In article <38FE782F.3BAC4...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:20 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> You say I am an abuser? Say again?
No, YOU said that you are an abuser, since I assume that your rules for others apply to yourself. That may be wrong of course.
Anyway, I'm not going to be dragged into your nonsense like Erik and so many others were.
EOT
-- -> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <- -> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <- -> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <- -> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- mailto:rahul-j...@usa.net -\- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> writes: > > > You say I am an abuser? Say again?
> > No, YOU said that you are an abuser, since I assume that your rules > > for others apply to yourself. That may be wrong of course.
> So are you saying then, that Erik is a victim?
It would help to stop thinking in terms of "abuser" and "victim", since todays "victim" might be tomorrows or yesterdays "abuser", or might indeed be "victim" and "abuser" at the same time, towards different or even the same person(s).
BTW, I believe that this might be yet another facet of Erik's advice of focussing on deeds and not on people.
Regs, Pierre.
-- Pierre Mai <p...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver "One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft- bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]
+--------------- | > You still have not read the paper by Tim Bradshaw? His queue class is | > neither a non-standard metaobject nor something that a "default" deep | > copier can properly duplicate. It is impolite to pursue a thread | > without investing at least as much time understanding responses as | > responding. | | I completely understand that you can't just deep copy every | type of object blithely. +---------------
It's worse than that. The issue has nothing to do with "objects" per se. Tim's queue "class" can trivially be [and frequently *was*, before CLOS!] implemented as a single cons cell [sometimes called a "queue header"], and *none* of the standard copiers for cons cells will "do the right thing" w.r.t. preserving the required invariant (eq (last (car header)) (cdr header)).
If this isn't clear, observe the following:
> (defun valid-queue-p (header) (eq (last (car header)) (cdr header))) VALID-QUEUE-P > (defvar foo '((a b c d e . #1=(f)) . #1#)) FOO > foo ((A B C D E F) F) > (valid-queue-p foo) T > (defvar tree-copied-foo (copy-tree foo)) TREE-FOO > tree-copied-foo ((A B C D E F) F) > (valid-queue-p tree-copied-foo) NIL > (defvar list-copied-foo (copy-list foo)) LIST-FOO > list-copied-foo ((A B C D E F) F) > (valid-queue-p list-copied-foo) NIL > (defvar seq-copied-foo (copy-seq foo)) SEQ-FOO > seq-copied-foo ((A B C D E F) F) > (valid-queue-p seq-copied-foo) NIL >
In fact, the *only* way to copy such a queue "correctly" is with an *application-aware* (or "intention-aware") copy routine, such as:
> (defun copy-queue (header) (let ((copy (copy-list (car header)))) (cons copy (last copy)))) COPY-QUEUE > (defvar queue-copied-foo (copy-queue foo)) QUEUE-COPIED-FOO > (defvar queue-copied-foo (copy-queue foo)) QUEUE-COPIED-FOO > queue-copied-foo ((A B C D E F) F) > (valid-queue-p queue-copied-foo) T >
-Rob
----- Rob Warnock, 41L-955 r...@sgi.com Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/ Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. PP-ASEL-IA Mountain View, CA 94043
* Rob Warnock wrote: > In fact, the *only* way to copy such a queue "correctly" is with an > *application-aware* (or "intention-aware") copy routine, such as:
I don't think so. Graph copy (the thing I talk about tat the end of my paper) will copy it, but at appalling cost. an application-aware copier is obviously much better.
Rahul Jain <ra...@rice.edu> writes: > In article <38FE5FEE.C6505...@san.rr.com> posted on Wednesday, > April 19, 2000 8:37 PM, Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > One of the hallmark signs of an abuser is blaming the victim.
> >> So who's blaming whom here?
> > Do you feel I'm being "abusive" to Erik? Do tell.
> No, I'm just pointing out that you're BOTH participaring in the > argument, and that you BOTH should stop.
Yes, it has gone on for some time. I can't help noticing that you're not telling this to *Erik*, who has been posting the long, personally abusive haragues in response to a sentence or 2, and who has a long pattern of starting the abuse.
Are you saying that because Erik acts childishly, we will lower our standards for him and blame others for his actions?
> Erik is a very smart > guy, and if you get over his vehmence and try to UNDERSTAND > what he's saying, you'll end up GAINING from communicating with > him, instead of LOSING, like you are now.
Actually, for all his bluster, I wouldn't call Erik smart or knowledgeable.
In article <m3r9c0vb0a....@world.std.com> posted on Thursday, April 20, 2000 2:16 PM, Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
> Rahul Jain <ra...@rice.edu> writes: >> No, I'm just pointing out that you're BOTH participaring in the >> argument, and that you BOTH should stop.
> Yes, it has gone on for some time. I can't help noticing that you're > not telling this to *Erik*, who has been posting the long, personally > abusive haragues in response to a sentence or 2, and who has a long > pattern of starting the abuse.
starting or not, I agree that he is always involved, from what I've seen....
> Are you saying that because Erik acts childishly, we will lower our > standards for him and blame others for his actions?
what part of BOTH did you not get?
>> Erik is a very smart >> guy, and if you get over his vehmence and try to UNDERSTAND >> what he's saying, you'll end up GAINING from communicating with >> him, instead of LOSING, like you are now.
> Actually, for all his bluster, I wouldn't call Erik smart or > knowledgeable.
Then maybe you should take ideas for their value as ideas and not prejudice them based on your own personal hangups against the person whose idea it was. You might realize that you agree with that person after all.
-- -> -\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=<*><*>=-=-=-/^\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/- <- -> -/-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/ { Rahul -<>- Jain } \=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\- <- -> -\- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -/- <- -> -/- http://photino.sid.rice.edu/ -=- mailto:rahul-j...@usa.net -\- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| Version 11.423.999.210020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | One of the hallmark signs of an abuser is blaming the victim.
the hallmark of a loser is one who has thoughts of "blame" and "victim" and "abuser" and all that shit and who seems himself in one particular role relative to others. snap out of it!
no one is blaming you for anything. you are simply being told that your actions have certain consequences. you seem to subscribe to this view, yet refuse to apply it to yourself. I find this highly indicative of what I have concluded about you. you have been told that if you don't want the consequences, you should change the actions. you refuse to change your pattern of being a hapless victim and go on and on and on about everything bad happening to you being my fault. you victimize _yourself_ and work very hard to _remove_ responsibility from yourself. such is the hallmark of a loser without hope of recovery, but I think that has been the fairly well established pattern from you already.
the problem with you is you can't stop feeling the victim, even when it's clear that you're running after _me_ with your unceasing desire to blame me for your _personal_ problems. I'm not responsible for your reactions. you have to accept responsibility for your own _part_ in everything that happens to you and not try to shift it to somebody else. doing so is, indeed, highly indicative of what I have already concluded about you.
the big test is whether you get over this. so far, you have not, and neither has Tom Breton and a few other "victims". they have another thing in common: all been very seriously mistaken in some particular area. I find it very interesting that being persistently wrong about something causes _some_ people to fall into the "victim" trap (in their own mind) and never get out of it, while those who want to understand accept technical counter-information the first time it is presented and _learn_ from it. people who refuse to learn, however, fall into another category which is unlikely to be respected for much, and even less when they start to blame others and use "I'm a victim!" language.
I now understand why you need to _call_ yourself "Courageous".
* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | Oh, and let's not forget my favorite: | | ... who deserves to be hurt. | | Very revealing that one, especially. | | You say I am an abuser? Say again?
since this one is so important to you and so important not to _forget_, could you be bothered to actually locate it among what I have said to you? a message-ID will be very helpful. a URL at deja.com will work.
if you find that I have NOT actually said that, you will admit to be a moron, a liar, and a disgusting creep who is out to misrepresent others in such a way as to make others look bad when in fact you are a piece of reeking, self-victimizing crap yourself.
if you do find that I HAVE actually said that, I'll admit to being a psychopathic abuser who has actually been out to destroy your sterling reputation as a genius within BBN for no good reason.
do we have a deal, Joe "Courageous" Kraska?
I believe "very revealing" are extremely interesting words from our supposed "victim". the psychology of most victims is that the world consists of abusers and victims, and if you aren't a victim, you are an abuser. the _fact_, however, is that every abuser is a victim and every victim is an abuser. the question is towards and with whom they have their respective roles. those who do not subscribe to this set of roles, are actually neither abusers _nor_ victims.
so, what will your search _reveal_, Joe "Victim" Kraska?
>>> If you simply accepted that the perceptions you got from C++'s >>> "auto-copy" were completely wrong, NONE of this nonsense would
>> C++ doesn't have an auto copy that I know of.
>It automatically makes some sort of copy constructor that I've >never dared to use, since I know that it's most likely wrong.
It does a member-by-member copy. How deep that is depends on the copy constructors of the members; if the members are built-in data types, it does the equivalent of a bitwise copy. This can be overridden, although it means implementing all the copying that would otherwise be done, not just some of it; it can be explicitly prevented from happening.
It's pretty useful, and an excellent hiding place for a couple of classes of bugs.
>> A general purpose deep copier is useful for those cases in >> which you deep copy will function properly. These number of >> cases are, in fact, quite large.
>What exactly would a "general purpose" deep copier DO? Where would >it stop?
Hmmm. Actually, CL has at least one version of a deep copier: copy-tree. It only descends conses, which is just what you want in enough cases to be useful.
I think the lack of "deep copiers" is similar to the plethora of equality operators. There's a whole lot of variation on what you may want in both cases, and the approach was to implement lots of different equality operators and few deep copiers.
If you know what sort of copy you want to do, it's usually fairly easy to write methods to do it. That's my experience, anyway.
> Actually, for all his bluster, I wouldn't call Erik smart or > knowledgeable.
That's sounds like a "political agenda" position if there ever was one. If you can't see that Erik has a _lot_ of knowledge to offer (and _does_ provide it regularly), that says more about you than him.
/Jon
-- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd. Belmont, MA 02478, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari
> > Then maybe you should take ideas for their value as ideas and > > not prejudice them based on your own personal hangups against > > the person whose idea it was. You might realize that you agree > > with that person after all.
> For what it's worth, I've never had any doubt that Erik > was right. I understood in the beginning exactly what was > meant, it's just that's neither the question I asked, nor > something I was particularly concerned with. In the object > models I am working with (which are simulation objects), > the vast majority of objects are based on simple inheritance, > have basic primitive type attributes, or contain/reference > similar objects, or have sequences of the same...
> In such context, a graph copy is quite useful, I assure > you.
Also sounds pretty trivial. So why not spend some small fraction of the enormous amount of energy you've wasted here, and just write it? You'd simply be done and that would be that.
/Jon
-- Jon Anthony Synquiry Technologies, Ltd. Belmont, MA 02478, 617.484.3383 "Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately, Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari
> so, what will your search _reveal_, Joe "Victim" Kraska? > #:Erik
It revealed this, Erik Naggum. I took the liberty of capitalizing your words for you to help out your deteriorating memory, which has obviously been corrupted by the bile you spew.
* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | You just can't stop, can you Erik?
if I can stop you, that's good enough for me, because I don't start the kind of insane drivel you seem to enjoy starting. but have you asked yourself your own question, lately? I don't appreciate your line of psychologizing crap, but now that you get it back in your face, I see that you are a lot more sensitive to the matter than I am, which is good, because you may realize that if you plan to win any games that way, you won't do it here, and you're clearly the kind of moron who NEEDS TO BE HURT to stop to think. will _that_ make you stick to your issues, whatever they may be, or will you smear more of your personality all over the place with yet more moronic psychologizing and irrelevant personal attacks? it's your call, "Courageous".
> Also sounds pretty trivial. So why not spend some small fraction > of the enormous amount of energy you've wasted here, and just write > it? You'd simply be done and that would be that.
> > so, what will your search _reveal_, Joe "Victim" Kraska? > > #:Erik
> It revealed this, Erik Naggum. I took the liberty of capitalizing > your words for you to help out your deteriorating memory, which > has obviously been corrupted by the bile you spew.
Now this is why you should have quit a week ago. Erik said "needs to be hurt" you misquoted him saying "deserves to be hurt". Unfortunately this is a significant distinction.
So now Erik, in his mind, has defeated you. Everything he has spewed is now validated (in his mind). You have fed him what he craves and we will all suffer the sight of yet more intense and vicious diatribes. And those stretching for reasons to excuse him have what they need...
Rahul Jain <ra...@rice.edu> writes: > In article <m3r9c0vb0a....@world.std.com> posted on Thursday, > April 20, 2000 2:16 PM, Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:
> > Are you saying that because Erik acts childishly, we will lower our > > standards for him and blame others for his actions?
> what part of BOTH did you not get?
The part where you addressed just one side. Actions speak louder than words.
> >> Erik is a very smart > >> guy, and if you get over his vehmence and try to UNDERSTAND > >> what he's saying, you'll end up GAINING from communicating with > >> him, instead of LOSING, like you are now.
> > Actually, for all his bluster, I wouldn't call Erik smart or > > knowledgeable.
> Then maybe you should take ideas for their value as ideas and > not prejudice them based on your own personal hangups against > the person whose idea it was.
Tsk, tsk. You totally made that up about me, and it was completely uncalled for. And geez, to make that up about me just to defend Naggum, I'm appalled.
Don't try to tell me I haven't given him a fair chance. I've given him much more than that. My conclusion is that his technical reputation in cll is undeserved. I had to tell him very basic stuff about optimization. He still thinks like an Assembly language programmer and openly refuses to learn better ways.
So now when I see someone on cll credit him with smarts, sometimes I feel I should correct them.
> > Actually, for all his bluster, I wouldn't call Erik smart or > > knowledgeable.
> That's sounds like a "political agenda" position if there ever > was one. If you can't see that Erik has a _lot_ of knowledge > to offer (and _does_ provide it regularly), that says more about > you than him.
Wrong on every single count.
Don't try to tell me I haven't given him a fair chance. I've given him much more than that. My conclusion is that his technical reputation in cll is undeserved. I had to tell him very basic stuff about optimization. He still thinks like an Assembly language programmer and openly refuses to learn better ways.
So now when I see someone on cll credit him with smarts, sometimes I feel I should correct them.
> > > so, what will your search _reveal_, Joe "Victim" Kraska? > > > #:Erik
> > It revealed this, Erik Naggum. I took the liberty of capitalizing > > your words for you to help out your deteriorating memory, which > > has obviously been corrupted by the bile you spew.
> Now this is why you should have quit a week ago. Erik said "needs to be > hurt" you misquoted him saying "deserves to be hurt". Unfortunately this is > a significant distinction.
Is there any semantic distinction whatsoever in the sentiment? Not to me. To wit: "She deserves to be raped." "She needs to be raped." Nope, not a difference at all.
People do not escape vile sentiments over small differences in wording. Sorry.
* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | People do not escape vile sentiments over small differences in | wording. Sorry.
indeed, you feel free to _introduce_ vile sentiments by disregarding the actual wording in other people's writing, preferring your own rewrites.
your attributed wording: "you deserve to be hurt".
my actual wording: "you're clearly the kind of moron who needs to be hurt to stop to think".
to Joe Kraska, this is a "small difference in wording".
I'll repeat this in words this retarded creep may understand: Joe Kraska is clearly the kind of moron who needs to be _punished_ to stop to think about his actions.
for something that was so important to him, it was his favorite that he would not forget, one would have thought he had the decency to get it right, but we know all that needs to be known about Joe Kraska, now -- he feels entirely free to attribute malice to other people with no regard whatsoever to whether it exists outside his own mind. we know what his mind is like, now: it's boiling with hatred for people who prove to him that he is a moron, and yet he insists on proving it over and over.
he does, however, _deserve_ to be hurt, now, for what he does to others with blatant disregard for facts, honesty, and justice. this is what our society has decided is the right reaction to people like him: punishment for crimes committed, restitution for damages done, etc. he is indeed an abuser, and one who defends his attempted abuse with nothing short of his own sick, demented imagination. he is such a pathetic abuser, however, that it reflects only himself, his employer, his family, and his friends, if any, and not on those he tries to abuse.
nothing more needs ever be said about Joe Kraska of BBN.
* Tom Breton <t...@world.std.com> | I had to tell him very basic stuff about optimization.
you still haven't read what I have written about optimization, and you repeat the same idiotic comments that were proven wrong by others, but pretend that I'm the only one who doesn't "agree" with you. the fact is, however, that _nobody_ agrees with you, but you, like any moron deserving the label, decided in your own sick, demented mind, that I'm to blame for your lack of brains. this is just as brilliant as your incredibly stupid ideas about optimization.
