[OT] Indian C programmers and "u"

[Floyd Davidson]

So you deleted his point, which followed that statement, and
ignored it. (Hmmm... He did have a good point that did byte
you right where it hurts.)

The point is that there is no consensus on the issue.
What one dictionary considers slang, other considers normal usage. Which
is unsurprising, considering the differences between British English and
American English (my quotes are from the Web interface of the
Merriam-Webster).

Now, find a single well reputed dictionary describing "u" as a normal
alternative to "you" and you may have a valid point.

Dan if all you need is verification that there is a history of
using "u" as an abbreviation for "you" of some long standing and
reputation, that is indeed pretty easy to come by.

The use of "u" to abbreviate "you" has a *long* history with
morse code, whether American Morse (wire line) or International
Morse (radio), that began at least as far back as the 1850's, and
had been in constant use since then until very recent times as
the use of morse code over radio has slowly followed wire line
morse into almost total disuse only in the past two decades.

Is 150 years of use, including 100 years in the primary media
for news transmission around the world, enough history?

I think old morse operators find the use of 'u' in general writing
to be a bit of "theft", as previously they were the only ones
using it. It was, just as the fellows from India have described,
sort of a mark of "distinction", setting the user aside from just
anyone; and of course seeing it stolen by counter culture youths
isn't acceptable.

But perhaps its use by Indian techies is indeed just exactly the
right place for it to be...

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

An odd statement. I happen to know a Japanese anti-nuclear campaigner
who lost relatives at Hiroshima, and even he doesn't claim that.

But Japan was losing, and the total loss of life might have been less than
that from the nukes. But the US sadly seems to have a tendency to think
that the lives of civilians in other countries are worth less than the
life of US soldiers.

What has always amazed me was that they didn't use one of the bombs as a
"show of force" ,to try to scare the Japanese into surrender, before
resorting to nuking a population centre.

Even *after* the bombs, the top Japanese military didn't want to
surrender.

Would you want to surrender to someone capable of dropping that thing on
civilians?

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

Well, it was not my intention to call Joona a testicle.

Well based on his name (wich sounds like a scandinavian male name) and the
fact that the majority of programmers are male it's safe to assume that
_parts_ of Joona are indeed kloots, so you (probably) didn't say anything
untrue.

I just wanted
something that _sounded_ sufficiently derogatory,

It did.

without actually
being so.

Oops.


To get back on topic:

Challege:
Make a C program to calculate the likelyhood of a person beeing male given
his name.


(there is a solution, but it's a trick)

 

[Christian Bau]

At this point we've seen several dictionary entries that *clearly*
prove "good" is indeed an adverb.

"well" is the adverb form of the adjective "good".

"good" can in certain rare cases be used as an adverb. It then has a
different meaning than the adjective "good".

In most cases when "good" is used as an adverb, it is just a plain
stupid mistake because someone didn't know that the adverb form of
"good" is "well". In most cases it is clear from the context that "good"
has been used by mistake.

 

[Christian Bau]

Nothing you've just said has a connection with anything either
CBFalconer or myself said in the article you quoted.

Regardless, you've used it as an adverb and called it an
adjective.

John looks good. adverb
John is good. adjective

The first "good" modifies the verb, "looks". The second "good"
modifies the subject noun, "john". See the difference?

You are absolutely clueless.

 

[Christian Bau]

Challege:
Make a C program to calculate the likelyhood of a person beeing male given
his name.

If a person tells me his name, then the person is male. If a person
tells me her name, then the person is female.

 

[Richard Bos]

Dik T. Winter wrote:
ll.

No need for them; the Dutch never speak profanely.

Ach, val dood, achterlijke kolere-trol.

Richard

 

[Les Cargill]

But Japan was losing, and the total loss of life might have been less than
that from the nukes.

I don't see how that's possible. We're talking about a marine seige,
storming the beaches of the home islands. It would have been
bloody. Casualties in the millions. Simple linear extrapolations on
data from Okinawa show this.

But the US sadly seems to have a tendency to think
that the lives of civilians in other countries are worth less than the
life of US soldiers.

All military leaders do that. It is not specific to the U.S., it is
standard practice. To not do that is to effectively prepare your
own troops as a human sacrifice. One of the reasons people should
be hesitant to go to war is this very fact.

What has always amazed me was that they didn't use one of the bombs as a
"show of force" ,to try to scare the Japanese into surrender, before
resorting to nuking a population centre.

I think it's hard for us to visualize just how impossible it was
for simple, basic comunications to occur between the U.S. and
Japan at the time.

You and I also have the benefeit of hindsight as to what
atomic weapons meant. I doubt Leslie Grove and Truman
really knew. And, frankly, in wartime, the most rational
solution does not always show up as the best one. The
blood is up.

I think that would have been an excellent idea - to have
invented MAD out of whole cloth in the weeks provided to
have made that decision. But it probably couldn't be
feasibly done in that time, or maybe it just didn't
occur to them. If I'd known, I'd have bought 10000
shares of Microsoft the week of its IPO, too.

Would you want to surrender to someone capable of dropping that thing on
civilians?

Would it matter if there was good evidence that the civilians were
under instruction to fight to the last man? That the civilians were
part of a culture which had a radically different view of the value
of human life? After Okinawa, the Allies were not sure just how far
that went.

It is very hard for people who grew up in an American type culture to
understand Bushido, especially the version being practiced during
WWII. I think of Hiroshima as part of the cost of Bushido, part
of its effect on the rules of engagement.

WWII saw the full flowering of total war, of the total erosion of
the distinction between combatants and civilians. I don't
think any one person, country or group can be fully credited
with this.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

"well" is the adverb form of the adjective "good".

I'm sorry, but that is purely poppy ****, and you can read any
of the several dictionary references that I've previously
provided to tell you that it is not true.

"good" can in certain rare cases be used as an adverb. It then has a
different meaning than the adjective "good".

In most cases when "good" is used as an adverb, it is just a plain
stupid mistake because someone didn't know that the adverb form of
"good" is "well". In most cases it is clear from the context that "good"
has been used by mistake.

Or alternately, that the person speaking knows English very well
and has a very good command of the connotations of words.

However, none of that has been questioned in this thread. The
specific sentence that was questioned does happen to be
precisely correct, and the claim that it was grammatically wrong
because "good" is not an adverb has been *clearly* demonstrated
to be invalid.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

You are absolutely clueless.

Get a book on English grammar, or look for examples in a
dictionary, sonny. You'll find that you've missed more than
just one clue in this thread.

 

[Richard Bos]

I don't see how that's possible. We're talking about a marine seige,
storming the beaches of the home islands.

Bah. Typical gung-ho USAnian thought. Japan is an _island_ nation with
relatively few natural resources. Just lock the bastards inside and
wait.

Richard

 

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Ach, val dood, achterlijke kolere-trol.

<giggle> I like the dutch language; no, really!

Tot ziens.

 

[Floyd Davidson]

Bah. Typical gung-ho USAnian thought. Japan is an _island_ nation with
relatively few natural resources. Just lock the bastards inside and
wait.

And that would be less cruel than the A-bomb???

 

[Dan Pop]

Agreed. Note the cavilling word "most", which is probably a
misnomer anyhow.

Something few people know is that burning coal in classical power
generators leads to more radioactive pollution than burning Uranium
and Plutonium in nuclear reactors.

So, what is the clean and feasible *now* alternative to nuclear power?

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

But Japan was losing, and the total loss of life might have been less than
that from the nukes. But the US sadly seems to have a tendency to think
that the lives of civilians in other countries are worth less than the
life of US soldiers.

Name one country that thinks otherwise, WRT its own soldiers. The USA
had the moral obligation to spare the lives of the US soldiers, just like
any other country. No such moral obligation toward the civil population
of the enemy country.

If you want to point out a pure war crime committed by the allies, you
have the bombing of Dresden.

What has always amazed me was that they didn't use one of the bombs as a
"show of force" ,to try to scare the Japanese into surrender, before
resorting to nuking a population centre.

It was a matter of logistics: they had 3 bombs all in all and no hopes to
produce more anytime soon. One, they had to experiement at home, with
no enemy witnesses, because they were not sure that their solution
for a Plutonium bomb would actually work. They also had no idea about
the actual effects of a nuclear explosion.

After that, they only had two left. If the public show didn't make its
intended effect, they would have had only one left to be actually used
against Japan.

Would you want to surrender to someone capable of dropping that thing on
civilians?

Yes, to spare the lives of other civilians. For all they knew, the USA
may have had a dozen more atomic bombs.

There is little difference between dropping classical bombs on the
civilians and dropping nuclear ones, from a moral point of view. And all
the nations actively involved in that war dropped bombs on the other
camp's civilians, there were no good guys and bad guys from this point of
view. If the Japanese had the A bomb, they would have used it against US
civilians with even fewer hesitations. It is highly hypocritical to
point the finger at one nation or another.

Dan

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

^^^

If a person tells me his name, then the person is male. If a person
tells me her name, then the person is female.

You got it, so the program would be:

#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("100%%\n");
return 0;
}

And if the program reports an incorrect probability then it's a result of
user error

 

[carl mcguire]

Bah. Typical gung-ho USAnian thought. Japan is an _island_ nation with
relatively few natural resources. Just lock the bastards inside and
wait.

Richard

Great plan, Sun Tzu. What about the allied soldiers that were being held
by the Japanese in sub-human conditions? They were already starving.
Your way, I probably wouldn't be here now.

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

Name one country that thinks otherwise, WRT its own soldiers. The USA
had the moral obligation to spare the lives of the US soldiers, just like
any other country. No such moral obligation toward the civil population
of the enemy country.

Then we disagree about what is acceptable and not during wartime. By all
means kill every single soldier in their army, but try to keep civilians
out of the crossfire. I won't check right now but I believe the Geneva
convention agrees with me.

Another example of US valuing it's own soldiers over foreign civilians is
that (to make the job easier and safer for it's own soldiers) cluster
bombed Afghanistan, a country whose population they were supposedly freeing
from their oppressors.

Then take terrorism. By your argument killing civilians is just as
acceptable as killing enemy soldiers. Does that mean that in your eyes a
palestinian that blows up an Israeli military barrack (Israel beeing the
occupant of his country and as such a legitimate target) is just as bad as
one that blows up a school bus?

If you want to point out a pure war crime committed by the allies, you
have the bombing of Dresden.

How was that worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (I'm not arguing here, I
simply don't know any details about Dresden)

It was a matter of logistics: they had 3 bombs all in all and no hopes to
produce more anytime soon. One, they had to experiement at home, with
no enemy witnesses, because they were not sure that their solution
for a Plutonium bomb would actually work. They also had no idea about
the actual effects of a nuclear explosion.

After that, they only had two left. If the public show didn't make its
intended effect, they would have had only one left to be actually used
against Japan.

Then why didn't they wait between the two bombs to give Japan time to
surrender before they had to drop the second?

Yes, to spare the lives of other civilians. For all they knew, the USA
may have had a dozen more atomic bombs.

Yes but would you _want_to_? That some japanese didn't want to surrender
after the nuking makes perfect sense, having two cities wiped out wouldn't
exactly lessen a thirst for revenge would it?

That they did in fact surrender shows that fear and/or intelligence
overpowered thirst for revenge.

 

[Nils Petter Vaskinn]

Something few people know is that burning coal in classical power
generators leads to more radioactive pollution than burning Uranium
and Plutonium in nuclear reactors.

More _radioactive_ pollution? I didn't know that and I have a hard time
believing it, could you provide some pointers?

So, what is the clean and feasible *now* alternative to nuclear power?

1. Using less power.
2. Water (some places, but ruins rivers)
3. Wind (some places, but ugly)
4. Solar (some places, but requires large areas)
5. Wave/Tidal (experimental AFAIK)

In the short term 1 will probably be most effective.

 

[Richard Bos]

And that would be less cruel than the A-bomb???

Not necessarily; I wasn't arguing against the A-bomb, but against Les'
alternative for it.

Richard