http://www.snopes.com/computer/program/stroustrup.asp

I know it's not true, but it's still so funny I couldn't help sharing it 
here :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers escreveu:
> http://www.snopes.com/computer/program/stroustrup.asp
> 
> I know it's not true, but it's still so funny I couldn't help sharing it 
> here :)

this is even funnier:
http://www.asandler.com/jokes/computer/c.shtml

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> this is even funnier:
> http://www.asandler.com/jokes/computer/c.shtml

Is this a joke or a documentary?



" for(;P("\n"),R-;P("|"))for(e=C;e-;P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("|"+(*u/4)%2);

To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that 
allowed such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually 
thought of selling this to the Soviets to set their computer science 
progress back 20 or more years."

I could believe that. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
> 
>> this is even funnier:
>> http://www.asandler.com/jokes/computer/c.shtml
> 
> Is this a joke or a documentary?

Look at the URL! :)

> " for(;P("\n"),R-;P("|"))for(e=C;e-;P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("|"+(*u/4)%2);
> 
> To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that 
> allowed such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually 
> thought of selling this to the Soviets to set their computer science 
> progress back 20 or more years."
> 
> I could believe that. ;-)

Certainly a well thought-out joke... :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> this is even funnier:
> http://www.asandler.com/jokes/computer/c.shtml

If a million monkeys were at a million typewriters for a million years, one 
of them would produce Shakespeare.


The others would write Perl programs.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If a million monkeys were at a million typewriters for a million years, one 
> of them would produce Shakespeare.

  Which law of mathematics is that, again?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If a million monkeys were at a million typewriters for a million years, one 
>> of them would produce Shakespeare.
> 
>   Which law of mathematics is that, again?

you missed the punchline.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:34:56 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>If a million monkeys were at a million typewriters for a million years, one 
>of them would produce Shakespeare.

Did we not do this to death a couple of years ago?

And Pearl's mother says her tea is ready :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Did we not do this to death a couple of years ago?

I seriously hope it wasn't *that* long ago!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:04:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> Did we not do this to death a couple of years ago?
> 
> I seriously hope it wasn't *that* long ago!

I'm pretty sure it wasn't, just feels like it. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> And Pearl's mother says her tea is ready :)

Oh... You must be /Mother of Pearl/. :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:30:22 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> And Pearl's mother says her tea is ready :)
>
>Oh... You must be /Mother of Pearl/. :-D

That's an old Goons joke. :)
And it is what I was thinking. You old mind reader, you :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25 Aug 2009 21:56:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:04:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Did we not do this to death a couple of years ago?
>> 
>> I seriously hope it wasn't *that* long ago!
>
>I'm pretty sure it wasn't, just feels like it. ;-)
>

Well I searched OT back to 2007 and could not find the thread.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh... You must be /Mother of Pearl/. :-D
> 
> That's an old Goons joke. :)
> And it is what I was thinking. You old mind reader, you :)

Let me just go ask this clam...

Hello?

Oh. Is Perl in?

No. But I'm her mother.

Oh, you must be /mother of Pearl/!

Oldies but goldies. IIRC, they wanted to climb the highest mountain in 
the world, which necessitates starting from the bottom of the ocean. And 
they also repeatedly told Ellington to "drive on", until eventually he 
did... "He should have waited for us!"

You can't get the wood, you know...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:16:06 +0200, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2009 21:56:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:04:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> Did we not do this to death a couple of years ago?
>>>
>>> I seriously hope it wasn't *that* long ago!
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it wasn't, just feels like it. ;-)
>>
>
> Well I searched OT back to 2007 and could not find the thread.

There was a discussion about the meaning of infinity in April this year.  
Monkeys were mentioned.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:00:18 +0200, "Fredrik Eriksson"
<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:


>>>> Stephen wrote:

>> Well I searched OT back to 2007 and could not find the thread.
>
>There was a discussion about the meaning of infinity in April this year.  
>Monkeys were mentioned.

Yes, but the one I remember was quite long and it went into the "infinite number
of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters hitting the keys for an infinite
time" hypothesis, in depth.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:18:48 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Let me just go ask this clam...
>
>Hello?
>
>Oh. Is Perl in?
>
>No. But I'm her mother.
>
>Oh, you must be /mother of Pearl/!

You're older than you look :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Let me just go ask this clam...
>>
>> Hello?
>>
>> Oh. Is Perl in?
>>
>> No. But I'm her mother.
>>
>> Oh, you must be /mother of Pearl/!
> 
> You're older than you look :P

I know a wisened little old man who looks exactly like an elf. He's a 
bit of a Goons addict.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:00:51 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>I know a wisened little old man who looks exactly like an elf. He's a 
>bit of a Goons addict.

My condolences. ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:52:22 +0200, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> There was a discussion about the meaning of infinity in April this year.
>> Monkeys were mentioned.
>
> Yes, but the one I remember was quite long and it went into the "infinite
> number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters hitting the keys
> for an infinite time" hypothesis, in depth.

This is the one I was talking about:
http://news.povray.org/povray.off-topic/thread/%3C49ec8b09%241%40news.povray.org%3E/

There was also some peripheral discussion here:
http://news.povray.org/povray.off-topic/thread/%3C49f68344%40news.povray.org%3E/



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:14:23 +0200, "Fredrik Eriksson"
<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:

>This is the one I was talking about:
>http://news.povray.org/povray.off-topic/thread/%3C49ec8b09%241%40news.povray.org%3E/
>
>There was also some peripheral discussion here:
>http://news.povray.org/povray.off-topic/thread/%3C49f68344%40news.povray.org%3E/
>

Thanks, I found both of those Fredrik. I would need to resurrect an old laptop
to find the thread, I think.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:06:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:30:22 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> And Pearl's mother says her tea is ready :)
>>
>>Oh... You must be /Mother of Pearl/. :-D
> 
> That's an old Goons joke. :)

And you said you didn't listen to The Goons. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:52:22 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:00:18 +0200, "Fredrik Eriksson"
> <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
> 
>>> Well I searched OT back to 2007 and could not find the thread.
>>
>>There was a discussion about the meaning of infinity in April this year.
>>Monkeys were mentioned.
> 
> Yes, but the one I remember was quite long and it went into the
> "infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters hitting
> the keys for an infinite time" hypothesis, in depth.

Yeah, I think that's the one from April....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Aug 2009 11:44:46 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Yeah, I think that's the one from April....

I don't mean to contradict but I will :P
I'm sure there was one from years ago. It might have been before Darren started
posting regularly. 
I may be wrong but I won't admit it ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Aug 2009 11:43:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> That's an old Goons joke. :)
>
>And you said you didn't listen to The Goons. ;-)

No I said that I wasn't a fan. My father was.

[sings] Across the Irish sea. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:27:21 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2009 11:43:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> That's an old Goons joke. :)
>>
>>And you said you didn't listen to The Goons. ;-)
> 
> No I said that I wasn't a fan. My father was.
> 
> [sings] Across the Irish sea. :)

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:25:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26 Aug 2009 11:44:46 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yeah, I think that's the one from April....
> 
> I don't mean to contradict but I will :P 

So in other words, you do mean to contradict me. ;-)

> I'm sure there was one from
> years ago. It might have been before Darren started posting regularly.
> I may be wrong but I won't admit it ;)

Good man. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Aug 2009 17:21:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:25:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 26 Aug 2009 11:44:46 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Yeah, I think that's the one from April....
>> 
>> I don't mean to contradict but I will :P 
>
>So in other words, you do mean to contradict me. ;-)
>

No because you said "I think" ;)

>> I'm sure there was one from
>> years ago. It might have been before Darren started posting regularly.
>> I may be wrong but I won't admit it ;)
>
>Good man. ;-)
>
An assumption on your part. Just because my name is "Stephen" that does not mean
that I am a man or good or even human, or sane.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:01:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> I don't mean to contradict but I will :P
>>
>>So in other words, you do mean to contradict me. ;-)
>>
> No because you said "I think" ;)

But you said "I will". ;-)

>>> I'm sure there was one from
>>> years ago. It might have been before Darren started posting regularly.
>>> I may be wrong but I won't admit it ;)
>>
>>Good man. ;-)
>>
> An assumption on your part. Just because my name is "Stephen" that does
> not mean that I am a man or good or even human, or sane.

Oh, no, no assumption on my part - just a commentary on the lack of 
admission. :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Aug 2009 18:39:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:01:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> I don't mean to contradict but I will :P
>>>
>>>So in other words, you do mean to contradict me. ;-)
>>>
>> No because you said "I think" ;)
>
>But you said "I will". ;-)
>
Does your wife ever say that you would start an argument in an empty room? 

Mine does :-)

>>>> I'm sure there was one from
>>>> years ago. It might have been before Darren started posting regularly.
>>>> I may be wrong but I won't admit it ;)
>>>
>>>Good man. ;-)
>>>
>> An assumption on your part. Just because my name is "Stephen" that does
>> not mean that I am a man or good or even human, or sane.
>
>Oh, no, no assumption on my part - just a commentary on the lack of 
>admission. :-)

My brother-in-law is a lawyer {God rot his soul (if he has one)} :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:49:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> No because you said "I think" ;)
>>
>>But you said "I will". ;-)
>>
> Does your wife ever say that you would start an argument in an empty
> room?
> 
> Mine does :-)

Mine doesn't, oddly enough. :-)

>>> An assumption on your part. Just because my name is "Stephen" that
>>> does not mean that I am a man or good or even human, or sane.
>>
>>Oh, no, no assumption on my part - just a commentary on the lack of
>>admission. :-)
> 
> My brother-in-law is a lawyer {God rot his soul (if he has one)} :-)

LOL!  I'm named for a lawyer, former JAG of the US Navy. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26 Aug 2009 18:59:49 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:49:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>

>> Does your wife ever say that you would start an argument in an empty
>> room?
>> 
>> Mine does :-)
>
>Mine doesn't, oddly enough. :-)
>

It must be me, then. 

>> My brother-in-law is a lawyer {God rot his soul (if he has one)} :-)
>
>LOL!  I'm named for a lawyer, former JAG of the US Navy. :-)
>

It takes all types ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:14:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>Mine doesn't, oddly enough. :-)
>>
> It must be me, then.

LOL

>>> My brother-in-law is a lawyer {God rot his soul (if he has one)} :-)
>>
>>LOL!  I'm named for a lawyer, former JAG of the US Navy. :-)
>>
>>
> It takes all types ;)

Yes it does.  :-)  His brother is also in law enforcement, oddly enough.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27 Aug 2009 12:17:32 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>> It takes all types ;)
>
>Yes it does.  :-)  His brother is also in law enforcement, oddly enough.

... to make a world :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:40:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2009 12:17:32 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>> It takes all types ;)
>>
>>Yes it does.  :-)  His brother is also in law enforcement, oddly enough.
> 
> ... to make a world :)

Of course, some people take the approach "it doesn't take all types, we 
just happen to have all types". ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2009 18:39:45 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:01:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> I don't mean to contradict but I will :P
>>>>
>>>>So in other words, you do mean to contradict me. ;-)
>>>>
>>> No because you said "I think" ;)
>>
>>But you said "I will". ;-)
>>
> Does your wife ever say that you would start an argument in an empty room?
> 
> Mine does :-)

What do you mean "yours does"? Your wife says *you* would start an argument
in an empty room, or she says *Stephen* would? :)

Post a reply to this message

On 28 Aug 2009 12:11:06 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:40:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 27 Aug 2009 12:17:32 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 
>>>> It takes all types ;)
>>>
>>>Yes it does.  :-)  His brother is also in law enforcement, oddly enough.
>> 
>> ... to make a world :)
>
>Of course, some people take the approach "it doesn't take all types, we 
>just happen to have all types". ;)
>
>

I supose that some people would.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:48:45 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>
>What do you mean "yours does"? Your wife says *you* would start an argument
>in an empty room, or she says *Stephen* would? :)

I meant that my wife (I'm Stephen) says that I can start an argument in an empty
room. By that she means that I'm argumentative. Whereas  think that she jut
doesn't like being wrong :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:24:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>Of course, some people take the approach "it doesn't take all types, we
>>just happen to have all types". ;)
>>
> I supose that some people would.

It seems somewhat anthropic to me - either that or it's a variation on 
Popeye's "I am what I am". :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I meant that my wife (I'm Stephen)

Heh, I mixed who wrote what in the thread...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:04:41 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> I meant that my wife (I'm Stephen)
>
>Heh, I mixed who wrote what in the thread...

I thought that you might have ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28 Aug 2009 18:37:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:24:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Of course, some people take the approach "it doesn't take all types, we
>>>just happen to have all types". ;)
>>>
>> I supose that some people would.
>
>It seems somewhat anthropic to me - either that or it's a variation on 
>Popeye's "I am what I am". :)
>

It is :) The one that I like is, I think from your Mr Abe Lincoln. "People who
like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like."

I suppose I should have written "I suppose that *some* people would." :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 08:23:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 28 Aug 2009 18:37:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:24:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>Of course, some people take the approach "it doesn't take all types,
>>>>we just happen to have all types". ;)
>>>>
>>> I supose that some people would.
>>
>>It seems somewhat anthropic to me - either that or it's a variation on
>>Popeye's "I am what I am". :)
>>
>>
> It is :) The one that I like is, I think from your Mr Abe Lincoln.
> "People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing
> they like."
> 
> I suppose I should have written "I suppose that *some* people would." :)

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message