline
> writers should learn to right proper English like what I do.

You will need an accurate, complete news database to check whether it's 
a first for Uber. Do *ALL* news agencies on Earth have that? As good as 
your brain? :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

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

#128099 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 03/20/2018 09:20 AM, Unsteadyken wrote:
> In article <p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>,
> toylet.toylet@gmail.com says...
>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving
>> pedestrian
>>
> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
> not involve pedestrians.
> I think Uber should come clean about these shocking deaths, or headline
> writers should learn to right proper English like what I do.
> 
The word 'what' is superfluous and 'right' should be 'write'.   "learn 
to write proper English like I do."

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

#128103 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 2018-03-20 09:20, Unsteadyken wrote:
> In article <p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>,
> toylet.toylet@gmail.com says...
>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving
>> pedestrian
>>
> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
> not involve pedestrians.

Ther was, but with a Tesla, not an Uber car. Guy drive on "auto-pilot", 
car failed to recognise a truck-trailer in front of it as an obstacle, 
and dive straight into it.

> I think Uber should come clean about these shocking deaths, or headline
> writers should learn to right proper English like what I do.

:-)


-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."

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

#128105 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 20/3/2018 23:24, Wolf K wrote:
>
> Ther was, but with a Tesla, not an Uber car. Guy drive on "auto-pilot",
> car failed to recognise a truck-trailer in front of it as an obstacle,
> and dive straight into it.

Did it see the back of that truck as a tunnel? :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不賭錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

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

#128121 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 2018-03-20 11:48, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 20/3/2018 23:24, Wolf K wrote:
>>
>> Ther was, but with a Tesla, not an Uber car. Guy drive on "auto-pilot",
>> car failed to recognise a truck-trailer in front of it as an obstacle,
>> and dive straight into it.
> 
> Did it see the back of that truck as a tunnel? :)
> 

IIRC, the truck was painted white, and the Tesla's visual system 
couldn't tell that it was not a piece of sky. In addition, "auto pilot" 
on the car did/does not mean "autonomous".

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."

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

#128123 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> writes:
>On 2018-03-20 11:48, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 20/3/2018 23:24, Wolf K wrote:
>>>
>>> Ther was, but with a Tesla, not an Uber car. Guy drive on "auto-pilot",
>>> car failed to recognise a truck-trailer in front of it as an obstacle,
>>> and dive straight into it.
>> 
>> Did it see the back of that truck as a tunnel? :)
>> 
>
>IIRC, the truck was painted white, and the Tesla's visual system 
>couldn't tell that it was not a piece of sky. In addition, "auto pilot" 
>on the car did/does not mean "autonomous".

https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/20/tesla-driver-in-fatal-autopilot-crash-ignored-safety-warnings/

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

#128111 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
<unsteadyken@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>, 
>toylet.toylet@gmail.com says...
>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving 
>> pedestrian
>> 
>If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the 
>implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did 
>not involve pedestrians.

     There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
that does not state anything outside the limited area.

>I think Uber should come clean about these shocking deaths, or headline 
>writers should learn to right proper English like what I do.

     You might find reviewing your English of value.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#128117 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

In message <ate2bd9vaepb78la6ehde5q7pcdlpafhaj@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko 
<genew@telus.net> writes:
>On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
><unsteadyken@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
>>If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
>>implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
>>not involve pedestrians.
>
>     There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
>that does not state anything outside the limited area.
[]
Looking at this purely as a use of English matter, there _is_ such an 
implication; if there wasn't, the words "to involve a pedestrian" would 
be omitted. Their presence implies what Unsteadyken says they do.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork.

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

#128142 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 7:11:01 PM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <ate2bd9vaepb78la6ehde5q7pcdlpafhaj@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko 
> <genew@telus.net> writes:
> >On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
> ><unsteadyken@gmail.com> wrote:
> []
> >>If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
> >>implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
> >>not involve pedestrians.
> >
> >     There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
> >that does not state anything outside the limited area.
> []
> Looking at this purely as a use of English matter, there _is_ such an 
> implication; if there wasn't, the words "to involve a pedestrian" would 
> be omitted. Their presence implies what Unsteadyken says they do.
> 
Exactly.
"The first computer language not to have a goto statement" implies that
there were previous languages which did include goto. Otherwise it's
just the "first computer language" and we speak of "the first computer
language to include a goto statement".

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

#128148 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 4:54:59 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 7:11:01 PM UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> > In message <ate2bd9vaepb78la6ehde5q7pcdlpafhaj@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko 
> > <genew@telus.net> writes:
> > >On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
> > ><unsteadyken@gmail.com> wrote:
> > []
> > >>If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
> > >>implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
> > >>not involve pedestrians.
> > >
> > >     There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
> > >that does not state anything outside the limited area.
> > []
> > Looking at this purely as a use of English matter, there _is_ such an 
> > implication; if there wasn't, the words "to involve a pedestrian" would 
> > be omitted. Their presence implies what Unsteadyken says they do.
> > 
> Exactly.
> "The first computer language not to have a goto statement" implies that
> there were previous languages which did include goto. Otherwise it's
> just the "first computer language" and we speak of "the first computer
> language to include a goto statement".



All that Daniel Lewis cares about is that Daniel Lewis gets to deal out his spam message and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that William Poaster is an involuntary target on the other end of the phone is what gets him off. So what is Daniel Lewis's tool for the flooding nonsense? JavaScript? That is the only language he knows, or admits to. He must be abusing it to create these stupid "group-killer" threads. Best hypothesis, Daniel Lewis took some code that he reverse engineered and try to sell online... he is feeding it Google Groups data, grabbing "special" paragraphs, then altering those using Markova chains and then he annoyingly posts them because his insanity enables him to do that almost constantly. Who are you even talking to? 

--
Puppy Videos!!
https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o
https://youtu.be/TETJEkaUoY4
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

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

#128122 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 2018-03-20 12:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
> <unsteadyken@gmail.com>  wrote:
> 
>> In article<p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>,
>> toylet.toylet@gmail.com  says...
>>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving
>>> pedestrian
>>>
>> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
>> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
>> not involve pedestrians.
>       There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
> that does not state anything outside the limited area.

I'm afraid there is, according to all the rules of parsing English that 
I know of. If the writer intended that it was the first such incident in 
Arizona, those qualification should have been added.

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."

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

#128157 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:46:08 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>On 2018-03-20 12:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
>> <unsteadyken@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> In article<p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>,
>>> toylet.toylet@gmail.com  says...
>>>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving
>>>> pedestrian
>>>>
>>> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
>>> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
>>> not involve pedestrians.
>>       There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
>> that does not state anything outside the limited area.
>
>I'm afraid there is, according to all the rules of parsing English that 
>I know of. If the writer intended that it was the first such incident in 
>Arizona, those qualification should have been added.

     Nope.  It mentions the first fatal crash involving a pedestrian.
The person who wrote the article might have researched that exact
point and not anything about other types of crashes.  Consequently,
responsible reporting would require that he limit his sttement
appropriately.

     This is similar to a statement "We will go on a picnic if it does
not rain." does not state anything about if it does rain.  The people
might still go on a picnic.  Or they might not.  We do not know.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#128158 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 4:56:16 PM UTC, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:46:08 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> 
> >On 2018-03-20 12:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
> >> <unsteadyken@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article<p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>,
> >>> toylet.toylet@gmail.com  says...
> >>>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving
> >>>> pedestrian
> >>>>
> >>> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
> >>> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
> >>> not involve pedestrians.
> >>       There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
> >> that does not state anything outside the limited area.
> >
> >I'm afraid there is, according to all the rules of parsing English that 
> >I know of. If the writer intended that it was the first such incident in 
> >Arizona, those qualification should have been added.
> 
>      Nope.  It mentions the first fatal crash involving a pedestrian.
> The person who wrote the article might have researched that exact
> point and not anything about other types of crashes.  Consequently,
> responsible reporting would require that he limit his sttement
> appropriately.
> 
>      This is similar to a statement "We will go on a picnic if it does
> not rain." does not state anything about if it does rain.  The people
> might still go on a picnic.  Or they might not.  We do not know.
> 
That's how autistic people think. In fact human language doesn't have
those mathematical characteristics.

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

#128161 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On 2018-03-21 12:56, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:46:08 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-03-20 12:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
>>> <unsteadyken@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> toylet.toylet@gmail.com  says...
>>>>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving
>>>>> pedestrian
>>>>>
>>>> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
>>>> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
>>>> not involve pedestrians.
>>>        There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
>>> that does not state anything outside the limited area.
>>
>> I'm afraid there is, according to all the rules of parsing English that
>> I know of. If the writer intended that it was the first such incident in
>> Arizona, those qualification should have been added.
> 
>       Nope.  It mentions the first fatal crash involving a pedestrian.
> The person who wrote the article might have researched that exact
> point and not anything about other types of crashes.  Consequently,
> responsible reporting would require that he limit his sttement
> appropriately.
> 
>       This is similar to a statement "We will go on a picnic if it does
> not rain." does not state anything about if it does rain.  The people
> might still go on a picnic.  Or they might not.  We do not know.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko

I'm afraid you're confusing logic and English usage. Trust me: English 
usage means that "First X with property Y" implies that the speaker is 
singling out those Xs that have property Y, and ignoring all the other 
Xs that have property Z (etc). Otherwise, the speaker would have merely 
referred to X without qualification. That is, in English (and all the 
languages I speak/read), any qualification implies a subset. The speaker 
may make their ignorance of other possible subsets explicit ("...if 
any..."), but if they don't do so, you must infer that they know of or 
believe that there are other subsets. Thus, by qualifying X as having 
property Y, the speaker implies they know of or believe that there are X 
that have property Z (etc).

BTW, it's such differences as these between natural language usage and 
logic that must be taught explicitly when teaching students how to parse 
an argument. It ain't easy. I taught logic (Aristotelian and Boolean) 
for many years.

Best,

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"The next conference for the time travel design team will be held two 
weeks ago."

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

#128181 — Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:24:04 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>On 2018-03-21 12:56, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:46:08 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-03-20 12:51, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:20:14 -0000, Unsteadyken
>>>> <unsteadyken@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article<p8qsn7$ptr$1@toylet.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> toylet.toylet@gmail.com  says...
>>>>>> Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving
>>>>>> pedestrian
>>>>>>
>>>>> If this is the "First fatal crash to involve a pedestrian", then the
>>>>> implication is that there have been one or more fatal crashes that did
>>>>> not involve pedestrians.
>>>>        There is no such implication.  It is simply a limited statement
>>>> that does not state anything outside the limited area.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid there is, according to all the rules of parsing English that
>>> I know of. If the writer intended that it was the first such incident in
>>> Arizona, those qualification should have been added.
>> 
>>       Nope.  It mentions the first fatal crash involving a pedestrian.
>> The person who wrote the article might have researched that exact
>> point and not anything about other types of crashes.  Consequently,
>> responsible reporting would require that he limit his sttement
>> appropriately.
>> 
>>       This is similar to a statement "We will go on a picnic if it does
>> not rain." does not state anything about if it does rain.  The people
>> might still go on a picnic.  Or they might not.  We do not know.

>I'm afraid you're confusing logic and English usage. Trust me: English 
>usage means that "First X with property Y" implies that the speaker is 
>singling out those Xs that have property Y, and ignoring all the other 
>Xs that have property Z (etc). Otherwise, the speaker would have merely 

     Ignoring them, because he might well not know anything about
those with property Z.

>referred to X without qualification. That is, in English (and all the 
>languages I speak/read), any qualification implies a subset. The speaker 
>may make their ignorance of other possible subsets explicit ("...if 
>any..."), but if they don't do so, you must infer that they know of or 
>believe that there are other subsets. Thus, by qualifying X as having 

     No, you do not.

     People *might* mean that, but they *need not*.

>property Y, the speaker implies they know of or believe that there are X 
>that have property Z (etc).

     First you state "... and ignoring all the other Xs that have
property Z (etc)." and now you state the speaker knows about or
believes about that same group.  Which is it?     

>BTW, it's such differences as these between natural language usage and 
>logic that must be taught explicitly when teaching students how to parse 
>an argument. It ain't easy. I taught logic (Aristotelian and Boolean) 
>for many years.

     Well, if you can make a mistake about it, it is no wonder that
many others do, too.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web