 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
> >
> > Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)
>
> Come ON people! We all know geek girls are a myth created to give false
> hope to poor souls such as myself. :-/
Now come on. I'm not sure that's true, mathematically speaking. Now we'd need
to make some modifications for location and geekiness, but given a large enough
population, there just might be a chance:
http://ericherboso.com/blog/2009/03/finding-a-girlfriend-drake-equation-style/
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:41:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
>>> Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)
>> Come ON people! We all know geek girls are a myth created to give false
>> hope to poor souls such as myself. :-/
>
> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
What kind of pubs do geek girls frequent? :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-4-2009 22:00, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:41:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>>> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
>>>> Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)
>>> Come ON people! We all know geek girls are a myth created to give false
>>> hope to poor souls such as myself. :-/
>>
>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>
> What kind of pubs do geek girls frequent? :)
The Foo bar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 19-4-2009 22:00, nemesis wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:41:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
>>>>> Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)
>>>> Come ON people! We all know geek girls are a myth created to give false
>>>> hope to poor souls such as myself. :-/
>>>
>>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>>
>> What kind of pubs do geek girls frequent? :)
>
> The Foo bar.
Damn, I usually go to Boz bar... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:00:38 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:41:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>>> Married geeks are as normal as it can get. ;)
>>>> Even when it's two geeks who have gotten married? ;-)
>>> Come ON people! We all know geek girls are a myth created to give
>>> false hope to poor souls such as myself. :-/
>>
>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>
> What kind of pubs do geek girls frequent? :)
Well, my wife and I go to a local microbrewery. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Clever people realize not having 3 or 4 common keyboard shortcuts is a
> lame excuse for not learning the other 80 or so specific features and
> shortcuts a software might provide.
It's not just the shortcuts, it's things like using the space bar to open
the context menu, the context menu not following the same UI rules as
standard, not using standard dialog boxes (did you ever try to save a file
to a network share in Blender? I tried to type in the path and it asked me
if I wanted to make a new folder called "\\san1\$scott"!).
Fixing these things would take little resources and would generate far fewer
complaints from new users.
I don't care about learning specific shortcuts for obscure operations, or
learning how to use new features, but having to re-learn shortcuts for
save,load,copy,paste,undo,redo, learning a new menu system, and a new file
open/save dialog box is an unacceptable waste of my time and memory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What kind of pubs do geek girls frequent? :)
>
> The Foo bar.
WIN!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
Which country is she from?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>> Married geeks
>
> Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)
Some geeks marry geeks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
> I'm talking about?
Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
> > more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
> > I'm talking about?
> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
>>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
>>> I'm talking about?
>
>> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
>
> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
> >>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
> >>> I'm talking about?
> >
> >> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
> >
> > Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
> No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
Now you are taunting me.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Contrast with something that generates machine code natively, which
> might output code that your C compiler would never output, for example.
>
> If your front-end outputs C, you're never going to out-perform the C
> code it generates. If your C compiler can't take advantage of the GPU to
> do math or can't hook into interrupt vectors directly or ..., then your
> language isn't going to do better.
It is very difficult to write compilers that generate optimized native
code as good as the ones already provided by mature C compilers that
have been around for ages.
Larceny is the only free Scheme implementation that tries to generate
native code directly (or .NET bytecodes) and is written by one of the
top Scheme implementers around. It generates native code that is a good
deal faster than JIT-compiled like in mzscheme or ikarus, but still much
slower ones by Gambit or Stalin, both of which generate C code.
BTW, if you look at C code so produced, it hardly looks like C at all.
Like:
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_pcase9,___G_pcase9)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_peek_2d_char,___G_peek_2d_char)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_peek_2d_eof_3f_,___G_peek_2d_eof_3f_)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_peer,___G_peer)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_permanent_2d_close,___G_permanent_2d_close)
___DEF_OLD_SYM_GLO(___S_permissions,___G_permissions)
from Gambit. Truly insane. But the good thing is that code is now
portable to different 32-bit platforms as long as there's a C compiler.
Would it be worth the pain generating assebly not as optimized as a C
compiler?...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> It is very difficult to write compilers that generate optimized native
> code as good as the ones already provided by mature C compilers that
> have been around for ages.
It depends on the language, of course. I'd hate to (for example) try to
compile FORTH into C code instead of native code. Smalltalk would be likely
as difficult. And both the JVM and the .NET system would seem to do a not
bad job. Plus, of course, anything on a new chip is not going to have code
as good.
Sure. Using C as an intermediate language for another language that's
basically C-ish is probably a good idea. I was merely arguing that the idea
that "my language runs as fast as C code" is not obviously true from the
fact that it uses C as an intermediate language. Using C as an intermediate
language doesn't make it trivial to run as fast as hand-rolled C.
> Would it be worth the pain generating assebly not as optimized as a C
> compiler?...
You're arguing against a position I never held.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
>>>>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
>>>>> I'm talking about?
>>>> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
>>> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
>
>> No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
>
> Now you are taunting me.
Not intentionally. But ... I think we're done. If you haven't understood
what i'm saying, I'm not going to be able to clarify it. And since you're
mocking me, it's clear you no longer really care to communicate on the subject.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott escreveu:
>> Clever people realize not having 3 or 4 common keyboard shortcuts is a
>> lame excuse for not learning the other 80 or so specific features and
>> shortcuts a software might provide.
>
> It's not just the shortcuts, it's things like using the space bar to
> open the context menu, the context menu not following the same UI rules
> as standard, not using standard dialog boxes (did you ever try to save a
> file to a network share in Blender? I tried to type in the path and it
> asked me if I wanted to make a new folder called "\\san1\$scott"!).
Probably mapping to a unit first would work, but yeah, sucks to be in
Windows when most open-source projects are born in *nix. :)
Windows programmers have a closed-source mentality that was never like
in *nix. They are too busy with their closed-source work projects to
bother to contribute with open-source code and, thus, wanting to run
most free stuff today is a world of pain on Windows because it is very
unlike *nix.
> Fixing these things would take little resources and would generate far
> fewer complaints from new users.
Yeah, I wonder why -- having so many Windows users and some of them
surely being programmers -- no one has bothered to patch it yet.
> I don't care about learning specific shortcuts for obscure operations,
> or learning how to use new features, but having to re-learn shortcuts
> for save,load,copy,paste,undo,redo, learning a new menu system, and a
> new file open/save dialog box is an unacceptable waste of my time and
> memory.
It's still too little to bother, I guess. You talk like as if pressing
space and being presented with a graphical menu that works like any
other graphical menu you ever saw is the end of the world. I guess
people just learn the software way of doing things and get work done
rather than fight the software for being so unlike the rest available
for the platform. Those fighting it surely already migrated to
something else...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>>> Warp wrote:
> >>>>> So in your opinion there's absolutely no difference between vi and other
> >>>>> more typical text editors, and thus you don't have the slightest idea what
> >>>>> I'm talking about?
> >>>> Now *you* are intentionally misunderstanding *me*. :-)
> >>> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
> >
> >> No, it's called a straw man argument, not sarcasm.
> >
> > Now you are taunting me.
> Not intentionally. But ... I think we're done. If you haven't understood
> what i'm saying, I'm not going to be able to clarify it. And since you're
> mocking me, it's clear you no longer really care to communicate on the subject.
If it sounds like I'm mocking, it's completely unintentional.
I never said I don't understand your point. I said that you are not
aknowledging that you understood mine (ie. that there are some basic
differences between vi and other more "normal" text editors, and that
that was what I was talking about).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>
> Which country is she from?
Maybe Geekland?
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If it sounds like I'm mocking, it's completely unintentional.
So a sarcastic hyperbole of something you think I said isn't mocking? I'll
try to keep that in mind.
> I never said I don't understand your point. I said that you are not
> aknowledging that you understood mine
I understand yours *now*. I was disputing that your point was so obvious
that one must be stupid or lying to misunderstand it the way you first
phrased it. I even agreed with you right at the beginning that vi's command
mode is unintuitive, especially if you don't know vi is modal.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:22:39 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>
> Which country is she from?
The US, western Pennsylvania, to be precise. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Sure. Using C as an intermediate language for another language that's
> basically C-ish is probably a good idea.
Scheme is very unlike C, both obviously in syntax but also in semantics:
no low-level type declares, higher-order functions receiving or
returning functions, unlimited lexical scoping, unrestricted
higher-order continuations. Syntatic abstraction doesn't even come into
play for semantics as it's processed before being compiled to C.
Still, C is a very preferred target for Scheme fast code generators.
Many translation techniques have matured and proven very useful in using
C as intermediate language.
> I was merely arguing that the
> idea that "my language runs as fast as C code" is not obviously true
> from the fact that it uses C as an intermediate language. Using C as an
> intermediate language doesn't make it trivial to run as fast as
> hand-rolled C.
Not obvious, yes. It works by using C as assembly rather than as a
third generation high-level language as it once was. They use many
dirty tricks that no one using C to directly write programs in would
think of, like agressive loop unrolling and optimization and constant
folding before generating any C code. Much of the C "code" is actually
C preprocessor macros.
Yes, it will never be as fast as C obfuscated and cryptic code written
by hand by a hacker, but the point is not that: it is to write very
high level code that still performs quite favorably to low-level C as
assembly.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>>>>> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
> If it sounds like I'm mocking, it's completely unintentional.
BTW, you might want to look up the definition of "sarcasm". I'm not sure it
means what you think it means. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
>>> ^u 10 ^f
>
>> Actually, I've often wondered what such things as ^M are supposed to mean.
>
> You have clearly never used any unix.
>
or DOS for that matter ..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >>>>> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
> > If it sounds like I'm mocking, it's completely unintentional.
> BTW, you might want to look up the definition of "sarcasm". I'm not sure it
> means what you think it means. :-)
"Harsh or bitter derision or irony."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:10:45 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Married geeks
>> Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)
>
> I'll ask my wife. ;-)
Maybe you shouldn't. It may end up in a divorce.<G>
--
"Now we all know map companies hire guys who specialize in making map
folding a physical impossibility" - Adult Kevin Arnold in "Wonder Years"
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>> Which country is she from?
>
> The US, western Pennsylvania, to be precise. :-)
Mmm. I knew the US has a surprising amount of strange people, I guess
just taking into account the size of the place there must be some really
smart people there too...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>>> Maybe you could say that. I was trying to make a point, using sarcasm.
>
>>> If it sounds like I'm mocking, it's completely unintentional.
>
>> BTW, you might want to look up the definition of "sarcasm". I'm not sure it
>> means what you think it means. :-)
>
> "Harsh or bitter derision or irony."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asarcasm
Check out how many are mocking ridicule. :-)
Incidentally, I just installed "VIM with 'Cream' extensions" on my new work
machine, and it starts in insert mode and escape doesn't get you out of
insert mode, so I had no idea how to run the darn thing. I uninstalled it
and put up the normal vim. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Incidentally, I just installed "VIM with 'Cream' extensions" on my new
> work machine, and it starts in insert mode and escape doesn't get you
> out of insert mode, so I had no idea how to run the darn thing. I
> uninstalled it and put up the normal vim. :-)
a-ha!
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Still, C is a very preferred target for Scheme fast code generators.
> Many translation techniques have matured and proven very useful in using
> C as intermediate language.
I've seen translators where the outputted C code is basically one function
per high-level source file, and the body of the function is full of gotos
and switches and all kinds of stuff like that. Again, completely unreadable,
but that isn't really the point. I've seen where it (for example) generates
C functions with >65536 labels in a file, breaking the compiler.
I would think if you want to optimize *that* sort of thing, you'd be better
off with a lower-level IM like JVM or CIL.
> Yes, it will never be as fast as C obfuscated and cryptic code written
> by hand by a hacker, but the point is not that: it is to write very
> high level code that still performs quite favorably to low-level C as
> assembly.
Sure. I guess taking advantage of the more complex chips these days can be
done much more easily by writing C code than by trying to generate good
assembly code. Perhaps I just haven't updated my prejudices since CPUs have
been simple enough to program by hand. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:36:08 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> My wife is terribly offended that you think she's not a geek.... ;-)
>>> Which country is she from?
>>
>> The US, western Pennsylvania, to be precise. :-)
>
> Mmm. I knew the US has a surprising amount of strange people, I guess
> just taking into account the size of the place there must be some really
> smart people there too...
Indeed there are. I've told you before that it's not a good idea to
judge an entire country based on your limited experience in dealing with
people who work for the same company you do being based in the US.
You'll find we're a pretty diverse group, and some of us are even *gasp*
nice! :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:27:39 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:10:45 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Married geeks
>>> Isn't that an oxymoron? ;)
>>
>> I'll ask my wife. ;-)
>
> Maybe you shouldn't. It may end up in a divorce.<G>
Nah, it won't - 13 years and we haven't split up yet, I think we're stuck
with each other. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asarcasm
> Check out how many are mocking ridicule. :-)
I forgot the first rule of internet communication: From all the possible
meanings of an expression, always choose the worst one.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asarcasm
>> Check out how many are mocking ridicule. :-)
>
> I forgot the first rule of internet communication: From all the possible
> meanings of an expression, always choose the worst one.
Come now. When *every* definition served up by google says that sarcasm
means you're mocking and ridiculing the person you're talking to, you
probably shouldn't say "don't be offended, it was just sarcasm." I'm trying
to teach you some english here: sarcasm is something you say to be mean or
abusive. If you didn't mean to be mean or abusive, don't call what you did
sarcasm.
*You* are the one that said it was sarcasm. I wasn't the one who picked the
meaning.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> *You* are the one that said it was sarcasm. I wasn't the one who picked
> the meaning.
You know what? Nevermind. You're still clearly working hard to avoid
communication. I'll wait till you're feeling better or past whatever's
bugging you at work or whatever.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's still too little to bother, I guess. You talk like as if pressing
> space and being presented with a graphical menu that works like any other
> graphical menu you ever saw is the end of the world.
It doesn't. The menu disappears seemingly randomly if you stray too far
from it, the menu order is reversed if you open it too near the bottom of
the window, the menu gets clipped by the edge of the window rather than
being display on top of it, it doesn't respect the user setting for sub-menu
open delay, it doesn't reopen at the new point if you press space again.
It's all the little features that OS designers spend so much time over to
make life easier for everyone, and then some developer comes along and says
"nah, we're just going to use our own menu system".
> Those fighting it surely already migrated to something else...
Yep exactly, and the Blender developers don't care, because it doesn't
affect them how many people are using it. Such a shame because underneath
there is a great program, which would probably grow to be even better if
more people were involved in the project.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> ^u 10 ^f
>>
>>> Actually, I've often wondered what such things as ^M are supposed to
>>> mean.
>>
>> You have clearly never used any unix.
>>
>
> or DOS for that matter ..
or a modem "by hand".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Mmm. I knew the US has a surprising amount of strange people, I guess
>> just taking into account the size of the place there must be some really
>> smart people there too...
>
> Indeed there are. I've told you before that it's not a good idea to
> judge an entire country based on your limited experience in dealing with
> people who work for the same company you do being based in the US.
>
> You'll find we're a pretty diverse group, and some of us are even *gasp*
> nice! :-)
The part that really puzzles me is that all the best commedians are from
the USA, and yet... most of the Americans I've met don't seem to possess
a sense of humour.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The part that really puzzles me is that all the best commedians are from
> the USA, and yet... most of the Americans I've met don't seem to possess a
> sense of humour.
I read somewhere (don't remember where) that people who do similar jobs in
different countries are *way* more alike than people from the same country
who do different jobs. IME this seems true.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Come now. When *every* definition served up by google says that sarcasm
> means you're mocking and ridiculing the person you're talking to, you
> probably shouldn't say "don't be offended, it was just sarcasm." I'm trying
> to teach you some english here: sarcasm is something you say to be mean or
> abusive. If you didn't mean to be mean or abusive, don't call what you did
> sarcasm.
If I described it as "rhetorical" rather than "sarcastic", would you
be happier?
You seem rather obsessed with the technical meaning of words.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If I described it as "rhetorical" rather than "sarcastic", would you
> be happier?
Rhetorical has a different meaning, and one without a connotation of
ridicule. A sarcastic question and a rhetorical question are two entirely
different things. It's not a question of whether I'm "happy" or not.
> You seem rather obsessed with the technical meaning of words.
Given how often miscommunication seems to happen and upset people, and given
how often you complain that people aren't taking things the way you meant,
I'm trying to offer assistance with communicating clearly. My apologies if
this offended you.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > If I described it as "rhetorical" rather than "sarcastic", would you
> > be happier?
> Rhetorical has a different meaning, and one without a connotation of
> ridicule. A sarcastic question and a rhetorical question are two entirely
> different things. It's not a question of whether I'm "happy" or not.
> > You seem rather obsessed with the technical meaning of words.
> Given how often miscommunication seems to happen and upset people, and given
> how often you complain that people aren't taking things the way you meant,
> I'm trying to offer assistance with communicating clearly. My apologies if
> this offended you.
Well, I'll try to remember to use "rhetorical" rather than "sarcastic"
in the future. If playing with words is less likely to make people interpret
things in the worst possible way, it could be worth the effort.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:32:11 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> Given how often miscommunication seems to happen and upset people, and
>> given how often you complain that people aren't taking things the way
>> you meant, I'm trying to offer assistance with communicating clearly.
>> My apologies if this offended you.
>
> Well, I'll try to remember to use "rhetorical" rather than "sarcastic"
> in the future. If playing with words is less likely to make people
> interpret things in the worst possible way, it could be worth the
> effort.
You've rather completely missed the point that the words have two
entirely different meanings.
Clear communication using the proper words to convey meaning is important
if you want to be understood or to not be misunderstood. You can't just
expect that everyone is going to read things the precise way you meant
them if you use imprecise words.
You also can't expect then for people to be happy and cheery when you
complain that they've misunderstood what you said and accuse them of
intentionally reading things you write "in the worst possible way" (ie,
apparently not the way you intended it).
If a writer doesn't want to be misunderstood, then it's the writer's
responsibility to write clearly enough, and to accept when they haven't
written clearly enough to be understood that they could have chosen a
better way to express themselves.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:15:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Mmm. I knew the US has a surprising amount of strange people, I guess
>>> just taking into account the size of the place there must be some
>>> really smart people there too...
>>
>> Indeed there are. I've told you before that it's not a good idea to
>> judge an entire country based on your limited experience in dealing
>> with people who work for the same company you do being based in the US.
>>
>> You'll find we're a pretty diverse group, and some of us are even
>> *gasp* nice! :-)
>
> The part that really puzzles me is that all the best commedians are from
> the USA, and yet... most of the Americans I've met don't seem to possess
> a sense of humour.
You've just met crap Americans, then. ;-)
Most of the people I know over here have a good sense of humour, and many
even understand British humour and think it's funny. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You also can't expect then for people to be happy and cheery when you
> complain that they've misunderstood what you said and accuse them of
> intentionally reading things you write "in the worst possible way" (ie,
> apparently not the way you intended it).
I don't expect someone who reads my posts for the first time to
immediately understand what I mean if I happen to make a less-than-wise
choice of words.
However, when the same people I have been communicating with for
years do it again and again, and we have had the exact same conversation
like a couple of dozen times, it starts becoming a bit irritating.
I'm not saying I'm not to be blamed. I sometimes do not think with
utmost care how I express things, but there's generally no foul intention
(unless I get trolled, of course). The people here who I have been
communicating for years and years should know this, but this conversation
comes up again and again.
Is it any wonder that I get the feeling that, after all these years,
they are intentionally picking up the worst possible interpretations
to everything?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:17:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You also can't expect then for people to be happy and cheery when you
>> complain that they've misunderstood what you said and accuse them of
>> intentionally reading things you write "in the worst possible way" (ie,
>> apparently not the way you intended it).
>
> I don't expect someone who reads my posts for the first time to
> immediately understand what I mean if I happen to make a less-than-wise
> choice of words.
Just because we expect you to choose less-than-wise word choices doesn't
mean we'll excuse it. ;-)
> However, when the same people I have been communicating with for
> years do it again and again, and we have had the exact same conversation
> like a couple of dozen times, it starts becoming a bit irritating.
Expecting to keep doing the same thing over and over and get a different
result is one definition of insanity. Perhaps some of us hope that you
might learn from your mistakes and not make then again.
> I'm not saying I'm not to be blamed. I sometimes do not think with
> utmost care how I express things, but there's generally no foul
> intention (unless I get trolled, of course). The people here who I have
> been communicating for years and years should know this, but this
> conversation comes up again and again.
>
> Is it any wonder that I get the feeling that, after all these years,
> they are intentionally picking up the worst possible interpretations to
> everything?
Well, as I said, perhaps you need to look again at how you're expressing
yourself.
Trust me, I take no joy from these arguments, and I frequently hesitate
before writing a response to you because I don't like the way you react
to responses that interpret things differently than the way you intended
them. Yet sometimes you say things that just shouldn't be left to stand
on their own, so what would you have us do? Not point out that you're
not being clear?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> but there's generally no foul intention
FWIW, I don't take offense at what you said. I was just pointing out that
"sarcasm" didn't mean what you meant. :-)
Give others the benefit of the doubt of not having foul intentions as well,
and things probably go better. It seems from my memory that you're usually
the first one to claim someone else is "intentionally" misunderstanding you.
Maybe "intentionally" isn't the word you mean?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:15:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> The part that really puzzles me is that all the best commedians are from
>> the USA, and yet... most of the Americans I've met don't seem to possess
>> a sense of humour.
>
> You've just met crap Americans, then. ;-)
>
> Most of the people I know over here have a good sense of humour, and many
> even understand British humour and think it's funny. ;-)
I won't even ask if Andrew ever heard of Monthy Python.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:01:47 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:15:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> The part that really puzzles me is that all the best commedians are
>>> from the USA, and yet... most of the Americans I've met don't seem to
>>> possess a sense of humour.
>>
>> You've just met crap Americans, then. ;-)
>>
>> Most of the people I know over here have a good sense of humour, and
>> many even understand British humour and think it's funny. ;-)
>
> I won't even ask if Andrew ever heard of Monthy Python.
LOL, though I'd wager he has. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> It is very difficult to write compilers that generate optimized native
>> code as good as the ones already provided by mature C compilers that
>> have been around for ages.
>
> It depends on the language, of course.
Here's a good example. Your CPU supports both decimal arithmetic and
CISC-style opcodes that check array bounds and multiple-dimension-array
calculations. Like, say, the VAX. You want to implement Ada, which
supports both array bounds checking for multiple-dimension arrays and
decimal arithmetic. Those features probably won't be fast if you generate
portable C, since there's no way to express "check the array bounds and
either throw an exception or access the memory depending..." nor is there
any way to say "Add these two strings of BCD digits and give me back a BCD
number" that can compile down to one instruction. In other words, on
machines whose CPUs have been optimized to support what C supports, it's
hard to outrun C. On a machine optimized to support FORTH or Scheme, it's
going to be hard to take a FORTH or Scheme compiler that outputs C and have
it competitive with native code generation for that processor.
Ada also supports natively threads and interrupt handling, neither of which
you can generate C to handle. So some languages simply cannot be translated
to C in any sort of portable way.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
