notifying particular thread to wake up.
Rupesh
waiting threads are same priority.
thanks
Knute Johnson
See Thread.interrupt().
--
Knute Johnson
email s/nospam/knute/
Daniel Pitts
Thread scheduling is up to the OS. If a thread is blocked in wait(),
you can use notify() or notifyAll() to unblock it.
I suggest you read Java Concurrency In Practice <http://
www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/>. It teaches you everything you
should know before attempting to create multi-threaded programs.
If all your threads are in wait() on the same object, then you'll have
to call notifyAll(), the wait() call should be in a loop (this is
ALWAYS true), the loop can check to see if that particular thread is
the one that should wake up, and if not, go back to waiting.
Roedy Green
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Is there any way to notify a particular thread to wake up? All the
>waiting threads are same priority.
Get Doug Lea's book to explain all the ways you can have threads
interact. Failing that, try to solve your problems with canned
classes.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/thread.html
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Eric Sosman
> Is there any way to notify a particular thread to wake up? All the
> waiting threads are same priority.
What are they waiting for?
If they are waiting on condition variables, then yes:
call pthread_cond_broadcast() on all the condvars, which
will cause all the waiting threads to awaken, including
the one you care about (if it was among those waiting).
But perhaps you want to awaken the designated thread
without awakening any others? If so, the answer is no.
Threads waiting on condvars may awaken at any time, with
or without a good reason. You can ensure that at least
one awakens, but you cannot prevent others from doing so,
too.
You could set a variable specifying "Thread T3 should
run" before calling pthread_cond_signal() or _broadcast().
Unintended threads might or might not wake up, but each
can test your variable and go right back to sleep again
unless it's T3.
The interesting question is: Why do you care which
thread wakes up? It usually shouldn't matter.
Eric Sosman
> Rupesh wrote On 09/25/07 17:37,:
>
>>Is there any way to notify a particular thread to wake up? All the
>>waiting threads are same priority.
>
>
> What are they waiting for?
>
Oh, drat: I got my newsgroups mixed up and answered
as if for comp.programming.threads. The answers are really
the same for Java, but the nomenclature is different: for
"waiting on a condvar" read "executing the wait() method"
and for "pthread_cond_signal()" and "_broadcast()" read
"notify()" and "notifyAll()." Sorry about that.
Hunter Gratzner
> Is there any way to notify a particular thread to wake up? All the
> waiting threads are same priority.
Do not use threads if you want a controlled sequential execution of
code. Just call the pieces of code one after the other from one thread.
nebul...@gmail.com
> I suggest you read Java Concurrency In Practice <http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/>. It teaches you everything you
> should know before attempting to create multi-threaded programs.
ALERT! The URL given does not lead to any explanation of Java
concurrency in practise. It leads to an advertisement trying to sell
something.
I recommend the Java Tutorial at java.sun.com; there's a great deal of
information on threading and concurrency in Java to be found there,
and you will not run into any "bait and switch" where a link promises
information but leads to a page that asks you for your money instead.
Instead it will simply lead directly and promptly to the information
itself.
And beware of links posted in this newsgroup; unfortunately this type
of tactic is not infrequent here. Don't waste money; use the free
javadocs, the free Java Tutorial, and Google for other free
documentation before even thinking of actually spending money for
information that's usually easily found online.
Roedy Green
or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>ALERT! The URL given does not lead to any explanation of Java
>concurrency in practise. It leads to an advertisement trying to sell
>something.
that "something" is a book with a list of authors including the
venerated Joshua Bloch and Doug Lea.
The registered owner of the site is PEIERLS, TIMOTHY
Prior Artisans, LLC
275 ELDERFIELDS RD
MANHASSET, NY 11030-1625
US
Tim Pierls is the primary author of the book.
The book is most likely is about as good as you could get, and the
site is owned by the author.
The site has additional information:
Table of Contents
View code examples (source jar)
Concurrency annotations: jar, javadoc, source
Sample chapter
Errata
Praise for Java Concurrency in Practice
About the authors
I see nothing wrong with quoting the site. There is nothing wrong
withg getting paid for your efforts. My complaint is when people try
to sell me a defective or irrelevant product.
Here are links to various bookstores if you don't like that site.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmindp-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0321349601
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=9780321349606&lkid=J12871747&pubid=K49036
http://www.powells.com/partner/28995/biblio/9780321349606
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmindprod&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0321349601
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmin0b-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=6742&creativeASIN=0321349601
http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canamindprod-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1624&creative=6746&creativeASIN=0321349601
http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-2358048-10437934?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chapters.indigo.ca%2Fbooks%2Fitem%2Fbooks-9780321349606%2F
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmin07-20&linkCode=as2&camp=15121&creative=330641&creativeASIN=0321349601
Lew
> On Sep 25, 5:49 pm, Daniel Pitts <googlegrou...@coloraura.com> wrote:
>> I suggest you read Java Concurrency In Practice <http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/>. It teaches you everything you
>> should know before attempting to create multi-threaded programs.
>
> ALERT! The URL given does not lead to any explanation of Java
> concurrency in practise. It leads to an advertisement trying to sell
> something.
Something truly valuable and worth far more than the price you'll pay for it.
I've got this book and I love it. It's fabulous. It's superb. It's
informative. Buy it, everyone.
Or be doomed to mess up your multi-threaded code.
At work I have already secured the value of the book in brownie points from my
managers, and in understanding some of the issues our system has encountered,
and I'm only halfway through the book.
Y'know, it'd be nice if everything were free, but it isn't. Some things cost
money, and there's an argument that money makes civilization more viable. The
point is that some things are worth every penny that they cost, and this book
is certainly one of them.
I bought this book, using my own money, not paid for by an employer or anyone
else (although it is tax deductible), and I am glad I did.
--
Lew
Lew
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:24:48 -0000, nebul...@gmail.com wrote, quoted
> or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> ALERT! The URL given does not lead to any explanation of Java
>> concurrency in practise. It leads to an advertisement trying to sell
>> something.
>
> that "something" is a book with a list of authors including the
> venerated Joshua Bloch and Doug Lea.
>
> The registered owner of the site is PEIERLS, TIMOTHY
> Prior Artisans, LLC
> 275 ELDERFIELDS RD
> MANHASSET, NY 11030-1625
> US
>
> Tim Pierls is the primary author of the book.
He's listed second. Brian Goetz is the primary author.
>> Java Concurrency in Practice (Paperback)
>> by Brian Goetz (Author), Tim Peierls (Author), Joshua Bloch (Author), Joseph Bowbeer (Author), David Holmes (Author), Doug Lea (Author)
Roedy wrote:
> The book is most likely is about as good as you could get, and the
> site is owned by the author.
>
> The site has additional information:
>
> Table of Contents
> View code examples (source jar)
> Concurrency annotations: jar, javadoc, source
> Sample chapter
> Errata
> Praise for Java Concurrency in Practice
> About the authors
>
> I see nothing wrong with quoting the site. There is nothing wrong
> with getting paid for your efforts. My complaint is when people try
> to sell me a defective or irrelevant product.
Amen, brother!
> Here are links to various bookstores if you don't like that site.
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmindp-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=0321349601
> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=9780321349606&lkid=J12871747&pubid=K49036
> http://www.powells.com/partner/28995/biblio/9780321349606
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmindprod&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0321349601
> http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmin0b-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=6742&creativeASIN=0321349601
> http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canamindprod-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1624&creative=6746&creativeASIN=0321349601
> http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-2358048-10437934?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chapters.indigo.ca%2Fbooks%2Fitem%2Fbooks-9780321349606%2F
> http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0321349601?ie=UTF8&tag=canadianmin07-20&linkCode=as2&camp=15121&creative=330641&creativeASIN=0321349601
Buy it.
--
Lew
nebul...@gmail.com
> nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 5:49 pm, Daniel Pitts <googlegrou...@coloraura.com> wrote:
> >> I suggest you read Java Concurrency In Practice <http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/>. It teaches you everything you
> >> should know before attempting to create multi-threaded programs.
>
> > ALERT! The URL given does not lead to any explanation of Java
> > concurrency in practise. It leads to an advertisement trying to sell
> > something.
>
> Something truly valuable and worth far more than the price you'll pay for it.
[snip remainder of endorsement]
(This response applies equally to Roedy's.)
Regardless of all of that, it remains the case that the original post
is a bait-and-switch. It purports to link to information about Java;
instead it links to an advertisement. It's a clear grab for money.
Regardless of how relevant or well-targeted the ad might be in this
context, it is still an ad, and all of the following occurred:
* The first response to the thread was an ad for a commercial product.
* The response did not disclose that this was the case; instead one
had to follow the link to discover that one is being asked for money
instead of merely receiving an answer.
* The response conspicuously did not mention the Java Tutorial or any
of the other copious free material on the subject matter, which the OP
would be financially well-advised to consider first before resorting
to paying money.
* There's also the niggling little matter that the ad is probably
utterly useless to anyone who isn't an American with a credit card
from one of the Big 3 anyway. That's about 1% of the world population.
If you're a German with poor credit but a $50 bill (well, fifty euro
or whatever) burning a hole in your pocket, too bad, your money isn't
green enough I expect.
Regardless of the OP's motives and intentions, the result is awfully
shabby.
And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
anyway.
Lew
>> It's a clear grab for money.
Buy the book. /Java Concurrency in Practice/ by Brian Goetz, et al., is
fantastic. Buy it.
--
Lew
Daniel Pitts
> On Sep 28, 12:29 am, Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>
> > nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sep 25, 5:49 pm, Daniel Pitts <googlegrou...@coloraura.com> wrote:
> > >> I suggest you read Java Concurrency In Practice <http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/>. It teaches you everything you
> > >> should know before attempting to create multi-threaded programs.
>
> > > ALERT! The URL given does not lead to any explanation of Java
> > > concurrency in practise. It leads to an advertisement trying to sell
> > > something.
>
> > Something truly valuable and worth far more than the price you'll pay for it.
>
> [snip remainder of endorsement]
>
> (This response applies equally to Roedy's.)
>
> Regardless of all of that, it remains the case that the original post
> is a bait-and-switch. It purports to link to information about Java;
> instead it links to an advertisement. It's a clear grab for money.
> Regardless of how relevant or well-targeted the ad might be in this
> context, it is still an ad, and all of the following occurred:
was a good book, and rather than simply provide the OP with *only* the
name of the book, I did a quick google and found that they had an
official website.
>
> * The first response to the thread was an ad for a commercial product.
> * The response did not disclose that this was the case; instead one
> had to follow the link to discover that one is being asked for money
> instead of merely receiving an answer.
> * The response conspicuously did not mention the Java Tutorial or any
> of the other copious free material on the subject matter, which the OP
> would be financially well-advised to consider first before resorting
> to paying money.
I was not aware that the Java tutorial went into the kind of detail
that JCIP did.
> * There's also the niggling little matter that the ad is probably
> utterly useless to anyone who isn't an American with a credit card
> from one of the Big 3 anyway. That's about 1% of the world population.
> If you're a German with poor credit but a $50 bill (well, fifty euro
> or whatever) burning a hole in your pocket, too bad, your money isn't
> green enough I expect.
>
> Regardless of the OP's motives and intentions, the result is awfully
> shabby.
>
> And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
> anyway.
This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
when I don't make money from anything I do on usenet.
Although, I don't see the problem if I do. Some newsgroups aren't
appropriate places for commercial advertising, but pointing out an
*extremely* relevant product is valud.
God, this is like the time everyone told you to check out ANT and you
refused to even *google* for it!
Twisted, you are WRONG!
Mike Schilling
>> And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
>> anyway.
> This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
> when I don't make money from anything I do on usenet.
Yeah, it accused me of the same thing when I recommended IntelliJ as
superior to Eclipse and NetBeans. Don't let it worry you; the rest of us
know better.
Rupesh
wrote:
Hello geeks,
What's happening... let's come back to problem. The Problem is the
threads are not of same class. They are the threads from different
classes that need to access some shares resources. I have used block
synchronized but I am not getting things right. So what do you suggest
me to do in such condition. They I have to synchronize threads from
different classes.
Mike Schilling
>
> What's happening... let's come back to problem. The Problem is the
> threads are not of same class. They are the threads from different
> classes that need to access some shares resources. I have used block
> synchronized but I am not getting things right. So what do you suggest
> me to do in such condition. They I have to synchronize threads from
> different classes.
Synchronize on the resource, not on the thread instance.
Daniel Pitts
wrote:
Yeah, actually, that was the other thing. I did suggest IDEA at some
point, and got accused of the same thing.
It really makes me wonder why anyone believes everything should be
free? If someone asked me how to make a salad, and I suggested going
to a Safeway to pick up some lettuce, would it be such a surprise when
they got to the checkout line and *gasp* someone asked for money?
Very little in life is truly free. While I agree more things *should*
be, I'm perfectly willing to suggest useful commercial things,
regardless of the amount of money I get from it.
Although, I do recommend that book (and Refactoring by Fowler, and
Refactoring to Patterns by Kerievsky) often enough that I should
consider getting some sort of paid referral link for them :-)
Thanks for the idea Twisted. You're right, I should make money off of
Usenet.
Mike Schilling
> On Sep 28, 2:30 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>>> And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
>>>> anyway.
>>> This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
>>> when I don't make money from anything I do on usenet.
>>
>> Yeah, it accused me of the same thing when I recommended IntelliJ as
>> superior to Eclipse and NetBeans. Don't let it worry you; the rest
>> of us know better.
>
> Yeah, actually, that was the other thing. I did suggest IDEA at some
> point, and got accused of the same thing.
>
> It really makes me wonder why anyone believes everything should be
> free? If someone asked me how to make a salad, and I suggested going
> to a Safeway to pick up some lettuce, would it be such a surprise when
> they got to the checkout line and *gasp* someone asked for money?
I don't understsand it, nor the weird self-righteousness that so often
accompanies it.
nebul...@gmail.com
> > * The first response to the thread was an ad for a commercial product.
>
> My response was appropriate.
It was a link to a Web page consisting of a full-page ad!
> > * The response conspicuously did not mention the Java Tutorial or any
> > of the other copious free material on the subject matter, which the OP
> > would be financially well-advised to consider first before resorting
> > to paying money.
>
> I was not aware that the Java tutorial went into the kind of detail
> that JCIP did.
Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps it will suffice for the OP's purposes
anyway. Yet you'd have him spend a probably-sizable amount of hard-
earned money even if he doesn't need to. And you'd probably get a
percentage, too -- ISTR that Amazon pays people to spread links to buy
things through Amazon around, when those links are used to make a
purchase. An unfortunate consequence of this is that it motivates
people to spam, and failing that at least to jump to making
recommendations for expensive products and fail to mention free
alternatives when a relevant context comes up.
> This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
Probably because you frequently post (links to) ads for books and
stuff here in lieu of freer materials?
> Although, I don't see the problem if I do. Some newsgroups aren't
> appropriate places for commercial advertising, but pointing out an
> *extremely* relevant product is valud.
It's the lack of disclosure that bothers me. If your post had said
"The free Java tutorial at java.sun.com/wherever has excellent
information on concurrent programming, and if that isn't helpful
enough there are books you can buy that go into even more detail; I'd
recommend xyz, by foobar" I'd not have taken any issue with it.
[snip gratuitous insultage]
Untrue.
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Daniel Pitts wrote:
> >> And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
> >> anyway.
> > This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
> > when I don't make money from anything I do on usenet.
>
> Yeah, it
"It"? Who are you calling "it", thingamabob?
[thingamabob proceeds to imply more insults]
Away and boil yer head.
nebul...@gmail.com
> On Sep 28, 2:30 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel Pitts wrote:
> > >> And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
> > >> anyway.
> > > This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
> > > when I don't make money from anything I do on usenet.
>
> > Yeah, it accused me of the same thing when I recommended IntelliJ as
> > superior to Eclipse and NetBeans. Don't let it worry you; the rest of us
> > know better.
>
> Yeah, actually, that was the other thing. I did suggest IDEA at some
> point, and got accused of the same thing.
>
> It really makes me wonder why anyone believes everything should be
> free? If someone asked me how to make a salad, and I suggested going
> to a Safeway to pick up some lettuce, would it be such a surprise when
> they got to the checkout line and *gasp* someone asked for money?
There's a big difference -- we're discussing information and text here
rather than physical goods that are actually scarce. People would not
expect to find a salad for free; or for that matter to find anything
for free after "going to" a store. On the other hand, if someone says
"the information you need is at this URL", the normal thing to find at
the indicated URL is ... the information in question. Not some ad
trying to sell you something, but the information itself, since it
could easily and cheaply be there, and 9 times out of 10 it actually
is. Links to Sun's Java pages and Roedy's site abound in this NG.
Following them leads directly to what someone said would be there.
Then along comes a link like yours and instead of the information
itself is a page saying "We have this information but we won't let you
see it until you pay up". How nice. And no warning of this difference
was in the post with the URL, either.
Same goes for software as for information. People posts links for the
JDK itself, for Eclipse and NetBeans, etc., and readers can follow
those links and download and install away. Then comes that odd link
that instead leads to an ad or a paywall of some sort instead of a
free download.
Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice, and so
that people that aren't Americans with credit cards and decent amounts
of wealth can actually get some use at all out of your post.
> Very little in life is truly free. While I agree more things *should*
> be, I'm perfectly willing to suggest useful commercial things,
> regardless of the amount of money I get from it.
That is not, in and of itself, a problem; it's the sneaky lack of
disclosure that is. When URLs are posted to things that might well be
directly readable or downloadable for free, you should at minimum make
it clear in the case that the thing is not that available.
International and relatively poor people (and this group gets a lot of
students, and students are frequently a) foreign and/or b) poor) can
immediately see that the link will be useless to them. People in
general will know what to expect. Of course, if there's known free
alternatives it would be good to mention these too. Conspicuously
omitting to mention these may do harm by leaving people to make a less
informed choice and denying any useful options entirely to some
people, and may also cast doubt on your motives. And of course if (as
is the case with amazon.com book-purchase links, last I heard) you get
a kickback for referrals disclosure of that, too, is definitely
warranted.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, Daniel Pitts <googlegrou...@coloraura.com> wrote:
>> > * The first response to the thread was an ad for a commercial product.
>>
>> My response was appropriate.
>
> It was a link to a Web page consisting of a full-page ad!
It was the link to the official page about the book, as created by the
book author. I'd say it's the canonical reference for that book.
It's relevant and appropriate, and also being an advertisement
doesn't change that.
> And you'd probably get a percentage, too -- ISTR that Amazon pays
> people to spread links to buy things through Amazon around, when
> those links are used to make a purchase. An unfortunate consequence
> of this is that it motivates people to spam, and failing that at
> least to jump to making recommendations for expensive products and
> fail to mention free alternatives when a relevant context comes up.
You'll find that Mr. Pitts have no relation to the page in question,
and as such is unlikely to
>> This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
>
> Probably because you frequently post (links to) ads for books and
> stuff here in lieu of freer materials?
That's not commercial advertisement unless he is to gain from someone
buying the books. So far, it doesn't seem to be the case.
If you think there is free materials that should be metioned too,
feel free to mention them.
> It's the lack of disclosure that bothers me. If your post had said
> "The free Java tutorial at java.sun.com/wherever has excellent
> information on concurrent programming, and if that isn't helpful
> enough there are books you can buy that go into even more detail; I'd
> recommend xyz, by foobar" I'd not have taken any issue with it.
Then disclose it, if you think it's needed. Don't demand that others
do it.
If everybody recommends something that they have found useful, all
who reads it can make their own decissions.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - l...@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Lew
> It was the link to the official page about the book, as created by the
> book author. I'd say it's the canonical reference for that book.
> It's relevant and appropriate, and also being an advertisement
> doesn't change that.
In addition to your excellent points, there is a pragmatic angle. As a
discussion group dealing with the realities of Java programming, the reality
is that we rarely get a free lunch, or a free book. In fact, the Java world
is a joy because so much of the information is free, but sooner or later we
impoverished practitioners must occasionally fork over our own personal
hard-earned ducats for much needed information, as in book purchases.
Given that we all face at least the possibility of investing actual cash in
gaining a market edge for our talents, we some of us might value others'
opinions regarding similar financial decisions they've faced. Some might feel
compelled to share their experience, perhaps even altruistically, in the
message pattern, "Since you're going to spend money anyway, here's a
potentially wise use of that money."
Knowing that we speak to a society of engineers and professionals, we are
allowed by the social contract to presume freedom of choice on the part of all
newsgroup participants. In particular, we shouldn't have to disclaim
everything out of our keyboards with "IMHO". First of all, humility is far
over-rated. More importantly, of course we're expressing opinions, hopefully
well informed, rational and benevolent ones. We're all also critical
evaluators of information we read here. I've been mistaken more than once,
and learned from the corrections I've received. I certainly won't have any
more faith in what others post, nor should anyone.
Stipulated.
OTOH, most people here have good reasons for what they assert, often supported
by evidence and rational argument. Why not be convinced by facts and logic
from time to time?
I vote we stop flinging namby-pamby accusations of impropriety in the case of
such obviously well-meant and possibly even useful advice as that to evaluate,
and yes, even buy /Java Concurrency in Practice/, by Brian Goetz, et al.
--
Lew
Mike Schilling
> On Sep 28, 5:30 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Daniel Pitts wrote:
>>>> And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
>>>> anyway.
>>> This is the second time you've accused me of commercial advertising
>>> when I don't make money from anything I do on usenet.
>>
>> Yeah, it
>
> "It"? Who are you calling "it", thingamabob?
I didn't want to invade your privacy by investigating your gender. Geez,
try to be nice to some people.
nebul...@gmail.com
> > It was a link to a Web page consisting of a full-page ad!
>
> doesn't change that.
So you freely admit that it was a link to an ad!
> Then disclose it, if you think it's needed.
I have been doing so, despite being flamed each and every time by
stalwart defenders of the unashamed commercial exploitation of
newbies. :P
Lew
> I didn't want to invade your privacy by investigating your gender. Geez,
> try to be nice to some people.
It isn't nice to call someone "it". The traditional approach in English, used
since before Shakespeare's / Elizabeth I's / Sir Francis Bacon's time, is to
use the pronoun "they/them" in plural construction, but gender-neutral
singular meaning.
--
Lew
Arne Vajhøj
> Regardless of all of that, it remains the case that the original post
> is a bait-and-switch. It purports to link to information about Java;
> instead it links to an advertisement. It's a clear grab for money.
> Regardless of how relevant or well-targeted the ad might be in this
> context, it is still an ad, and all of the following occurred:
>
> * The first response to the thread was an ad for a commercial product.
> * The response did not disclose that this was the case; instead one
> had to follow the link to discover that one is being asked for money
> instead of merely receiving an answer.
> * The response conspicuously did not mention the Java Tutorial or any
> of the other copious free material on the subject matter, which the OP
> would be financially well-advised to consider first before resorting
> to paying money.
> * There's also the niggling little matter that the ad is probably
> utterly useless to anyone who isn't an American with a credit card
> from one of the Big 3 anyway. That's about 1% of the world population.
> If you're a German with poor credit but a $50 bill (well, fifty euro
> or whatever) burning a hole in your pocket, too bad, your money isn't
> green enough I expect.
>
> Regardless of the OP's motives and intentions, the result is awfully
> shabby.
>
> And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
> anyway.
It was not advertising since it was a reply not the original post.
It was appropriate because the book is on topic. It is very common
to recommend books in newsgroups.
It is obviously not a grab for money since the poster is not
one of the authors.
And believe or not, but Amazon is very happy to accept credit cards
from europeans.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Why ?
That has never been the usenet standard !
> That is not, in and of itself, a problem; it's the sneaky lack of
> disclosure that is. When URLs are posted to things that might well be
> directly readable or downloadable for free, you should at minimum make
> it clear in the case that the thing is not that available.
> International and relatively poor people (and this group gets a lot of
> students, and students are frequently a) foreign and/or b) poor) can
> immediately see that the link will be useless to them. People in
> general will know what to expect. Of course, if there's known free
> alternatives it would be good to mention these too. Conspicuously
> omitting to mention these may do harm by leaving people to make a less
> informed choice and denying any useful options entirely to some
> people, and may also cast doubt on your motives. And of course if (as
> is the case with amazon.com book-purchase links, last I heard) you get
> a kickback for referrals disclosure of that, too, is definitely
> warranted.
Even students with little money may find such links useful.
Universities has libraries.
When the students graduate and get a job they may want the book.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> On Sep 28, 12:45 pm, Daniel Pitts <googlegrou...@coloraura.com> wrote:
> Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps it will suffice for the OP's purposes
> anyway. Yet you'd have him spend a probably-sizable amount of hard-
> earned money even if he doesn't need to. And you'd probably get a
> percentage, too -- ISTR that Amazon pays people to spread links to buy
> things through Amazon around, when those links are used to make a
> purchase. An unfortunate consequence of this is that it motivates
> people to spam, and failing that at least to jump to making
> recommendations for expensive products and fail to mention free
> alternatives when a relevant context comes up.
"And you'd probably get a percentage, too"
Any evidence to back that accusation up with ?
> It's the lack of disclosure that bothers me. If your post had said
> "The free Java tutorial at java.sun.com/wherever has excellent
> information on concurrent programming, and if that isn't helpful
> enough there are books you can buy that go into even more detail; I'd
> recommend xyz, by foobar" I'd not have taken any issue with it.
People can see that it is a book they will have to pay for if
they click at the link.
If you think the cost of clicking at a link and spend 5 seconds
skimming a page is too big a burden, then I don't think newsgroups
are for you.
Arne
Mike Schilling
>
> Even students with little money may find such links useful.
I don't know of things are different in Europe, but in the US university
students have to purchase their own textbooks; and buying other
school-related books is also common.
>
> Universities has libraries.
And these libraries often welcome suggestions for new books to buy.
>
> When the students graduate and get a job they may want the book.
And books are sometimes available used for a fraction of the cost.
By the way, does anyone know a good term for people who have the same horror
of commerce that Puritans have of sex?
Arne Vajhøj
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Even students with little money may find such links useful.
>
> I don't know of things are different in Europe, but in the US university
> students have to purchase their own textbooks; and buying other
> school-related books is also common.
It was the same at the university I went to.
Arne
nebul...@gmail.com
> "And you'd probably get a percentage, too"
>
> Any evidence to back that accusation up with ?
Simple -- the ad used an Amazon link, and those are well known to pay
kickbacks for referrals.
> People can see that it is a book they will have to pay for if
> they click at the link.
The link itself is the bait and switch I was complaining about. A link
ostensibly to free information turns out to go to just a stupid ad,
which while relevant is useless without paying money. Nothing in *the
Usenet post* indicated that the link was not going to give the OP the
information they wanted without traversing a paywall (or equivalent)
first.
[snip judgmental and useless suggestion]
Buzz off. I grow weary of your constantly following up to my posts
with hostility and a generally disagreeable attitude in your eternal
quest to "prove" what a moron I am. Since I actually have a stellar IQ
your quest is futile; you simply can never succeed in proving
something that's not true, after all. Give it up now and save both of
us endless headaches.
bbo...@gmail.com
> > And Usenet is not an appropriate place for commercial advertising
> > anyway.
>
> It was not advertising since it was a reply not the original post.
It was advertising, because it was nothing but a promotion for a
commercial product. That it was *targeted* advertising doesn't make it
magically not count as advertising at all. :P
> It was appropriate because the book is on topic. It is very common
> to recommend books in newsgroups.
The sleazy thing is to recommend them to the exclusion of potentially
superior (but less lucrative) alternatives.
> It is obviously not a grab for money since the poster is not
> one of the authors.
You forget that people get paid for Amazon referrals. Guess where the
ad leads. And no, it wasn't barnesandnoble.com either. :P
> And believe or not, but Amazon is very happy to accept credit cards
> from europeans.
The vast majority of the world's population is no more European than
it is American, in case you failed your grade school geography
classes. It's also hardly the case that everyone has, wants, should
need, or even can get a credit card *in the developed world*, let
alone the rest of it (i.e. most of it)!
If you (and the advertiser, and others...) are not being America-
centric you're at least being west-centric and neglecting the less
well-off. Between the subprime mortgage fiasco and epidemic rates of
identity theft, an awful lot of people have no access to credit, and
it's frequently through no fault of their own. Arbitrarily shutting
such people out of access to information is cruel and unnecessary;
although it may help line certain parties' pockets, I am not
sympathetic to such parties and such motives. Failing to mention good
free sources of information on Java *first* is borderline criminal. :P
Daniel Pitts
> Buzz off. I grow weary of your constantly following up to my posts
> with hostility and a generally disagreeable attitude in your eternal
> quest to "prove" what a moron I am. Since I actually have a stellar IQ
> your quest is futile; you simply can never succeed in proving
> something that's not true, after all. Give it up now and save both of
> us endless headaches.
So, in other words, you can never prove your stellar IQ? Come off it
Twisted, you are not a victim of slander or libel, you are simply
overly sensitive to others' differences of opinions.
It is okay to have a difference of opinion. Its just annoying to have
to listen to you accuse those who do of being stupid or malevolent.
bbo...@gmail.com
> > Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
> > such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
> > mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice, and so
> > that people that aren't Americans with credit cards and decent amounts
> > of wealth can actually get some use at all out of your post.
>
> Why ?
>
> That has never been the usenet standard !
Sure it has. It's bait and switch to imply that people can get instant
and free gratification by clicking a link which turns out to only be
to a stupid and disappointing ad or paywall. That's dishonest as well
as rude. If it's information or software that you're linking to, you
should state up-front if it's not free. That includes if there's a
registerwall or anything like that; whether you pay in money or in
being spammed or whatever, it's still not really free in that case.
> Even students with little money may find such links useful.
Doubtful. It's very likely they will find Sun's free online materials
and other free online materials vastly more useful, particularly on
their budget.
> Universities has libraries.
Have. And I don't see any relevance here. The link to some Amazon
sales page is obviously of no help to a student in acquiring the book
from any other source than Amazon. If they wanted the book from their
university library they'd have to go there and search, same as they
would have *without* the ever-so-helpful post under discussion here.
> When the students graduate and get a job they may want the book.
When the students graduate and get a job they will probably want to
have a less stupid uniform to wear while flipping burgers -- the
career that most students can look forward to continuing even after
getting a CS degree these days, no thanks to the dot-bomb and other
issues with the western economy these days. :P
Arne Vajhøj
> On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> "And you'd probably get a percentage, too"
>>
>> Any evidence to back that accusation up with ?
>
> Simple -- the ad used an Amazon link, and those are well known to pay
> kickbacks for referrals.
That does not prove he get a percentage.
You need to show that:
- that specific web site actually participates in a referral program
- that he get a that or some of it referral fee
We are eagerly waiting !
> Since I actually have a stellar IQ
> your quest is futile
Hmm.
I would say that if your IQ was above 95 you would have figured
out that an entire newsgroups are laughing at you and your posts.
It seems rather obvious.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> On Sep 30, 7:54 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
>>> such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
>>> mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice, and so
>>> that people that aren't Americans with credit cards and decent amounts
>>> of wealth can actually get some use at all out of your post.
>> Why ?
>>
>> That has never been the usenet standard !
>
> Sure it has.
I have never seen that stated anywhere !
Source ?
>> Even students with little money may find such links useful.
>
> Doubtful. It's very likely they will find Sun's free online materials
> and other free online materials vastly more useful, particularly on
> their budget.
I bought books while I was a student. In fact I think that
is a very common thing.
>> Universities has libraries.
>
> Have. And I don't see any relevance here.
They could go and borrow the same book there.
>> When the students graduate and get a job they may want the book.
>
> When the students graduate and get a job they will probably want to
> have a less stupid uniform to wear while flipping burgers -- the
> career that most students can look forward to continuing even after
> getting a CS degree these days, no thanks to the dot-bomb and other
> issues with the western economy these days. :P
AFAIK there is a good demand for IT people in practically
all countries.
Arne
bbo...@gmail.com
> So, in other words, you can never prove your stellar IQ?
I never claimed that; indeed I could prove it by e.g. taking a test in
front of witnesses.
> Come off it Twisted, you are not a victim of slander or libel, you are simply
> overly sensitive to others' differences of opinions.
When their "opinion" is that I'm a moron or something else
undesirable, you're damn straight I am.
bbo...@gmail.com
> nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> >> "And you'd probably get a percentage, too"
>
> >> Any evidence to back that accusation up with ?
>
> > Simple -- the ad used an Amazon link, and those are well known to pay
> > kickbacks for referrals.
>
> That does not prove he get a percentage.
No; hence the word "probably" you seem to not have noticed in my
earlier post.
> I would say that if your IQ was above 95 you would have figured
> out that [insult deleted]
Fuck off Arnehole. I've read quite enough of your "opinions" for one
day.
Daniel Pitts
> On Sep 30, 7:54 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> > Universities has libraries.
>
> Have. And I don't see any relevance here. The link to some Amazon
> sales page is obviously of no help to a student in acquiring the book
> from any other source than Amazon. If they wanted the book from their
> university library they'd have to go there and search, same as they
> would have *without* the ever-so-helpful post under discussion here.
a service by giving them a link to a web-page *owned by one of the
book's co-authors*. That way, if they choose to go with my advice on
the matter, they would have the means right in front of them and
wouldn't have to search amazon or google
BTW, if I had left it up to the title, and they Googled for "Java
Concurrency In Practice", The top most (non paid) link would have been
the very same link I provided!
bbo...@gmail.com
> On Oct 1, 5:32 pm, bbo...@gmail.com wrote:> On Sep 30, 7:54 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> > > Universities has libraries.
>
> > Have. And I don't see any relevance here. The link to some Amazon
> > sales page is obviously of no help to a student in acquiring the book
> > from any other source than Amazon. If they wanted the book from their
> > university library they'd have to go there and search, same as they
> > would have *without* the ever-so-helpful post under discussion here.
>
> Except that I provided the Title as well.
I don't see how this is significant. If the user wants to find a
particular book it is presumed that he already knows the title.
Arne Vajhøj
> On Oct 1, 8:35 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> "And you'd probably get a percentage, too"
>>>> Any evidence to back that accusation up with ?
>>> Simple -- the ad used an Amazon link, and those are well known to pay
>>> kickbacks for referrals.
>> That does not prove he get a percentage.
>
> No; hence the word "probably" you seem to not have noticed in my
> earlier post.
So you consider it acceptable to post something as "probably" without
any evidence of so purely because it is possible ??
Arne
bbo...@gmail.com
My understanding is that it is not only possible, but commonplace.
Arne Vajhøj
So you consider it acceptable to post something about a specific
person as "probably" without any evidence purely because it is
common ??
Arne
bbo...@gmail.com
> >> That has never been the usenet standard !
>
> > Sure it has.
>
> I have never seen that stated anywhere !
>
> Source ?
General usenet etiquette, often explicitly written down, going back
years. Commercial postings generally considered crass and unwelcome,
except in buy/forsale groups and suchlike. If you want more details,
GIYF.
> I bought books while I was a student. In fact I think that
> is a very common thing.
So is buying as little as possible subject to what the profs say is
required reading for the coursework, for the obvious budgetary
reasons.
If "Java Concurrency in Practise" is required for a student's courses,
they already know it and probably have already had a copy since mid-
September. If it is not, I can just about guarantee that the student
would prefer the Java Tutorial and not getting any deeper into debt!
Rich-enough students excepted, but there won't be very many, oh no
indeed.
> >> Universities has libraries.
>
> > Have. And I don't see any relevance here.
>
> They could go and borrow the same book there.
They could do so just as easily with or without some random amazon.com
URL.
> AFAIK there is a good demand for IT people in practically
> all countries.
And a glut of supply. You have to consider both supply AND demand when
evaluating these things; that's economics 101 material. Sheesh.
bbo...@gmail.com
> So you consider it acceptable to post something about a specific
> person as "probably" without any evidence purely because it is
> common ??
You and your friends apparently consider it acceptable to post all
kinds of very nasty somethings about a specific person as "certainty"
without any evidence purely because you like to verbally attack that
person. Some of you like to state assertions of their real-world
identity without any evidence and potentially drag some formerly-
uninvolved guy into your stupid, petty little flamewarring. And then
you have the sheer, unmitigated *gall* to take issue with my noting
that a guy who posted an Amazon link "probably" gets money for
referrals, when that is indeed quite common with Amazon links?
This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black -- when the kettle
is *maybe* a very pale grey and the pot is as dark as intergalactic
space. :P
Arne Vajhøj
Why not answer my question ??
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> On Oct 1, 8:39 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> That has never been the usenet standard !
>>> Sure it has.
>> I have never seen that stated anywhere !
>>
>> Source ?
>
> General usenet etiquette, often explicitly written down, going back
> years. Commercial postings generally considered crass and unwelcome,
> except in buy/forsale groups and suchlike. If you want more details,
> GIYF.
That was not what I asked for.
I asked for source for what you wrote:
#Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
#such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
#mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice,
Please supply a source for that !
>>>> Universities has libraries.
>>> Have. And I don't see any relevance here.
>> They could go and borrow the same book there.
>
> They could do so just as easily with or without some random amazon.com
> URL.
The need title/author/ISBN.
I don't think they mind if the page providing that has a link to Amazon.
They may even be happy about it (hint: they can read reviews at Amazon).
>> AFAIK there is a good demand for IT people in practically
>> all countries.
>
> And a glut of supply. You have to consider both supply AND demand when
> evaluating these things; that's economics 101 material. Sheesh.
No.
Demand seems bigger than supply in US, Europe, India etc..
Arne
Mike Schilling
> On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> "And you'd probably get a percentage, too"
>>
>> Any evidence to back that accusation up with ?
>
> Simple -- the ad used an Amazon link, and those are well known to pay
> kickbacks for referrals.
Kickbacks to other web pages, perhaps. I've never heard of kickbacks to
Usenet posts. Do you have a cite for that?
bbo...@gmail.com
> > This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black -- when the kettle
> > is *maybe* a very pale grey and the pot is as dark as intergalactic
> > space. :P
>
> Why not answer my question ??
Because it's pointless and irrelevant to the original subject of
discussion, and doubly irrelevant to Java. And because you're not my
boss, dictator, grand poohbah, or anything else conferring any
authority over me whatsoever.
bbo...@gmail.com
> > General usenet etiquette, often explicitly written down, going back
> > years. Commercial postings generally considered crass and unwelcome,
> > except in buy/forsale groups and suchlike. If you want more details,
> > GIYF.
>
> That was not what I asked for.
Well, that's what you're getting, so deal with it.
> > They could do so just as easily with or without some random amazon.com
> > URL.
>
> The need title/author/ISBN.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a distinct address space from that
indexed by URLs.
> They may even be happy about it (hint: they can read reviews at Amazon).
Reviews, yes. Reliable reviews? That's less certain. Amazon has both
the power and a compelling financial motive to bias the reviews
presented to a user in favor of their making a decision to purchase.
> >> AFAIK there is a good demand for IT people in practically
> >> all countries.
>
> > And a glut of supply. You have to consider both supply AND demand when
> > evaluating these things; that's economics 101 material. Sheesh.
>
> No.
>
> Demand seems bigger than supply in US, Europe, India etc..
Then explain the nonzero unemployment rates even among people with
technical credentials. Indeed, unemployment in general isn't just
nonzero but fairly nasty and has been for years all across North
America.
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
If someone sets up an account with Amazon for referral fees and then
uses a properly coded URL *anywhere*, and that generates clickthroughs
and especially sales, they get referral fees. It is usually, but does
not *have* to be, a Web page. And obviously it can be indirect: put
Amazon link on Web page; aggressively promote Web page elsewhere in
turn. Amazon links are nearly as common as AdSense blocks on blogs
whose URLs are heavily spammed; I wonder why? I've seen one or two
that were nothing *but* Amazon links. Now here we have a usenet post
pushing people to a Web page with very little on it but a book ad with
a single link ... an Amazon link.
Of course it *proves* nothing. It may indeed turn out that there's no
direct financial benefit to the usenet poster in question after all.
Even so, all of my *other* points stand, particularly regarding the
non-mentioning of the well-known-to-regulars-here free materials on
the subject and non-mentioning of the fact that the link supplied is
to an ad rather than directly to directly-relevant information. I, for
one, hope that if I ever post a concurrency-related question here and
someone posts a URL labeled "concurrency in Java", that it will lead
to a Web page directly containing tips and helpful information
regarding threading in Java, rather than just to an ad for where I can
*buy* some several kilograms of dead tree containing such information
and wait four to six weeks for delivery. :P
Mike Schilling
> On Oct 1, 11:37 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> "And you'd probably get a percentage, too"
>>
>>>> Any evidence to back that accusation up with ?
>>
>>> Simple -- the ad used an Amazon link, and those are well known to
>>> pay kickbacks for referrals.
>>
>> Kickbacks to other web pages, perhaps. I've never heard of
>> kickbacks to Usenet posts. Do you have a cite for that?
>
> If someone sets up an account with Amazon for referral fees and then
> uses a properly coded URL *anywhere*, and that generates clickthroughs
> and especially sales, they get referral fees. It is usually, but does
> not *have* to be, a Web page. And obviously it can be indirect: put
> Amazon link on Web page; aggressively promote Web page elsewhere in
> turn. Amazon links are nearly as common as AdSense blocks on blogs
> whose URLs are heavily spammed; I wonder why? I've seen one or two
> that were nothing *but* Amazon links. Now here we have a usenet post
> pushing people to a Web page with very little on it but a book ad with
> a single link ... an Amazon link.
Did it appear to be coded that way?
>
> Of course it *proves* nothing. It may indeed turn out that there's no
> direct financial benefit to the usenet poster in question after all.
> Even so, all of my *other* points stand,
Yeah, but they were all stupid.
Sherman Pendley
> bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> If someone sets up an account with Amazon for referral fees and then
>> uses a properly coded URL *anywhere*
>
> Did it appear to be coded that way?
No, Amazon's affiliate links are of the form:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/product_id/affiliate_id">
There's usually a query string after, with stuff like what encoding to deliver
the page in, and so forth, but it's optional, and irrelevant to this issue
anyway - the key here is the product_id/affiliate_id part.
The link at javaconcurrencyinpractice.com has no affiliate id in it.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Did it appear to be coded that way?
I'm not an expert on Amazon's URL encoding scheme. Besides, it
probably changes from time to time. You know how all large web sites
*love* to break deep links gratuitously every so often. :P
> > Of course it *proves* nothing. It may indeed turn out that there's no
> > direct financial benefit to the usenet poster in question after all.
> > Even so, all of my *other* points stand,
>
> Yeah, but [insult deleted]
Go crawl back into your hole, Mike.
Mike Schilling
> On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Did it appear to be coded that way?
>
> I'm not an expert on Amazon's URL encoding scheme.
If you did some reasearch (say, read another post in this very thread) you'd
be enough of one to stop making false accusations.
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Did it appear to be coded that way?
>
> > I'm not an expert on Amazon's URL encoding scheme.
>
Your accusations are false. Kindly fuck off now.
Mike Schilling
You've gone recursive; you're now making false acusations about making false
accusations.`
nebul...@gmail.com
wrote:
> You've gone recursive; you're now making false acusations about making false
> accusations.`
I do not make false accusations; you make false accusations, remember?
Also, what part of "fuck off" don't you understand? (Both words are
easy to find on Wiktionary; HTH.)
Mike Schilling
> On Oct 8, 1:10 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> You've gone recursive; you're now making false acusations about
>> making false accusations.`
>
> I do not make false accusations; you make false accusations, remember?
And the loop goes round again. The worst thing is, I suspect there's no
exit condition.
blm...@myrealbox.com
Well, there is, and it's one you've recommended to me, but apparently
I'm not the only one who has trouble applying it .... (Attempt at
humor rather than criticism here!)
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
Mike Schilling
<blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:5mut8tF...@mid.individual.net...
> In article <ApjOi.4664$oA2....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> nebul...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Oct 8, 1:10 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> You've gone recursive; you're now making false acusations about
>> >> making false accusations.`
>> >
>> > I do not make false accusations; you make false accusations, remember?
>>
>> And the loop goes round again. The worst thing is, I suspect there's no
>> exit condition.
>>
>
> Well, there is, and it's one you've recommended to me, but apparently
> I'm not the only one who has trouble applying it .... (Attempt at
> humor rather than criticism here!)
It's a fair cop.
Arne Vajhøj
> On Oct 1, 9:20 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> General usenet etiquette, often explicitly written down, going back
>>> years. Commercial postings generally considered crass and unwelcome,
>>> except in buy/forsale groups and suchlike. If you want more details,
>>> GIYF.
>> That was not what I asked for.
>
> Well, that's what you're getting, so deal with it.
Then I assume that we can conclude that you claim:
#Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
#such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
#mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice,
is not usenet standard.
>>>> AFAIK there is a good demand for IT people in practically
>>>> all countries.
>>> And a glut of supply. You have to consider both supply AND demand when
>>> evaluating these things; that's economics 101 material. Sheesh.
>> No.
>>
>> Demand seems bigger than supply in US, Europe, India etc..
>
> Then explain the nonzero unemployment rates even among people with
> technical credentials. Indeed, unemployment in general isn't just
> nonzero but fairly nasty and has been for years all across North
> America.
My impression is that unemployed IT people in North America is
either just transitioning (they left company A and it takes a few
month before they find company B that matches them) or there are
a reason why companies don't want to hire them (in which case
they should look for alternate industries).
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
It is very relevant.
Because it is absurd that you:
1) consider any correction to you an attack on you
2) think you can accuse other people of anything without any evidence
It is called double standards.
And it tells a lot about the person.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
Is that response a good indication of "stellar IQ" ????
:-)
Arne
Mike Schilling
"Arne Vajhøj" <ar...@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
news:470a872f$0$90273$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Only if the star is a brown dwarf.
Lew
>> Then explain the nonzero unemployment rates even among people with
>> technical credentials. Indeed, unemployment in general isn't just
>> nonzero but fairly nasty and has been for years all across North
>> America.
Isn't unemployment at or near historic lows in North America? State by state,
unemployment in the U.S. (part of North America) varies from 2.4% in ID to
7.4% in MI, with a median of 4.4% and national rate of 4.7%, down from about
5.4% a year and half ago. Canada's jobless rate is 5.9%, down from nearly 7%
two and a half years ago. Mexico is at 3.2% or so.
Not "fairly nasty" as such statistics go.
--
Lew
Lew
> Only if the star is a brown dwarf.
The idea that a brown dwarf or a red giant has more or less IQ than any other
star is an example of rampant stellarism. They're hydrogen and fusion
byproducts underneath their coronae, just like all stars.
--
Lew
John W. Kennedy
Except that, a few years ago, the Bush administration redefined "zero".
--
John W. Kennedy
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything...."
-- Emile Cammaerts, "The Laughing Prophet"
Lew
> Except that, a few years ago, the Bush administration redefined "zero".
For Canada and Mexico, too?
--
Lew
John W. Kennedy
No, but it seriously distorts the US figures.
--
John W. Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"
nebul...@gmail.com
> #Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
> #such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
> #mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice,
>
> is not usenet standard.
It is a norm of usenetters going back ten years or more. It may not be
formally documented in an RFC but that does not matter.
nebul...@gmail.com
> It is very relevant.
No, it isn't.
> Because it is absurd that you:
> 1) consider any correction to you an attack on you
No, it isn't. Any "correction" is an implicit accusation of
wrongdoing. An accusation of wrongdoing constitutes an attack.
> 2) think you can accuse other people of anything without any evidence
I don't, however; I only do so when there is evidence. Sometimes it's
just circumstantial evidence.
And I don't recall accusing anyone of anything recently. I questioned
someone's motives but I never asserted a definite theory of same. I
suggested some possibilities, without making any specific claims.
[snip rest of arnehole's attack post]
nebul...@gmail.com
> bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 5:26 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Did it appear to be coded that way?
> >>> I'm not an expert on Amazon's URL encoding scheme.
> >> If you did some reasearch [accuses me of doing Bad Things(tm) as usual]
>
> > Your accusations are false. Kindly fuck off now.
>
> Is that response a good indication of "stellar IQ" ????
It's more of an indication that I can't be bothered to waste a whole
lot of processing power on an insignificant little twerp like you.
Patricia Shanahan
This is the first time I've heard of it, in over 20 years of Usenet
participation.
Patricia
Arne Vajhøj
I have only used usenet in 16 years, but me neither.
So I am not surprised that neb/bb/twisted/paul can not
find a reference.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
> On Oct 8, 3:37 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> It is very relevant.
>
> No, it isn't.
I think it is.
>> Because it is absurd that you:
>> 1) consider any correction to you an attack on you
>
> No, it isn't. Any "correction" is an implicit accusation of
> wrongdoing. An accusation of wrongdoing constitutes an attack.
>
>> 2) think you can accuse other people of anything without any evidence
>
> I don't, however; I only do so when there is evidence. Sometimes it's
> just circumstantial evidence.
There were no evidence what so ever for your accusations.
Actually there were evidence for the internet knowledgeable
that your accusation were false.
Arne
Mike Schilling
> On Oct 8, 3:33 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> #Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked
>> as #such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives
>> should be #mentioned as well so that people may make an informed
>> choice,
>>
>> is not usenet standard.
>
> It is a norm of usenetters going back ten years or more.
Then you can point to occasions where someone other than you has espoused
it.
bbo...@gmail.com
[snip a bunch of bullshit, including incorrectly associating me with
the name "paul" again]
Fuck off.
Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
much googling to find:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
http://www.sodak.com/usenet_postings.htm (a specific ISP's guidelines,
but it's not their TOS; they are just explaining usenet norms to
newbs)
http://www.emsdesigns.com/aup.htm
Where we see language like:
"There exists an alternative hierarchy called "biz" specifically for
commercial postings."
"Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial postings should
only be posted in those newsgroups whose charters/FAQ's explicitly
permit them."
"Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
postings in its charter."
The general and longstanding disdain of usenetters for commercial
postings is very widely known; I'm amazed that any of you would claim
otherwise.
Google searches for queries like "usenet commercial disdain" or
"usenet "commercial postings"" will turn up plenty of other examples
as well as the three I cited.
Satisfied, arnehole?
bbo...@gmail.com
[snip attack post]
Go away, arnehole. To third parties reading this: the nasty things
arnehole implied about me are false. Pay them no heed and ignore
anything else he says about me. Go on about your business. Good day.
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
Lew
> "Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
> policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
> postings in its charter."
The posting about which you complained was not a commercial posting. The
citation completely fails to support your point.
--
Lew
Lew
> Go away, arnehole. To third parties reading this: the nasty things
> arnehole implied about me are false. Pay them no heed and ignore
> anything else he says about me. Go on about your business. Good day.
PLONK!
--
Lew
Tim Smith
Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
> >> #Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
> >> #such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
> >> #mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice,
> >>
> >> is not usenet standard.
> >
> > It is a norm of usenetters going back ten years or more. It may not be
> > formally documented in an RFC but that does not matter.
> >
> >
>
> This is the first time I've heard of it, in over 20 years of Usenet
> participation.
I've got over 23 years on usenet, and never heard of it, either.
--
--Tim Smith
Patricia Shanahan
> On Oct 9, 10:10 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> [snip a bunch of bullshit, including incorrectly associating me with
> the name "paul" again]
>
> Fuck off.
>
> Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
> much googling to find:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
>
> http://www.sodak.com/usenet_postings.htm (a specific ISP's guidelines,
> but it's not their TOS; they are just explaining usenet norms to
> newbs)
>
> http://www.emsdesigns.com/aup.htm
>
> Where we see language like:
>
> "There exists an alternative hierarchy called "biz" specifically for
> commercial postings."
What do commercial postings have to do with third party mentions of
relevant paid resources in on-topic technical articles? Even by your own
postings, there is a clear distinction, because a commercial posting in
a non-business newsgroup cannot be cured by merely labeling it as
commercial, or adding references to non-commercial resources.
Patricia
Mike Schilling
<bbo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191995718.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
>much googling to find:
>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
>http://www.sodak.com/usenet_postings.htm (a specific ISP's guidelines,
>but it's not their TOS; they are just explaining usenet norms to
>newbs)
>http://www.emsdesigns.com/aup.htm
>Where we see language like:
>"There exists an alternative hierarchy called "biz" specifically for
>commercial postings."
>"Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial postings should
>only be posted in those newsgroups whose charters/FAQ's explicitly
>permit them."
>"Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
>policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
>postings in its charter."
If anyone had been discussing commercial messages those would be relevant.
Tell you what: go to rec.arts.books, and when someone recommends a recent
novel, insist that they also recommend a similar novel that's available at
gutenberg.org.
Mike Schilling
<bbo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191995677.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Go away, arnehole. To third parties reading this: the nasty things
> arnehole implied about me are false.
But the ones you reveal every time you post are unrefuted.
Daniel Pitts
> If anyone had been discussing commercial messages those would be relevant.
> Tell you what: go to rec.arts.books, and when someone recommends a recent
> novel, insist that they also recommend a similar novel that's available at
> gutenberg.org.
>
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>
bbo...@gmail.com
> bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
> > policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
> > postings in its charter."
>
> The posting about which you complained was not a commercial posting.
Yes, it was. It was an ad, for crying out loud. And the citations
(plural) DO support the statement that was currently being disputed,
namely that commercial messages are generally disliked on Usenet,
*regardless* of whether you consider that much earlier posting to be
an example of such.
bbo...@gmail.com
> What do commercial postings have to do with third party mentions of
> relevant paid resources in on-topic technical articles?
The post in question contained nothing *but* an ad for a book. There
was no other information in it whatsoever. The only things
distinguishing it from run-of-the-mill spam were that it was targeted
and that it didn't come from a fly-by-night net account.
Targeted advertising is still advertising.
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> If anyone had been discussing commercial messages those would be relevant.
> Tell you what: go to rec.arts.books, and when someone recommends a recent
> novel, insist that they also recommend a similar novel that's available at
> gutenberg.org.
There's a big difference and you fucking know it.
Rec.arts.books obviously revolves around books, which you tend to have
to pay for.
Comp.lang.java.programmer revolves around Java, which you tend to not
have to pay for. Moreover, a huge amount of very useful information
about it can be found on the net for free. It is by no means necessary
for the OP to purchase a book to get what he wants out of Java, though
it remains a valid choice. It is certainly questionable if there's an
attempt (whether active or simply through neglect) to make him aware
of only those options for proceeding that happen to part him with some
money, however, given the profusion of free sources of information
that should be his first resort.
Yes, I know, you don't like that. You and a lot of other people see
any free information as somehow "stealing" livelihood from poor
starving corporations such as major publishers and software companies,
and hate to see people only using paid resources as a last resort. Not
that I know why, when most of you don't work for the particular
companies that stand to lose. A "sinking tide grounds all boats" type
of fear, that the industry you're in will suffer in general I suppose?
Regardless, if the OP would have been satisfied with free information
from e.g. Sun's Java Tutorial and ends up spending money
unnecessarily, then he's been ripped off, and whether you personally
collect a dime because of it or not, if you helped bring those
circumstances about then you're no better than a common thief.
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't post any nasty claims about myself, so your statement is
vacuous.
Mike Schilling
<bbo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192233234.1...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 10, 2:47 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> If anyone had been discussing commercial messages those would be
>> relevant.
>> Tell you what: go to rec.arts.books, and when someone recommends a recent
>> novel, insist that they also recommend a similar novel that's available
>> at
>> gutenberg.org.
>
> There's a big difference and you fucking know it.
"I'm right, and you know I'm right, and you're just being mean to me."
Pretty weak stuff.
>
> Rec.arts.books obviously revolves around books, which you tend to have
> to pay for.
>
> Comp.lang.java.programmer revolves around Java, which you tend to not
> have to pay for. Moreover, a huge amount of very useful information
> about it can be found on the net for free. It is by no means necessary
> for the OP to purchase a book to get what he wants out of Java, though
> it remains a valid choice. It is certainly questionable if there's an
> attempt (whether active or simply through neglect) to make him aware
> of only those options for proceeding that happen to part him with some
> money, however, given the profusion of free sources of information
> that should be his first resort.
For many of us, spending twenty or thirty bucks to buy a book that'll make
us more productive is money well spent and quickly repaid, and far more
efficient than searching web pages to find a fact here and a fact there.. I
own the JLS, even though it's free online, because I can write in it and
mark the pages that are most important to me. And if I need to re-read an
entire chapter, it's more pleasant to read a book than to read many
screensful of text. In addition, many of us can even be reimbursed for
work-related books.
You have a horror of spending money. I don't know if that reflects your
financial situation or some visceral dislike of capitalism, but that really
doesn't matter. The point is that your rants against the idea that people
deserve to be paid for the labor don't make you a saint. They're just
peculiar.
Mike Schilling
<bbo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192232910....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
And that it was an answer to a specific question, which makes is the
opposite of spam.
But other than that, yeah, 100% spam.
Mike Schilling
You really don't see it, do you?
>>> Go away, arnehole.
You think it's clever to turn someone's name into a vulgarity.
>>>To third parties reading this:
You think that people you don't know are judging you. You care very much
what they think.
>>> the nasty things arnehole implied about me are false.
You believe that these people need to be told what to think.
Arne Vajhøj
> You think it's clever to turn someone's name into a vulgarity.
He probably think it is a sign of "stellar IQ" as he claimed in
another post.
Arne
Arne Vajhøj
How do you think your posts are considered by most readers here ?
Arne
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "I'm right, and you know I'm right, and you're just being mean to me."
> Pretty weak stuff.
What's weak here is your pitiable attempt to glorify your behavior
when indeed, at base, it's just you "being mean to me". Clothed as it
is in long words and excessive put-on-airs of nobility of purpose,
it's like dressing a small child in a fancy suit to deliver an
important speech ... one whose lisp and three-foot stature can't be
concealed by these measures.
You're a silly, pointless little twerp. On about your business now.
> For many of us, spending twenty or thirty bucks to buy a book that'll make
> us more productive is money well spent and quickly repaid, and far more
> efficient than searching web pages to find a fact here and a fact there.
You're entitled to your opinion. And people are entitled to the chance
to make an *informed* decision of whether to buy something or not.
Being misled (including purely by omission) into believing it is the
*only* alternative is bad. You cannot in all reason disagree with that
statement.
> I own the JLS, even though it's free online, because I can write in it and
> mark the pages that are most important to me.
How silly. You could have downloaded it in a form such as HTML or
plain text and "write in" that using Notepad. Or print out your own
copy and scribble in it with pen. But it was your money to waste, and
therefore your choice.
> You have a horror of spending money.
You misunderstand me. I will spend money, sometimes quite a lot of it,
but not needlessly when there's a cheaper alternative.
I do have a strong disdain for people that mislead other people,
including by conspicuous omission as well as by directly lying to
them, and I do have a strong disdain for advertising, the more so when
it is in disguise. I dislike deceptive TV ads that start with a "news
break" fanfare or similarly; there seems to be a lot of that going
around lately. (One uses a near-identical copy of the fanfare used for
a common network's news flashes, news flashes that also occur during
commercial breaks. Another used to run regularly and started with one
of those little snippets of guitar tune that announce scene changes or
resumption from ads on the show Seinfeld, but has since disappeared,
and good riddance. Even though I don't watch Seinfeld that one still
deceptively grabbed my attention when it ran.) I disdain web ads
disguised as dialog boxes, especially urgent-looking error messages,
and "fake popups" that aren't genuine new windows and entice people to
click an "x" that actually is just part of an ad graphic, and
therefore generates a revenue-producing clickthrough for the
advertising site.
And I dislike "informative" usenet posts that promise someone
information on their question at a given URL, and all that's actually
at that URL is a sales pitch.
That it's targeted doesn't change anything materially as far as I am
concerned. A relevant ad is still an ad, and if it's masquerading as
something else, it's still a deceptive ad.
bbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
> And that it was an answer to a specific question
It was targeted; yeah, I already mentioned that. So what?