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

Groups > comp.programming > #8494 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

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

Contents

  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 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-03-20 13:47 +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 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 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 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 Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-23 18:06 +0000
    Re: Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2018-03-24 05:12 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#8494 — 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] | [next] | [standalone]

#8495 — 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]

#8496

[comp.lang.c snipped. Idiot groups also snipped.]

On 20/03/18 13:20, 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.

There was a fatal crash nearly two years ago, not involving Uber as far 
as I know, and no doubt the reportage refers to that incident.

Jan 2018 - no injuries
https://www.10news.com/news/tesla-sedan-hits-fire-truck-during-self-driving-test-in-los-angeles

Oct 2016 - no injuries
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-self-driving-car-truck-singapore-injuries.html

June 2016 - fatality
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fatal-crash-investigation.html

This is not an exhaustive list.

-- 
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]

#8497

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]

#8498

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]

#8499

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]

#8500

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]

#8508

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]

#8510

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]

#8501 — 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]

#8506 — 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]

#8509

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]

#8523

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]

#8525

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]

#8528

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]

#8529

On 2018-03-21 19:17, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>   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?

Both. Because "ignoring" in this context means "without explicit 
reference to".

See, English is what it is. It ain't logical. Your arguments are valid, 
but unsound.that often happens.

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

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

#8536

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:49:57 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>On 2018-03-21 19:17, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>   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?
>
>Both. Because "ignoring" in this context means "without explicit 
>reference to".
>
>See, English is what it is. It ain't logical. Your arguments are valid, 
>but unsound.that often happens.

     But it is not what you say it is.

     Do you get into trouble with others complaining that you are
putting words in their mouths?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

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

#8539

On 2018-03-22 14:52, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:49:57 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-03-21 19:17, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>    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?
>>
>> Both. Because "ignoring" in this context means "without explicit
>> reference to".
>>
>> See, English is what it is. It ain't logical. Your arguments are valid,
>> but unsound.that often happens.
> 
>       But it is not what you say it is.
> 
>       Do you get into trouble with others complaining that you are
> putting words in their mouths?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Gene Wirchenko
> 

No.

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

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

#8524

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Self-driving Uber
[...]

If you want to discuss this, please drop all the irrelevant newsgroups,
particularly comp.lang.c.  Don't feed the troll.

-- 
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]

#8526

In article <lnsh8tpcnl.fsf@kst-u.example.com>,
Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
>[...]
>> Self-driving Uber
>[...]
>
>If you want to discuss this, please drop all the irrelevant newsgroups,
>particularly comp.lang.c.  Don't feed the troll.

How/why would I want to do that, assuming both of the following are true:

    1) I want to discuss this.

    2) CLC is the only relevant (I trust it is clear what I mean by
	relevant) newsgroup that I follow/monitor/post-to.

Really, Kiks, you need to think these things through.

-- 
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long.  As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs.  In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
	http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/God

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web