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


Groups > comp.programming > #11866 > unrolled thread

Getting random numbers.

Started byH E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com>
First post2021-01-21 07:11 -0800
Last post2021-01-21 20:39 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 27 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming


Contents

  Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 07:11 -0800
    Re: Getting random numbers. Tavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 15:25 +0000
      Re: Getting random numbers. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-21 16:38 +0100
        Re: Getting random numbers. Tavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 16:37 +0000
        Re: Getting random numbers. chovy <chovy@pm.me> - 2021-01-21 08:37 -0800
          Re: Getting random numbers. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-21 18:00 +0100
            Re: Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 09:29 -0800
              Re: Getting random numbers. Tavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 18:02 +0000
              Re: Getting random numbers. chovy <chovy@pm.me> - 2021-01-21 10:11 -0800
                Re: Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:21 -0800
                  Re: Getting random numbers. Tavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 18:39 +0000
                Re: Getting random numbers. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-01-22 06:32 +0000
                  Re: Getting random numbers. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-22 08:51 +0100
                    Re: Getting random numbers. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-01-22 09:15 +0000
                      Re: Getting random numbers. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-22 11:13 +0100
                        Re: Getting random numbers. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-01-23 09:27 +0000
                          Re: Getting random numbers. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-23 12:28 +0100
                            Re: Getting random numbers. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-01-23 12:10 +0000
            Re: Getting random numbers. chovy <chovy@pm.me> - 2021-01-21 10:11 -0800
              Re: Getting random numbers. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-21 20:55 +0100
                Re: Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 13:08 -0800
                  Re: Getting random numbers. chovy <chovy@pm.me> - 2021-01-21 13:53 -0800
                  Re: Getting random numbers. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-01-21 22:53 +0100
                    Re: Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 13:57 -0800
                      Re: Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 15:13 -0800
                      Re: Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 15:20 -0800
                        Re: Getting random numbers. H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 20:39 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →


#11866 — Getting random numbers.

FromH E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com>
Date2021-01-21 07:11 -0800
SubjectGetting random numbers.
Message-ID<33e7892e-fe91-4440-9843-515c88da309an@googlegroups.com>
<html>
<body>   
<div id="aa1" style="width: 100%; word-wrap: break-word;">
</div>  
<script>    
var a1=0;
var a2=54.32
var a3=3.43;
var a4=5.53; 
var a5=34.75;
var a0001=-1;
for(var i=0; i<2132; i++) {
a0001=(-1)*a0001; 
var i01=i^1.914643966346+i^1.260774037134;
a1=a5^1.206040306030407046073;
a2=1.30461*a1^1.92423523;   
a3=3.470347*a2^1.3620346375;
a4=2.306463*a3^1.5437347; 
a5=a0001*a4*i01^1.2643634704673;
document.getElementById("aa1").append((a1^(2.04326974)-1.34634769432*a2^(3.5324986798213)+1.43986739*a3^(4.23460181704968)-1.3489679834*a4^(5.120398567219386)+1.48693>
}
var aa001=document.getElementById("aa1").innerHTML;
aa001=aa001.replace(/\./g,'');
aa001=aa001.replace(/\+/g,'');
aa001=aa001.replace(/e/g,'');
aa001=aa001.replace(/\-/g,'');
document.getElementById("aa1").innerHTML=aa001;
</script>


</body>
</html>












Kr.

372 6861327
ya12983 mail co m

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#11867

FromTavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com>
Date2021-01-21 15:25 +0000
Message-ID<i6tknsFvfeU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#11866
On 2021-01-21, H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> wrote:
> var i01=i^1.914643966346+i^1.260774037134;

I realise you're probably not going to listen to me, but it seems like
you think ^ is the exponentiation operator, it's actually bitwise xor.
That isn't defined for floats - so they're just truncated (that means
everything after the decimal point is discarded).

You can try ** or Math.pow instead, but I really think you should read
about the diehard tests or TestU01 first to understand how PRNGs are
evaluated.

Tavis.

-- 
 _o)            $ lynx lock.cmpxchg8b.com
 /\\  _o)  _o)  $ finger taviso@sdf.org
_\_V _( ) _( )  @taviso

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


#11868

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2021-01-21 16:38 +0100
Message-ID<ruc76j$f3l$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11867
On 21/01/2021 16:25, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> On 2021-01-21, H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> wrote:
>> var i01=i^1.914643966346+i^1.260774037134;
> 
> I realise you're probably not going to listen to me, but it seems like
> you think ^ is the exponentiation operator, it's actually bitwise xor.
> That isn't defined for floats - so they're just truncated (that means
> everything after the decimal point is discarded).
> 
> You can try ** or Math.pow instead, but I really think you should read
> about the diehard tests or TestU01 first to understand how PRNGs are
> evaluated.
> 
> Tavis.
> 

You might as well give up.  He's an idiot who thinks he is a genius - he
doesn't even begin to understand how wrong he is on almost everything he
writes.  Some people have suggested he is a troll - he's not that
clever.  Like Amine, he is completely disconnected from reality.

He can't program.  He doesn't know what you mean by "operator".  He
doesn't know what "random" means, or what speed means in programming -
yet he thinks he can make a better and faster random function than
anyone else.

I've tried being patient, I've tried explanations, help, sample code,
and information.  I am a big fan of trying to help beginners at
programming (and helping experts - none of us is infallible or knows
everything in the field), but like Amine, this guy is beyond the kind of
help we can give him.  He needs a good kick up the backside, and being
banned from the internet until he has finished his homework, and his
mummy has checked the posts he makes.

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


#11870

FromTavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com>
Date2021-01-21 16:37 +0000
Message-ID<i6toudF1egmU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#11868
On 2021-01-21, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> I've tried being patient, I've tried explanations, help, sample code,
> and information.  I am a big fan of trying to help beginners at
> programming (and helping experts - none of us is infallible or knows
> everything in the field), but like Amine, this guy is beyond the kind of
> help we can give him.

Yeah, I thought I'd give it one last try before adding a filter... I'm
not holding my breath :)


-- 
 _o)            $ lynx lock.cmpxchg8b.com
 /\\  _o)  _o)  $ finger taviso@sdf.org
_\_V _( ) _( )  @taviso

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


#11871

Fromchovy <chovy@pm.me>
Date2021-01-21 08:37 -0800
Message-ID<6009add6$0$35081$a92e2ab9@news.vipernews.com>
In reply to#11868
On 1/21/21 7:38 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 16:25, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
>> On 2021-01-21, H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> var i01=i^1.914643966346+i^1.260774037134;
>>
>> I realise you're probably not going to listen to me, but it seems like
>> you think ^ is the exponentiation operator, it's actually bitwise xor.
>> That isn't defined for floats - so they're just truncated (that means
>> everything after the decimal point is discarded).
>>
>> You can try ** or Math.pow instead, but I really think you should read
>> about the diehard tests or TestU01 first to understand how PRNGs are
>> evaluated.
>>
>> Tavis.
>>
> 
> You might as well give up.  He's an idiot who thinks he is a genius - he
> doesn't even begin to understand how wrong he is on almost everything he
> writes.  Some people have suggested he is a troll - he's not that
> clever.  Like Amine, he is completely disconnected from reality.
> 
> He can't program.  He doesn't know what you mean by "operator".  He
> doesn't know what "random" means, or what speed means in programming -
> yet he thinks he can make a better and faster random function than
> anyone else.
> 
> I've tried being patient, I've tried explanations, help, sample code,
> and information.  I am a big fan of trying to help beginners at
> programming (and helping experts - none of us is infallible or knows
> everything in the field), but like Amine, this guy is beyond the kind of
> help we can give him.  He needs a good kick up the backside, and being
> banned from the internet until he has finished his homework, and his
> mummy has checked the posts he makes.
> 

go easy on the kid. lol

i once had to learn how to do a table layout and if it weren't for #html 
on efnet I never would have gotten 30 years of webdev under my belt.

-- 
- chovy

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


#11873

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2021-01-21 18:00 +0100
Message-ID<rucc07$mhv$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11871
On 21/01/2021 17:37, chovy wrote:
> 
> go easy on the kid. lol
> 
> i once had to learn how to do a table layout and if it weren't for #html
> on efnet I never would have gotten 30 years of webdev under my belt.
> 

I /have/ gone easy on him.  Have a look at the posts I've made to him,
and the posts he has made.

(One thing good can be said about his posting - it has shown that there
are a few more lurkers in this group than I thought.  If there are some
people who actually want to learn something, posting here could still be
worth the effort - as long as they don't let Amine and Kristjan scare
them away.)

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


#11874

FromH E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com>
Date2021-01-21 09:29 -0800
Message-ID<3f62690f-ff35-4b99-84ab-e2bb06fc154bn@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#11873
David Brown kirjutas neljapäev, 21. jaanuar 2021 kl 19:00:59 UTC+2:
> On 21/01/2021 17:37, chovy wrote: 
> > 
> > go easy on the kid. lol 
> > 
> > i once had to learn how to do a table layout and if it weren't for #html 
> > on efnet I never would have gotten 30 years of webdev under my belt. 
> >
> I /have/ gone easy on him. Have a look at the posts I've made to him, 
> and the posts he has made. 
> 
> (One thing good can be said about his posting - it has shown that there 
> are a few more lurkers in this group than I thought. If there are some 
> people who actually want to learn something, posting here could still be 
> worth the effort - as long as they don't let Amine and Kristjan scare 
> them away.)


Hello guys.

Nice to hear critics on me.
I think it had some good points in it.


I have seen, that the code, that I posted was incomplete.
I am sorry for reporting you that.
I copied it directly from "nano" in my manjaro linux. It cuts the ends away.
The last line in "for cycle" is cutted.

The full code:

<html>
<body>
<div id="aa1" style="width: 100%; word-wrap: break-word;">
</div>
<script>
var a1=0;
var a2=54.32
var a3=3.43;
var a4=5.53;
var a5=34.75;
var a0001=-1;
for(var i=0; i<2132; i++) {
a0001=(-1)*a0001;
var i01=i^1.914643966346+i^1.260774037134;
a1=a5^1.206040306030407046073;
a2=1.30461*a1^1.92423523;
a3=3.470347*a2^1.3620346375;
a4=2.306463*a3^1.5437347;
a5=a0001*a4*i01^1.2643634704673;
document.getElementById("aa1").append((a1^(2.04326974)-1.34634769432*a2^(3.5324986798213)+
1.43986739*a3^(4.23460181704968)-1.3489679834*a4^(5.120398567219386)+1.4869374986*a5^(6.280407732347245733547)));
}
var aa001=document.getElementById("aa1").innerHTML;
aa001=aa001.replace(/\./g,'');
aa001=aa001.replace(/\+/g,'');
aa001=aa001.replace(/e/g,'');
aa001=aa001.replace(/\-/g,'');
document.getElementById("aa1").innerHTML=aa001;
</script>


</body>
</html>


Kr.

372 6861327
ya12983 mail co m

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


#11877

FromTavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com>
Date2021-01-21 18:02 +0000
Message-ID<i6tttbF23qrU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#11874
On 2021-01-21, H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Brown kirjutas neljapäev, 21. jaanuar 2021 kl 19:00:59 UTC+2:
>
> I have seen, that the code, that I posted was incomplete.
> I am sorry for reporting you that.

What is 2^4? You probably think it's 16, but try it.

Why does JavaScript think it's 6?

If you can't figure out it, read the previous reply I sent.

Tavis.

-- 
 _o)            $ lynx lock.cmpxchg8b.com
 /\\  _o)  _o)  $ finger taviso@sdf.org
_\_V _( ) _( )  @taviso

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


#11879

Fromchovy <chovy@pm.me>
Date2021-01-21 10:11 -0800
Message-ID<6009c3dd$0$34724$a92e2ab9@news.vipernews.com>
In reply to#11874
On 1/21/21 9:29 AM, H E wrote:
> David Brown kirjutas neljapäev, 21. jaanuar 2021 kl 19:00:59 UTC+2:
>> On 21/01/2021 17:37, chovy wrote:
>>>
>>> go easy on the kid. lol
>>>
>>> i once had to learn how to do a table layout and if it weren't for #html
>>> on efnet I never would have gotten 30 years of webdev under my belt.
>>>
>> I /have/ gone easy on him. Have a look at the posts I've made to him,
>> and the posts he has made.
>>
>> (One thing good can be said about his posting - it has shown that there
>> are a few more lurkers in this group than I thought. If there are some
>> people who actually want to learn something, posting here could still be
>> worth the effort - as long as they don't let Amine and Kristjan scare
>> them away.)
> 
> 
> Hello guys.
> 
> Nice to hear critics on me.
> I think it had some good points in it.
> 
> 
> I have seen, that the code, that I posted was incomplete.
> I am sorry for reporting you that.
> I copied it directly from "nano" in my manjaro linux. It cuts the ends away.
> The last line in "for cycle" is cutted.
> 
> The full code:
> 
> <html>
> <body>
> <div id="aa1" style="width: 100%; word-wrap: break-word;">
> </div>
> <script>
> var a1=0;
> var a2=54.32
> var a3=3.43;
> var a4=5.53;
> var a5=34.75;
> var a0001=-1;
> for(var i=0; i<2132; i++) {
> a0001=(-1)*a0001;
> var i01=i^1.914643966346+i^1.260774037134;
> a1=a5^1.206040306030407046073;
> a2=1.30461*a1^1.92423523;
> a3=3.470347*a2^1.3620346375;
> a4=2.306463*a3^1.5437347;
> a5=a0001*a4*i01^1.2643634704673;
> document.getElementById("aa1").append((a1^(2.04326974)-1.34634769432*a2^(3.5324986798213)+
> 1.43986739*a3^(4.23460181704968)-1.3489679834*a4^(5.120398567219386)+1.4869374986*a5^(6.280407732347245733547)));
> }
> var aa001=document.getElementById("aa1").innerHTML;
> aa001=aa001.replace(/\./g,'');
> aa001=aa001.replace(/\+/g,'');
> aa001=aa001.replace(/e/g,'');
> aa001=aa001.replace(/\-/g,'');
> document.getElementById("aa1").innerHTML=aa001;
> </script>
> 
> 
> </body>
> </html>
> 
> 
> Kr.
> 
> 372 6861327
> ya12983 mail co m
> 

Rather than paste code here its better to use a paste bin like x00.net


-- 
- chovy

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


#11883

FromH E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com>
Date2021-01-21 10:21 -0800
Message-ID<8dc9d017-0dea-43ac-92f6-cc6f03ab7673n@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#11879
To Tavis.

You might be right.
But when I look the results, they look just incredible.



Kr.

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


#11886

FromTavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com>
Date2021-01-21 18:39 +0000
Message-ID<i6u02kF34toU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#11883
On 2021-01-21, H E <rob99999999999999999@gmail.com> wrote:
> To Tavis.
>
> You might be right.
> But when I look the results, they look just incredible.
>

How can you tell if a number is random or not? Is just looking random
good enough? It's a really interesting question!

You will find this really fascinating, read about Buffon's needle problem!

I found you a fun video so you don't have to read anything:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHSWNsnJGeE

Now, instead of throwing needles in the air, what if we use your random
function? If it has the same statistical properties as throwing needeles
in the air, it should work right?

This is just a quick example of how to really evaluate a RNG (Random
Number Generator), and why I was suggesting reading about diehard.
Diehard is big collection of problems like this can check if the
output has the right statistical properties.

Tavis.


-- 
 _o)            $ lynx lock.cmpxchg8b.com
 /\\  _o)  _o)  $ finger taviso@sdf.org
_\_V _( ) _( )  @taviso

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


#11899

FromRichard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date2021-01-22 06:32 +0000
Message-ID<rudri0$qpm$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11879
On 21/01/2021 18:11, chovy wrote:
> On 1/21/21 9:29 AM, H E wrote:

<lots of code, which I've snipped>

> Rather than paste code here its better to use a paste bin like x00.net

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have quoted the entirety of his 
code.

But actually it's not the case. Historically, this group has always 
preferred those with code problems to post, *here*, a minimum complete 
program that exhibits the problem, together with a complete description 
of the problem and a list of the solutions already attempted.

But they also prefer people with code problems to be capable of engaging 
in technical discussions, which "H E" (or whatever his name is) clearly 
isn't, which is why he's beginning to wind up in the killfiles of even 
the most patient souls.

-- 
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]


#11902

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2021-01-22 08:51 +0100
Message-ID<rue05a$h5e$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11899
On 22/01/2021 07:32, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 18:11, chovy wrote:
>> On 1/21/21 9:29 AM, H E wrote:
> 
> <lots of code, which I've snipped>
> 
>> Rather than paste code here its better to use a paste bin like x00.net
> 
> If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have quoted the entirety of his
> code.
> 
> But actually it's not the case. Historically, this group has always
> preferred those with code problems to post, *here*, a minimum complete
> program that exhibits the problem, together with a complete description
> of the problem and a list of the solutions already attempted.

We also prefer to see actual /code/ - meaning "programming source code",
rather than "html code" or "indecipherable gibberish".

The group is language agnostic.  JavaScript is a programming language,
and people can post about or ask about JavaScript.  HTML and CSS are not
programming languages, and are not on topic.  There are plenty of other
places for discussing them.

> 
> But they also prefer people with code problems to be capable of engaging
> in technical discussions, which "H E" (or whatever his name is) clearly
> isn't, which is why he's beginning to wind up in the killfiles of even
> the most patient souls.
> 

You can always come back to your old C group.  It hasn't changed much,
though Rick is definitely getting more and more disconnected from
reality.  Still, the signal to noise ratio is better than here.

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


#11903

FromRichard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date2021-01-22 09:15 +0000
Message-ID<rue52u$g5m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11902
On 22/01/2021 07:51, David Brown wrote:

<snip>

> You can always come back to your old C group.

That sounds promising!

> It hasn't changed much,

Oh. In that case, there's not much point. If I wanted to discuss 
religion, I'd subscribe to a religion group.

-- 
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]


#11904

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2021-01-22 11:13 +0100
Message-ID<rue8fl$4c6$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11903
On 22/01/2021 10:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/01/2021 07:51, David Brown wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> You can always come back to your old C group.
> 
> That sounds promising!
> 
>> It hasn't changed much,
> 
> Oh. In that case, there's not much point. If I wanted to discuss
> religion, I'd subscribe to a religion group.
> 

No one ever discusses religion in religious groups (IME) - people just
yell at each other.  Discussion involves listening.

There are not many religious discussions in the C and C++ groups either,
but there are occasional religious threads.  (There used to be religious
discussions sometimes.  Though they were off-topic, I sometimes enjoyed
them - there are some people there who know a little about religious
topics and are capable of discussion.  It was a lot more interesting
than a crackpot predicting Armageddon by the end of the month.)

But mostly threads have been about unions, programming challenges, and
the usual stuff.  Plenty of pointless nonsense - but still far more
relevant threads than you get in this group.

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


#11963

FromRichard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date2021-01-23 09:27 +0000
Message-ID<rugq6c$61c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11904
On 22/01/2021 10:13, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/01/2021 10:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 22/01/2021 07:51, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You can always come back to your old C group.
>>
>> That sounds promising!
>>
>>> It hasn't changed much,
>>
>> Oh. In that case, there's not much point. If I wanted to discuss
>> religion, I'd subscribe to a religion group.
>>
> 
> No one ever discusses religion in religious groups (IME) - people just
> yell at each other.  Discussion involves listening.
> 
> There are not many religious discussions in the C and C++ groups either,
> but there are occasional religious threads.

It was in one such thread that I was berated in no uncertain terms (not 
by a passing religious nut but by a respected regular contributor) for 
mildly objecting to discussions of religion in clc. He was backed up by 
the group at large. For me personally, it was a tipping point - a place 
from which I could see no route back for clc.

-- 
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]


#11964

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2021-01-23 12:28 +0100
Message-ID<ruh185$h2q$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11963
On 23/01/2021 10:27, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/01/2021 10:13, David Brown wrote:
>> On 22/01/2021 10:15, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2021 07:51, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> You can always come back to your old C group.
>>>
>>> That sounds promising!
>>>
>>>> It hasn't changed much,
>>>
>>> Oh. In that case, there's not much point. If I wanted to discuss
>>> religion, I'd subscribe to a religion group.
>>>
>>
>> No one ever discusses religion in religious groups (IME) - people just
>> yell at each other.  Discussion involves listening.
>>
>> There are not many religious discussions in the C and C++ groups either,
>> but there are occasional religious threads.
> 
> It was in one such thread that I was berated in no uncertain terms (not
> by a passing religious nut but by a respected regular contributor) for
> mildly objecting to discussions of religion in clc. He was backed up by
> the group at large. For me personally, it was a tipping point - a place
> from which I could see no route back for clc.
> 

Fair enough - if you don't feel comfortable somewhere, it's time to move
on.  Sometimes it is appropriate to try to ignore the people or posts
that bother you, other times it is simply not worth the effort.  There
are some posters in clc whose C knowledge I respect, but whom I find
unpleasant people in discussions.

(I've just updated my filters to remove more of "HE"'s junk, and as a
side-effect I might have hidden this thread.  So if you think there's
more to be said here - and I think there probably isn't - you have my
email address.)

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


#11965

FromRichard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date2021-01-23 12:10 +0000
Message-ID<ruh3nv$1ck$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11964
On 23/01/2021 11:28, David Brown wrote:
> ...  if you think there's
> more to be said here - and I think there probably isn't - you have my
> email address.)

No, I think this discussion has run its course.

-- 
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]


#11878

Fromchovy <chovy@pm.me>
Date2021-01-21 10:11 -0800
Message-ID<6009c3ad$0$34724$a92e2ab9@news.vipernews.com>
In reply to#11873
On 1/21/21 9:00 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 17:37, chovy wrote:
>>
>> go easy on the kid. lol
>>
>> i once had to learn how to do a table layout and if it weren't for #html
>> on efnet I never would have gotten 30 years of webdev under my belt.
>>
> 
> I /have/ gone easy on him.  Have a look at the posts I've made to him,
> and the posts he has made.
> 
> (One thing good can be said about his posting - it has shown that there
> are a few more lurkers in this group than I thought.  If there are some
> people who actually want to learn something, posting here could still be
> worth the effort - as long as they don't let Amine and Kristjan scare
> them away.)
> 

Anime is weird. I had a friend who was into it. Cartoon porn. Don't get. 
I guess I'm weird.

-- 
- chovy

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


#11887

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2021-01-21 20:55 +0100
Message-ID<rucm7l$am9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#11878
On 21/01/2021 19:11, chovy wrote:
> On 1/21/21 9:00 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 21/01/2021 17:37, chovy wrote:
>>>
>>> go easy on the kid. lol
>>>
>>> i once had to learn how to do a table layout and if it weren't for #html
>>> on efnet I never would have gotten 30 years of webdev under my belt.
>>>
>>
>> I /have/ gone easy on him.  Have a look at the posts I've made to him,
>> and the posts he has made.
>>
>> (One thing good can be said about his posting - it has shown that there
>> are a few more lurkers in this group than I thought.  If there are some
>> people who actually want to learn something, posting here could still be
>> worth the effort - as long as they don't let Amine and Kristjan scare
>> them away.)
>>
> 
> Anime is weird. I had a friend who was into it. Cartoon porn. Don't get.
> I guess I'm weird.
> 

Amine, not Anime.  He is one of the two twats in this group that makes
vast numbers of meaningless and pointless posts, mostly in new threads
saying exactly the same thing as they said in the last dozen threads.
Neither he nor Kristjan pay any attention to what others post, and are
so wrapped up in themselves that they have no consideration for anyone
else in the group.  Both think they are such geniuses that the rest of
humanity is not worth bothering about.

My request to both of them would be to get a blog or a facebook page -
somewhere you can post your reams of drivel without bothering other people.

And the day you decide you are interested in having an adult
conversation about programming, then welcome back to comp.programming!

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


Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming


csiph-web