Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #107910 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 245 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-08 22:17 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-09 07:42 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-04-09 07:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:42 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:25 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 22:56 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-09 15:18 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-10 12:57 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 14:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 07:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:18 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 20:53 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:48 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:36 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-20 13:24 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 08:05 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 15:32 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:00 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 11:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:41 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-09 13:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 14:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 22:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-10 09:12 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 08:22 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 18:28 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 17:49 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 11:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 20:33 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 13:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 21:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 22:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-10 18:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 21:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 23:09 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 12:40 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-11 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-26 10:38 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-10 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:51 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 13:14 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-14 10:42 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 19:04 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-14 21:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 19:05 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-26 12:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 21:55 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 00:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 18:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 18:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 00:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-10 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 08:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 08:58 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-11 09:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 16:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 19:02 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:59 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 21:40 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:17 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 01:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:37 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-06 00:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 11:49 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 13:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-05-06 20:23 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 21:51 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:09 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 13:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 06:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 15:10 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-07 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 21:08 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 21:54 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 00:59 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 22:28 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 10:16 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 02:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 07:36 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:06 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 14:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-09 19:41 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 21:35 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:25 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 14:48 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:23 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-10 21:31 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 12:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-05-10 16:49 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-05-18 09:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 08:56 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 17:32 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-08 18:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 02:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-09 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:55 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-09 14:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-09 23:07 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 15:32 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 11:39 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 06:21 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 18:20 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 12:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:33 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 13:41 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 09:32 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:51 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 10:54 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 17:36 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-10 19:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 22:19 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:36 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 00:39 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 13:30 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:17 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:39 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-13 19:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:14 -0700
[OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 12:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 16:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 02:03 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:08 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 16:13 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 09:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 17:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 01:47 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-15 11:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-15 13:22 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-15 06:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 22:57 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-14 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 16:03 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 02:21 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 20:55 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 01:44 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-05 09:47 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 03:51 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 15:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-05 13:51 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:26 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 11:59 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 04:12 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-06-05 05:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 15:03 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 07:22 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 16:22 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 07:40 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 16:41 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 15:44 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 16:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:08 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 12:08 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-06-05 13:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 23:54 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 01:15 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 11:10 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 02:39 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 12:15 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 03:47 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 13:09 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 05:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:25 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 05:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:41 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 15:04 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:37 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-07 10:17 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-06 08:49 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 19:17 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 19:16 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-06 12:44 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:34 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 21:14 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-06 13:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-06 15:27 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-11 16:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-06 12:10 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 04:36 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:32 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-05 17:58 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:51 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 18:51 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 16:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:58 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-05-11 22:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 23:24 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 09:57 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 16:31 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-05-18 09:31 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-18 11:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-11 09:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-12 18:34 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 18:47 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:11 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-09 08:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:40 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:26 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:15 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 09:29 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-13 16:00 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsoh9oq7.sbq.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #109755 |
On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to > > 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) Count the parentheses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 23:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of2o4j$qie$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109787 |
On 11/05/17 23:15, Ike Naar wrote: > On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >> Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to >> >> 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) > > Count the parentheses. I did. David (rather unfortunately, given the nature of the discussion) opened three parentheses and closed all four of them. That is, he put in one too many. Check his original article. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of3sqr$ihr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109788 |
On 12/05/17 00:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/05/17 23:15, Ike Naar wrote: >> On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>> Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to >>> >>> 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) >> >> Count the parentheses. > > I did. David (rather unfortunately, given the nature of the discussion) > opened three parentheses and closed all four of them. That is, he put in > one too many. Check his original article. > It was still easy to comprehend, even though it had 3½ pairs of parentheses - which is still more than 3 :-) Comprehension is not the same as "getting the count of close brackets correct". Tools will help you get that right - they won't help you figure out what an expression /means/ so that's the important bit. (Still, it was an unfortunate mistake. You are too honest, Richard - you could have silently corrected it when quoting the post!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 09:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of3t82$jpj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109812 |
On 12/05/17 09:50, David Brown wrote: > On 12/05/17 00:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 11/05/17 23:15, Ike Naar wrote: >>> On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>>> Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to >>>> >>>> 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) >>> >>> Count the parentheses. >> >> I did. David (rather unfortunately, given the nature of the discussion) >> opened three parentheses and closed all four of them. That is, he put in >> one too many. Check his original article. >> > > It was still easy to comprehend, even though it had 3½ pairs of > parentheses - which is still more than 3 :-) > > Comprehension is not the same as "getting the count of close brackets > correct". Tools will help you get that right - they won't help you > figure out what an expression /means/ so that's the important bit. > > (Still, it was an unfortunate mistake. You are too honest, Richard - > you could have silently corrected it when quoting the post!) Father, I cannot tell a lie - it was *him*! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 16:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oevt52$cms$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #109680 |
On 5/10/2017 11:36 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 10/05/17 16:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 5/10/2017 9:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 10/05/17 14:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 5/10/2017 8:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of >>>>>> parentheses >>>>>> nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube >>>>>> but >>>>>> not a 4d geometrical object. >>>>> >>>>> That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to >>>>> be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such >>>>> results, you would have cited them long ago. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually, it is a theory. >>> >>> In the vernacular sense, at most. >>> >>> In science, it is at best a hypothesis. Somewhat to my surprise, >>> Wikipedia agrees with me: "A common misconception is that scientific >>> theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into >>> scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated." >>> >>> I think you have fallen into that very trap. >>> >>> But we are getting very far from the point, and in any case I see no >>> value in debating this with you, given your debating track record. >>> >>> <snip> >>> >> >> There is the truth, and there is Wikipedia. Sometimes the two agree, >> but not in this case. How about a respected source - Merriam-Webster: >> > > How about reading what Richard wrote - it is a theory "in the vernacular > sense at most". That matches fine with Wikipedia's accurate definition > of what a theory is in a scientific sense, and also matches fine with > your dictionary definition about how the word is often used. > I read it, and I quote: "That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such results, you would have cited them long ago." That is the comment I replied to. > Malcolm's claims of evidence, "powerful theoretical explanations", > discussions of brain "pathways", etc., suggest that he believes he has a > /scientific/ theory. Clearly, he does not have anything close to that - > he has wild speculation and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a vaguely > related scenario. > > Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, when published, built on > substantial evidence - it was based on solid physics from physicists > like Galileo, Lorentz and Maxwell, clear mathematics, and astronomical > evidence. > I was talking about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - not the subset Special Theory. But the General Theory was not proven until 1919 when, during a solar eclipse, Sir Author Eddington proved gravity bends light. This proof made Einstein a celebrity almost overnight. > Malcolm's "theory of three" is based on, well, nothing at all. On a > scale of quality of scientific theory, it comes in slightly below Last > Thursdayism, though not nearly as thought-provoking. > > I never said anything about the quality or basis of Malcolm's theory. But it does qualify as a theory -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45535e90-5af5-4b6b-8fbc-66933b293459@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109661 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:41:24 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > Psychology is notorious for getting results which are repeatable and > > statistically significant, but don't generalise to anything outside the > > lab. For example Skinner's associates worked out the exact cage dimensions > > and severity of electric shock which created optimal learning in a rat > > on key-pressing tasks. However rats don't live in cages in the wild. > > Are you suggesting that this is the right way to construct an experiment > to test your "rule of three" hypothesis? I can see a number of practical > objections. > We need to first devise a reading test whereby, for example, simple mathematical expressions have to be parsed. We'd expect performance to drop off as expression complexity increases. But what does the graph look like? Is it linear, or is there a precipitate drop at a given level of complexity? If you can show that three levels of nested parentheses are critical, by devising many expressions and timing and marking responses, then we're in business. There's something about three which represents a threshold. However that's a likely result from mere common sense. After three levels it's starting to get tricky. Then you have to explore why. That's harder. The theory is that the same pathways used to visualise 3D objects are being used to visualise levels of nesting. So can we find some brain-damaged patients who can no longer visualise 3D objects? Can they visualise three levels of nesting? If they can, the "3D world" theory is looking dubious. If they can't, we've failed to falsify it, but there are lots of alternative explanations. > > That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to > be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such > results, you would have cited them long ago. > It's a hypothesis, if you want to nit-pick about terminology. OTOH it connects with theory - we know that people can do what they need to survive in the world around them. So we can't detect high-pitched sounds, because we aren't vulnerable to predation by the animals that make them, nor do they form a significant part of our diet. Unlike insects which can often detect bat calls and take evasive action. > > I did, and I know that the people who dispute are not eccentrics. If you > read what /I/ said, you might find out who I was suggesting was the > eccentric. > "Eccentric" just means "originated the idea". > > You have yet to offer a very powerful theoretical explanation. Perhaps > your conceptualisation of "very powerful" is at odds with that of others > here. For us, "because Malcolm says so" is not a very powerful > theoretical explanation. > The world is three dimensional and we have to navigate around in it. That's one of the primary features of psychology. It's not a mild effect. Of course only a few people have to parse expressions with parentheses in them, and in a way it's quite remarkable that we can do this at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da0c431f-2201-461d-9c57-49e0a9efe5db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109654 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:45:13 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote: > When the alternative is "no C compiler", they are indeed desirable. > What's absurd about that? (Yes, I have worked on systems where the > choice was C with trigraphs or no C at all.) Really? Can you elaborate? There is only one character that can be generated with trigraphs that could not have a backslash-escape defined for it, and that would be the backslash itself. Are there any systems where that could not be accommodated simply by saying that an implementation that cannot produce a character that which typographically resembles a backslash may substitute any printable character not in the C character set, provided that it documents such substitution? On e.g. a Commodore 64, an implementation might specify that a "backslash" looks like £ [that happens to be the glyph that shows for character code 92, which in ASCII would be a backslash]. Alternatively, if e.g. \* were an escape for #, the Standard could specify that if the first character of a source file is a printing character not in the C character set and the remainder of the first line is "*define __BACKSLASH" [including the asterisk, but not quotes] an implementation should regard the first character as a backslash for the remainder of the file. Is there any reason either approach would be inferior to using trigraphs? Note that unlike trigraphs neither approach would render any otherwise- valid program invalid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33876c23327a9206e8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #109684 |
supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: > > When the alternative is "no C compiler", they are indeed desirable. > > What's absurd about that? (Yes, I have worked on systems where the > > choice was C with trigraphs or no C at all.) > > Really? Can you elaborate? > > There is only one character that can be generated with trigraphs that could > not have a backslash-escape defined for it, and that would be the backslash > itself. Are there any systems where that could not be accommodated simply > by saying that an implementation that cannot produce a character that which > typographically resembles a backslash may substitute any printable character > not in the C character set, provided that it documents such substitution? > On e.g. a Commodore 64, an implementation might specify that a "backslash" > looks like £ [that happens to be the glyph that shows for character code > 92, which in ASCII would be a backslash]. > > Alternatively, if e.g. \* were an escape for #, the Standard could specify > that if the first character of a source file is a printing character not in > the C character set and the remainder of the first line is > "*define __BACKSLASH" [including the asterisk, but not quotes] an > implementation should regard the first character as a backslash for the > remainder of the file. > > Is there any reason either approach would be inferior to using trigraphs? > Note that unlike trigraphs neither approach would render any otherwise- > valid program invalid. Yes, your approaches are inferior to trigraphs because trigraphs are in the standard. Or did you mean, would it be better to go back in time and invent a different solution to the character set problem before completion of the first ANSI C standard? That is also inferior, because time travel isn't available. Philip
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-18 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9915167c-e15a-4f6d-8afe-e80ccab9453c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #110311 |
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 11:31:11 AM UTC-5, Philip Lantz wrote: > supercat wrote: > > Is there any reason either approach would be inferior to using trigraphs? > > Note that unlike trigraphs neither approach would render any otherwise- > > valid program invalid. > > Yes, your approaches are inferior to trigraphs because trigraphs are in the > standard. > > Or did you mean, would it be better to go back in time and invent a different > solution to the character set problem before completion of the first ANSI C > standard? That is also inferior, because time travel isn't available. A number of compilers only enable trigraphs when explicitly requested, in part because they can break what would otherwise be sensible code, e.g. char filemask[] = "????????.???";. They may be in today's standard, but that doesn't mean they always will be in future standards. Further, I would suggest that the first proposed definition--allow an implementation to specify a chacter that it will treat as a backslash, almost certainly coincides with how implementations worked when their character set didn't have a backslash glyph. If e.g. an implementation which was designed for ASCII were used on a dinky portable computer with an HD44780-based LCD, it wouldn't be possible to type a backslash or a tilde, but one wouldn't need to use trigraphs to write code on such a machine. Just write a yen symbol when a backslash is required, and a right-arrow when the ~ operator is required.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn7f1nu2v6.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109558 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 5:54:36 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 2:10:26 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> No, I believe you have (again) missed the point. The idea of "de >>>> gustibus" is a balance - "In matters of taste, there can be no >>>> disputes". It applies to arguments like emacs vs. vim, or which brace >>>> style is "best" in C, or if you should use underscores or camelCaps in >>>> identifiers. >>> >>> Many things can be objectively tested, but you need a university >>> psychology department to do it. [...] >> >> This statement displays an attitude that IMCO is totally >> wrongheaded. In particular it implicitly suggests a false >> dichotomy: either conduct perfect experiments, or conduct >> no experiments at all. For starters there is no such thing >> as a perfect experiment, but even allowing that some are >> much better than others, second- or third-rate experiments >> still yield /some/ information, and that information may be >> enough to draw a useful conclusion. The alternative, >> performing no experiments, yields zero information. This >> path gives rise to the "it's just personal preference" >> attitude, a lame excuse if ever there was one. No weight >> should be given to the opinions of people who don't make >> an effort to inform their opinion with factual evidence. >> >> Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the >> efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. >> No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better >> than no experiment at all. Do the best experiments you can, >> and encourage others to do likewise. Let's break the cycle >> of endless heated debates that cannot be resolved, by virtue >> of resting on the pathetic foundation that "it's just my >> (wilfully uninformed) opinion". > > You can set yourself up as an amateur psychologist if you > want. But you're likely to make all of the common mistakes > such as not hiding the purpose of the experiment from the > subjects and thus getting what subjects think you want rather > than the true results. [...] De malcolmus non est disputandum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpoff755h.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #109740 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
> De malcolmus non est disputandum
"De gustibus non est disputandum".
There's no point in arguing with Gus.
--
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 | Manfred <noname@invalid.add> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 18:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of4o74$unm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109740 |
On 05/11/2017 12:03 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: <snip> > > De malcolmus non est disputandum > /Ipse dixit/ :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 18:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of4s96$43s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109848 |
On 12/05/17 17:34, Manfred wrote: > On 05/11/2017 12:03 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > <snip> >> >> De malcolmus non est disputandum >> > /Ipse dixit/ :) Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny3u0sq0k.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109850 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 12/05/17 17:34, Manfred wrote: >> On 05/11/2017 12:03 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> De malcolmus non est disputandum >> >> /Ipse dixit/ :) > > Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur. Sir, I bear a rhyme excelling In mystic force and magic spelling Celestial sprites elucidate All my own striving can't relate...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 10:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <59119529.1122171@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #109515 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the > efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. > No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better > than no experiment at all. That is not actually true. A poor experiment can easily lead to the wrong conclusion, which is then accepted because it has been "scientifically proven". Just look at Jenny McCarthy *spit* for the results of that. However, this is not such a case. Even if the experiment - letting professional programmers, /en masse/, decide whether C's for statement is useful or not - is not top-notch, the verdict is so overwhelmingly positive that you'd need some very hard evidence to overturn it. And that evidence is not forthcoming - barring a few outliers who insist that their personal taste is strong proof. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfno9v2t5gy.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109571 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the >> efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. >> No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better >> than no experiment at all. > > That is not actually true. A poor experiment can easily lead to > the wrong conclusion, which is then accepted because it has been > "scientifically proven". [...] Even a carefully constructed experiment might lead one astray, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. There is still an advantage to having done the experiment, in that it can be part of a subsequent rational discussion. If no experiment has been done then things often get stuck in unresolvable debate, or end with the all-too-familiar "agree to disagree" (and don't get me started on that). You're right that the results of doing an experiment may be worse than not having done it. But that shouldn't change the attitude that doing experiments is better than not doing them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a4e8867-2e62-4af7-813c-5e9ea03243a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109600 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:28:20 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > > > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > >> Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the > >> efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. > >> No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better > >> than no experiment at all. > > > > That is not actually true. A poor experiment can easily lead to > > the wrong conclusion, which is then accepted because it has been > > "scientifically proven". [...] > > Even a carefully constructed experiment might lead one astray, > and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. There is still an > advantage to having done the experiment, in that it can be part > of a subsequent rational discussion. If no experiment has been > done then things often get stuck in unresolvable debate, or end > with the all-too-familiar "agree to disagree" (and don't get me > started on that). You're right that the results of doing an > experiment may be worse than not having done it. But that > shouldn't change the attitude that doing experiments is better > than not doing them. > A lot of science is descriptive rather than experimental. Psychologists tend to try to make their subject experimental, but closely allied subjects like sociology and economics are more descriptive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <591225cf.374171@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #109603 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:28:20 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > You're right that the results of doing an > > experiment may be worse than not having done it. But that > > shouldn't change the attitude that doing experiments is better > > than not doing them. > > > A lot of science is descriptive rather than experimental. Psychologists > tend to try to make their subject experimental, but closely allied > subjects like sociology and economics are more descriptive. Pfft. Sociology is barely a science, and economics is closer to fraud. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37b1f9a4-e111-4ab0-8eab-5dfeb45bc152@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109628 |
W dniu wtorek, 9 maja 2017 22:26:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Richard Bos napisał: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:28:20 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > > > You're right that the results of doing an > > > experiment may be worse than not having done it. But that > > > shouldn't change the attitude that doing experiments is better > > > than not doing them. > > > > > A lot of science is descriptive rather than experimental. Psychologists > > tend to try to make their subject experimental, but closely allied > > subjects like sociology and economics are more descriptive. > > Pfft. Sociology is barely a science, and economics is closer to fraud. > wonder how many books on sociology and how many on economics you studied.. (i recently get a bit angry on lame people who use shalow sentenses to propagate not knowledge but un-knowledge/stupidity )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-08 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfna86nuylf.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109401 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes: > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:16:36 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 1:20:55 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 5:17:14 AM UTC-7, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>>> [...contrasting uses of for() and while()...] >>>>> >>>>> For years know I have been editing all the "for" out of the >>>>> source code I am editing. I have yet to see an example where >>>>> changing all the "for" to "while" makes anything more obscure. >>>> >>>> Interesting perception, but not one that is shared by the >>>> vast majority of C developers. >>> >>> De gustibus. >> >> Yes, I expect they would say much the same about you. >> >> There are at the very least tens of thousands of C developers who >> see for() as providing advantages over while() in some contexts. >> Not all of those people are stupid. > > De gustibus once again. The gist of "de gustibus" is > that neither side (or none of the sides) is wrong, stupid > or misguided. Not everyone reads it that way. Especially in this case. Just FYI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web