Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #69302 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-04 20:46 +0800 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 01:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-04 20:46 +0800
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-04 20:49 +0800
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-04 16:19 +0000
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-04 10:10 -0400
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:07 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 01:57 +0100
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:09 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 02:47 +0100
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 19:34 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 12:07 +0100
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-09 13:18 +0200
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:23 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 07:45 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-05 14:59 +0200
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 13:26 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 08:51 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 13:35 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 13:59 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-08 12:35 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 17:55 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 13:11 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:19 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 21:31 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-08 20:33 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 22:56 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-20 16:09 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-09-21 18:51 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-20 21:27 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 22:52 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-08 21:59 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 13:54 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:28 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 10:56 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 08:33 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:12 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:15 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 08:38 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 16:50 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 21:24 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 08:45 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 08:54 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 21:22 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-13 06:42 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 23:54 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-13 10:41 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:52 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-13 20:27 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:32 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:55 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:07 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 14:23 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:31 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 14:33 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:40 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 00:10 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 17:16 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:36 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:29 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-13 23:47 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 17:55 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 10:20 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-14 11:01 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:07 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 12:41 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 03:47 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:05 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:20 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 05:51 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:06 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 06:26 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-14 13:43 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 07:26 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:47 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 03:31 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-14 06:40 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 14:27 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-14 13:39 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:55 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:50 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 15:58 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:37 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:43 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 17:21 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 08:53 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 18:23 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:57 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:43 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 20:50 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 20:48 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-14 07:58 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:35 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:56 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 08:07 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:40 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:59 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-04 10:48 -0400
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2015-09-07 12:48 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-12 15:35 +0800
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-12 14:25 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-09-12 14:53 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-12 18:21 -0400
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:41 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 09:02 +0200
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:12 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 16:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <31d3e83d-3028-40dd-80ab-9a06b95bcbb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69909 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > > On 05/09/2015 14:59, David Brown wrote: > > > >> On 04/09/15 16:23, RCH wrote: > >> > >>> Is this really the "old way" of handling parameters in C? Because > >>> it's very similar to what I've come up with for RDC: > >> > >> Yes, it's the old way in C. If you are making a completely new language > >> there is nothing wrong with picking a syntax where the parameters and > >> return type go on separate lines, or follow the function name in some way. > > > > For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > > one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > > even kookier kook to follow suit. > > Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are > two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name > escapes me right now. If you mean me, it's "Josh". It's a very evasive name to be sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 21:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mso1ko$ert$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70006 |
On 09/08/2015 07:50 PM, luser droog wrote: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: ... >>> For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have >>> one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an >>> even kookier kook to follow suit. >> >> Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are >> two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name >> escapes me right now. > > If you mean me, it's "Josh". It's a very evasive name to be sure. If you think the description might fit, it probably does. Using Google Groups, I can't find a single previous message posted by you in this group containing the word "Josh", which makes it pretty evasive, indeed. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 08:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <97ff61ea-d593-472f-9d2c-fc5d82dfdf73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70018 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:24:40 PM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/08/2015 07:50 PM, luser droog wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-5, James Kuyper wrote: > >> On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > ... > >>> For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > >>> one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > >>> even kookier kook to follow suit. > >> > >> Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are > >> two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name > >> escapes me right now. > > > > If you mean me, it's "Josh". It's a very evasive name to be sure. > > If you think the description might fit, it probably does. > Using Google Groups, I can't find a single previous message posted by > you in this group containing the word "Josh", which makes it pretty > evasive, indeed. I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. I wrote my full name to add sincerity to my apology. But most of the time, it isn't strictly relevant IMO. I could be anybody. I am Everyman.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 08:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <bfbf67c2-e0f4-4156-b00f-bff11176862a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70249 |
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: > I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message > by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 21:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <c6ec08b9-7338-4706-9062-5fcec1d917a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70251 |
On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:54:35 AM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: > > I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message > > by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. > > Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a > child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. > Actually I did get a satisfactory explanation from him on exactly that point. And I think we're spelling his name wrong. Pretty sure it's 1 'f'. Stefan. Yeah, that looks better. His issue is not with bona-fide archiving, by say, an nntp server. It's web-archiving which then leaves the data exposed to mining by innumerable unscrupulous content re-posters. And it's true. Search for any good line of code you've posted here, and it'll turn up on "answerstack.tv" and "techgroups.by"--content butchered, crawling with ads. Even google-groups used to have a little ad in the corner. So his choice is to assert his copyright on the material he posts. While I make a different choice, I do understand and respect his (now).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 06:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <slrnmva6n7.eij.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70251 |
On Fri, 2015-09-11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: >> I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message >> by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. > > Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a > child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. For someone who used Usenet in the early 1990s, it makes perfect sense. It's the way it used to work before DejaNews. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 23:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <00a5add4-8bdb-4625-94f0-cd006aa2b023@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70398 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:42:57 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: > >> I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message > >> by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. > > > > Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a > > child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. > > For someone who used Usenet in the early 1990s, it makes perfect > sense. It's the way it used to work before DejaNews. I still don't understand. The things he posts are information to help people. Why limit that help? What mining information are they going to be able to get off of his posts cached in Google Groups that they can't get by simply parsing usenet records? It's not a big deal ... it's just something that is confusing to me. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 10:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mt4574$3tt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70399 |
Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:42:57 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-09-11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: >>>> I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message >>>> by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. >>> >>> Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a >>> child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. >> >> For someone who used Usenet in the early 1990s, it makes perfect >> sense. It's the way it used to work before DejaNews. > > I still don't understand. The things he posts are information to > help people. Why limit that help? What mining information are > they going to be able to get off of his posts cached in Google > Groups that they can't get by simply parsing usenet records? > > It's not a big deal ... it's just something that is confusing to me. > > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin > Because Usenet should be ephemeral. There were other mechanisms for persistent information. Usenet is a bar, not a courtroom. Any increase in formality caused by long term storage will restrict flows. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 09:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <945e60e4-bde6-4c45-b3e0-f980807abe91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70415 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:39:18 AM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote: > Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:42:57 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > >> On Fri, 2015-09-11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: > >>>> I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message > >>>> by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. > >>> > >>> Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a > >>> child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. > >> > >> For someone who used Usenet in the early 1990s, it makes perfect > >> sense. It's the way it used to work before DejaNews. > > > > I still don't understand. The things he posts are information to > > help people. Why limit that help? What mining information are > > they going to be able to get off of his posts cached in Google > > Groups that they can't get by simply parsing usenet records? > > > > It's not a big deal ... it's just something that is confusing to me. > > > > Best regards, > > Rick C. Hodgin > > > > Because Usenet should be ephemeral. There were other mechanisms > for persistent information. > > Usenet is a bar, not a courtroom. Any increase in formality caused by > long term storage will restrict flows. I can understand the sentiment, but I think that ship has sailed. We live in a day and age where all of Usenet's entire history (including binaries) can be stored on a single machine. And the information contained within usenet can be transmitted from place to place directly, or through queries, with limited issue. When I do Google Groups searches in comp.lang.c, it shows data going back to the early 90s. The fact that people choose to limit what Google Groups can archive is only going to hurt people like us who would seek that information. It's not going to stop them from doing background data mining, because the information on usenet is publicly available, and it's not protected content. If people really want to preserve their anonymity, or the integrity of those things they post so they can't be mined, then wrap it in a PGP-like key of very strong encryption, and then share the public key with those you'd like to view. I remember many usenet readers back in the day having that feature built in. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 20:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvbn0o.eij.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #70416 |
On Sun, 2015-09-13, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:39:18 AM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote: >> Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:42:57 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2015-09-11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> >>> On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: >> >>>> I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message >> >>>> by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. >> >>> >> >>> Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a >> >>> child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. >> >> >> >> For someone who used Usenet in the early 1990s, it makes perfect >> >> sense. It's the way it used to work before DejaNews. >> > >> > I still don't understand. The things he posts are information to >> > help people. Why limit that help? What mining information are >> > they going to be able to get off of his posts cached in Google >> > Groups that they can't get by simply parsing usenet records? >> > >> > It's not a big deal ... it's just something that is confusing to me. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Rick C. Hodgin >> > >> >> Because Usenet should be ephemeral. There were other mechanisms >> for persistent information. >> >> Usenet is a bar, not a courtroom. Any increase in formality caused by >> long term storage will restrict flows. > > I can understand the sentiment, but I think that ship has sailed. It did sail, around 1994. But it was rather shocking back then, to realize that what you had written as if you were talking in a bar, was suddenly searchable by anyone. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 21:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mt7vmi$ngs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70416 |
Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:39:18 AM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote: >> Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:42:57 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2015-09-11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote: >>>>>> I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message >>>>>> by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers. >>>>> >>>>> Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a >>>>> child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back. >>>> >>>> For someone who used Usenet in the early 1990s, it makes perfect >>>> sense. It's the way it used to work before DejaNews. >>> >>> I still don't understand. The things he posts are information to >>> help people. Why limit that help? What mining information are >>> they going to be able to get off of his posts cached in Google >>> Groups that they can't get by simply parsing usenet records? >>> >>> It's not a big deal ... it's just something that is confusing to me. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Rick C. Hodgin >>> >> >> Because Usenet should be ephemeral. There were other mechanisms >> for persistent information. >> >> Usenet is a bar, not a courtroom. Any increase in formality caused by >> long term storage will restrict flows. > > I can understand the sentiment, but I think that ship has sailed. No doubt - although I could see it coming back. > We live in a day and age where all of Usenet's entire history > (including binaries) can be stored on a single machine. And the > information contained within usenet can be transmitted from place > to place directly, or through queries, with limited issue. > > When I do Google Groups searches in comp.lang.c, it shows data > going back to the early 90s. > > The fact that people choose to limit what Google Groups can archive > is only going to hurt people like us who would seek that information. So consider Usenet as a mechanism for asking questions. Suppose then that the majority of answers are references to other permanent material. Then there's no loss. I got online in 1994. The ISP did all support (except billing ) *VIA* Usenet. You learned it quickly, and began to realize that the majority of the Internet was not the Web. I was all "wow, this is better." And it still is. > It's not going to stop them from doing background data mining, > because the information on usenet is publicly available, and it's > not protected content. > GIGO. > If people really want to preserve their anonymity, or the integrity > of those things they post so they can't be mined, then wrap it in > a PGP-like key of very strong encryption, and then share the public > key with those you'd like to view. I remember many usenet readers > back in the day having that feature built in. > > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin > -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 09:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <e6292ce7-3578-4c3e-a13c-0de9bcd2b2da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70415 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:39:18 AM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 2:42:57 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2015-09-11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:45:54 AM UTC-4, luser droog wrote:
> >>>> I recall only one occasion. I had quoted the entirety of a message
> >>>> by Stephan Ram, in defiance of his No-Archive headers.
> >>>
> >>> Why does Stephan Ram do that? It seems silly and even petty, like a
> >>> child saying, "MINE!" and yanking it back.
> >>
> >> For someone who used Usenet in the early 1990s, it makes perfect
> >> sense. It's the way it used to work before DejaNews.
> >
> > I still don't understand. The things he posts are information to
> > help people. Why limit that help? What mining information are
> > they going to be able to get off of his posts cached in Google
> > Groups that they can't get by simply parsing usenet records?
> >
> > It's not a big deal ... it's just something that is confusing to me.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rick C. Hodgin
> >
>
> Because Usenet should be ephemeral. There were other mechanisms
> for persistent information.
>
> Usenet is a bar, not a courtroom. Any increase in formality caused by
> long term storage will restrict flows.
To sum up my views on his position succinctly:
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and the
general law-abiding population will be at risk.
Applied to usenet:
When usenet posts are not archived, only the entities which
do background data mining on the information which is publicly
available anyway will have access to the information, the
general usenet user base will be without that information.
It seems like a harmful-to-people position, and one which does nothing
to diminish any degree of data mining... if that's truly what his
concerns are (I haven't yet heard from him directly).
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 09:07 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <d5m6rrF884kU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70417 |
Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > To sum up my views on his position succinctly: > > When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and the > general law-abiding population will be at risk. Time for a better analogy: 2010 UK firearm deaths per 100000: 0.12 2010 US firearm deaths per 100000: 4.50 > Applied to usenet: > > When usenet posts are not archived, only the entities which > do background data mining on the information which is publicly > available anyway will have access to the information, the > general usenet user base will be without that information. > > It seems like a harmful-to-people position, and one which does nothing > to diminish any degree of data mining... if that's truly what his > concerns are (I haven't yet heard from him directly). -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 14:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mt4pgq$dh$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70421 |
> "Ian Collins" wrote in message news:d5m6rrF884kU2@mid.individual.net... > > Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > > > To sum up my views on his position succinctly: > > > > When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and the > > general law-abiding population will be at risk. > Time for a better analogy: > 2010 UK firearm deaths per 100000: 0.12 > 2010 US firearm deaths per 100000: 4.50 What about: 64.1 million current UK population 318.9 million current US population Can that factor into any of your numbers?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 09:31 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <d5m8afF884kU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70423 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> "Ian Collins" wrote in message news:d5m6rrF884kU2@mid.individual.net... > >>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> >>> To sum up my views on his position succinctly: >>> >>> When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, and the >>> general law-abiding population will be at risk. > >> Time for a better analogy: > >> 2010 UK firearm deaths per 100000: 0.12 >> 2010 US firearm deaths per 100000: 4.50 > > What about: > > 64.1 million current UK population > > 318.9 million current US population > > Can that factor into any of your numbers? "deaths per 100000" -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 14:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mt4q4g$1tn$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70425 |
> "Ian Collins" wrote in message news:d5m8afF884kU3@mid.individual.net... > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > > "Ian Collins" wrote in message > > > news:d5m6rrF884kU2@mid.individual.net... [...] > > Can that factor into any of your numbers? > "deaths per 100000" DOH! Perhaps the people of the UK are just not as violent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 09:40 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <d5m8qiF884kU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #70427 |
Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> "Ian Collins" wrote in message news:d5m8afF884kU3@mid.individual.net... > >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> "Ian Collins" wrote in message >>>> news:d5m6rrF884kU2@mid.individual.net... > [...] >>> Can that factor into any of your numbers? > >> "deaths per 100000" > > DOH! Perhaps the people of the UK are just not as violent? Firearms are (very) tightly controlled in the UK. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 15:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mt4s01$5vr$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70429 |
> "Ian Collins" wrote in message news:d5m8qiF884kU4@mid.individual.net... > Chris M. Thomasson wrote: [...] > DOH! Perhaps the people of the UK are just not as violent? > Firearms are (very) tightly controlled in the UK. Well, more guns will get into the hands of criminals in the UK if they are legalized. Simple example: The criminals can hire people to purchase them legally, then they are transferred and used illegally. Well, I still think la abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves in the time between notice a crime and when the police show up. Humm...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 00:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mt4s5k$209$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70427 |
On 13/09/15 23:33, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> "Ian Collins" wrote in message news:d5m8afF884kU3@mid.individual.net... > >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> > > "Ian Collins" wrote in message > > >> news:d5m6rrF884kU2@mid.individual.net... > [...] >> > Can that factor into any of your numbers? > >> "deaths per 100000" > > DOH! Perhaps the people of the UK are just not as violent? That is very much the case - it seems that Americans are significantly more violent than other western countries. However, there is also the statistic that the UK has far fewer guns than most western countries. Looking at some numbers (from Wikipedia): USA has 88.8 guns per 100 residents, the UK has 6.6. USA has 10.64 deaths per 100K, the UK has 0.26. Of those, in the USA 3.55 are homicides, 6.70 are suicides, 0.16 are accidental and 0.09 are undetermined. For the UK, those numbers are 0.05, 0.17, 0.01, 0.02. For comparison with another country with a lot of guns, Sweden has 31.6 guns per 100 residents. It's gun deaths totals are 1.47, with 0.19 homicides, 1.20 suicides, 0.06 accidents, and 0.01 undetermined. To make the numbers relevant, however, we should also look at the homicide rates for these countries. For the USA, it is 4.7, for the UK it is 1.0, and Sweden it is 0.7. This tells us that, as the NRA likes to say, guns don't kill people - people kill people. But it also tells us that guns make it far easier for Americans to kill each other and themselves. One key point that these sorts of statistics rarely consider is the /type/ of gun. In the UK, a fair proportion of the firearms are farmer's shotguns and hunting rifles - these are almost never used in crimes. In Sweden, almost all firearms are hunting rifles, farmers shotguns, and civil defence firearms - again, almost never used in crimes. What makes the USA stand out is the vast numbers of pistols and small handguns - and that is what Americans use to shot each other and themselves, intentionally or unintentionally. All the statistics - as well as common sense - make it very clear that massive small handgun ownership in the populace means a lot more killings. (Note that I don't think there is a good clear way to move from the USA's current position to one with less guns around.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 17:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <38e74c54-2b71-4d3e-b66c-1213584af567@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70427 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 10:34:22 PM UTC+1, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > DOH! Perhaps the people of the UK are just not as violent? > It's both. We've got better welfare and better social services, so people don't need to rely on criminal networks to survive. We don't have your race issues to anything like the same extent. Mental health services are free. There's less open country so fewer people with a legitimate need to carry a gun for peaceful purposes. The police are largely respected and put a lot of effort into gaining the trust of the communities they police. The entertainment industry is influenced by the BBC which, for all its faults, doesn't have a commercial motive to glamorise violence in a cheap stab for audience figures. But firearms are also much harder to obtain. That's a factor, and it's silly to say it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web