On Oct 21, 11:36 am, Ben Finney wrote:
> rusi writes:
> > The American programmer would profit more from learning Latin than
> > from learning yet another programming language.
>
> > Edsger Dijkstra in "On the fact that the Atlantic Ocean has two
> > sides"
>
> >http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD
rusi writes:
> The American programmer would profit more from learning Latin than
> from learning yet another programming language.
>
> Edsger Dijkstra in "On the fact that the Atlantic Ocean has two
> sides"
>
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD611.html
It's ambiguou
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:34 PM, rusi wrote:
> The American programmer would profit more from learning Latin than
> from learning yet another programming language.
>
> Edsger Dijkstra in "On the fact that the Atlantic Ocean has two
> sides"
>
Expanding that quote:
---
A thorough study of one or
On Oct 21, 5:31 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Redcat wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:49:26 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote:
>
> >> I think you need to speak German fluently to be a good programmer.
>
> > No, just Dutch :)
>
> Whatever language it be, you do need to
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Redcat wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:49:26 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote:
>>
>> I think you need to speak German fluently to be a good programmer.
>
> No, just Dutch :)
Whatever language it be, you do need to be competent in a human
language to be a good program
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 06:05:00PM -0400, Prasad, Ramit wrote:
> >I think you need to speak German fluently to be a good programmer.
> Why?
>
I won't reveal my secrets to JP Morgan Chase! I am loyal to the mighty
Bank of America.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:49:26 -0700, Westley Martínez wrote:
>> I am a poly-illiterate. I can't read or write hundreds of languages.
>
> I think you need to speak German fluently to be a good programmer.
No, just Dutch :)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>I think you need to speak German fluently to be a good programmer.
Why?
Ramit
Ramit Prasad | JPMorgan Chase Investment Bank | Currencies Technology
712 Main Street | Houston, TX 77002
work phone: 713 - 216 - 5423
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions i
rusi writes:
> This division (into object and rest of the world) is arbitrary and
> historically a direct consequence of our scientific method; the use of
> the classical concepts is finally a consequence of the general human
> way of thinking. But this is already a reference to ourselves and in
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 09:01:39PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:15:54 +, Curt wrote:
>
> > On 2011-10-19, Steven D'Aprano
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:23:49 +, Curt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Most of us say "un et un _font_ deux," in fact, because we know how to
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:15:54 +, Curt wrote:
> On 2011-10-19, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:23:49 +, Curt wrote:
>>
>>> Most of us say "un et un _font_ deux," in fact, because we know how to
>>> conjugate as well as perform simple arithmetic.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>
>> I bl
On 2011-10-19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:23:49 +, Curt wrote:
>
>> Most of us say "un et un _font_ deux," in fact, because we know how to
>> conjugate as well as perform simple arithmetic.
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> I blame Google Translate.
>
I thought you were trying to shine as
On Oct 19, 4:30 pm, Ben Finney wrote:
> rusi writes:
> > These are classical platonist claims: In short objective reality
> > exists aside from the subjective perception of it.
>
> Yes, that's the simplest explanation for the comparability of our
> observations: there's one reality and we all in
rusi writes:
> These are classical platonist claims: In short objective reality
> exists aside from the subjective perception of it.
Yes, that's the simplest explanation for the comparability of our
observations: there's one reality and we all inhabit it.
> Quantum physics would not exist if a
alex23 writes:
> On Oct 18, 6:52 am, Ben Finney wrote:
> > A belief that doesn't match reality is a delusion. That doesn't change
> > when someone thinks it's an epiphany: it's still a delusion.
>
> Apparently there was some talk about removing delusional as a
> classification from the DSM due t
On Oct 17, 7:34 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> That is no more deep and meaningful than the fact that while some people
> say "one plus one equals two", others say "eins und eins gleich zwei",
> some say "un et un fait deux" and some say "один и один дает два".
> Regardless of whether you write two,
On Oct 18, 6:52 am, Ben Finney wrote:
> A belief that doesn't match reality is a delusion. That doesn't change
> when someone thinks it's an epiphany: it's still a delusion.
Apparently there was some talk about removing delusional as a
classification from the DSM due to its definition being, in p
DevPlayer wrote:
> Ever hear/read the term: "It's all good."? A reference to Karma and
> how things will work out for the better in the end inspite of what you
> see now... A great example of "Everything is Symantics".
"Semantics". Also: nonsense. You're conflating an ethical system with
a _compl
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:23:49 +, Curt wrote:
> On 2011-10-17, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>>
>> That is no more deep and meaningful than the fact that while some
>> people say "one plus one equals two", others say "eins und eins gleich
>> zwei", some say "un et un fait deux" and some say "один и
On 2011-10-17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> That is no more deep and meaningful than the fact that while some people
> say "one plus one equals two", others say "eins und eins gleich zwei",
> some say "un et un fait deux" and some say "один и один дает два".
Most of us
DevPlayer writes:
> Do you not see? For ...
> One man's delusion is another man's epiphany.
> One man's untruth is another man's belief.
> One man's logical undenighable truth is another man's small part of a
> bigger picture.
Those are just not true.
A belief that doesn't match reality is a de
On Oct 17, 10:34 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 05:59:04 -0700, DevPlayer wrote:
> > As has been said for example does 1+1 = 2. Only in one small
> > persepective. Whaa? what wack job says stuff like that? 1+1 = 10. In the
> > bigger picture there is more then one numberic base b
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 05:59:04 -0700, DevPlayer wrote:
> As has been said for example does 1+1 = 2. Only in one small
> persepective. Whaa? what wack job says stuff like that? 1+1 = 10. In the
> bigger picture there is more then one numberic base besides decimal,
> such as binary.
That is no more d
> DevPlayer wrote:
> >I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
> >By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain
> >condition, doesn't mean that condition is non-existant.
> Groetjes Albert wrote:
> This is a far cry from the bible stating that someo
In article ,
DevPlayer wrote:
>I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
>
>By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain
>condition, doesn't mean that condition is non-existant.
>
>I also propose that just because something seems to contradict doesn
Zero Piraeus wrote:
> A dissenting view [and a Kill Bill spoiler, of sorts]:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdWF7kd1tNo
A fun diatribe, sure, but still an outsider view that is in direct
conflict with how the characters are actually portrayed.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho
:
On 4 October 2011 00:43, alex23 wrote:
> rantingrick wrote:
>> Clark Kent is just an assumed identity of Superman.
>
> Actually, he identifies with Clark Kent, Superman is the secret
> identity.
>
> You're thinking of Batman, for whom Bruce Wayne is the mask.
A dissenting view [and a Kill Bil
rantingrick wrote:
> TrueWiseObserver: Wrong pseudo. Superman will ALWAYS be superman even
> if he wears a dress and stilettos. Clark Kent is just an assumed
> identity of Superman.
Actually, he identifies with Clark Kent, Superman is the secret
identity.
You're thinking of Batman, for whom Bruc
On Oct 3, 11:27 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> PhysicsExpert: Super-speed wouldn't work, the acceleration required to
> achieve it would burn up his surroundings!
For some definition of "super-speed" i suppose. Since we're bouncing
around the "relatives" here we need to consider this one also -> Su
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:54 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> Observer: Why is it that Clark Kent and Superman are never in the same
> place at the same time?
> ComicFanboy: Because Clark Kent IS Kal-El's secret identity duh!
> PuesdoWiseObserver: Wait a minute fanboy, they ARE in the same place
> at the s
On Oct 2, 4:43 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In all cases, we can be sure that the contradiction between the pair of
> statements are genuine contradictions and not mere apparent
> contradictions caused by "narrow perspective" or incomplete or erroneous
> knowledge.
Observer: Why is it that Clark
On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 08:03:07 -0700, rusi wrote:
> On Oct 2, 8:03 am, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> By the way, who removed the OT label from the subject line? Please
>> don't unless it actually comes back on topic.
>>
>> DevPlayer wrote:
>> > I still assert that contr
On Oct 2, 8:03 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> By the way, who removed the OT label from the subject line? Please don't
> unless it actually comes back on topic.
>
> DevPlayer wrote:
> > I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
>
> There's no doubt that some *apparent* contr
Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> By the way, who removed the OT label from the subject line?
>
> Probably nobody "removed" it, they just replied to some earlier
> message that didn't have it.
I started the "Benefit and belief&
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
By the way, who removed the OT label from the subject line?
Probably nobody "removed" it, they just replied to some earlier
message that didn't have it.
Despite the term, a newsgroup thread is not a linear structure,
it's a tree. Changing the subject line on one branch d
By the way, who removed the OT label from the subject line? Please don't
unless it actually comes back on topic.
DevPlayer wrote:
> I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
There's no doubt that some *apparent* contradictions are caused by lack of
correct information.
Chris Angelico wrote:
But what if I'm a great windowing magnate, owning windows all over the world?
Like Bill Gates, you mean?
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:08:16AM -0700, rantingrick wrote:
> On Sep 30, 11:36 am, Westley Martínez wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:22:59AM -0700, rusi wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 8:58�pm, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> > > > On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer wrote:
> >
> > > > > I still assert that contradi
On Sep 30, 11:36 am, Westley Martínez wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:22:59AM -0700, rusi wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 8:58�pm, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> > > On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer wrote:
>
> > > > I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
>
> > > > By that I mean: just bec
rusi wrote:
On Sep 30, 9:41 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
And I would argue that by starting with "Look out your window..."
you have explicitly excluded the rest of the world from consideration in
answering; you have narrowed the fo
On Sep 30, 9:41 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
> wrote:
>
> > And I would argue that by starting with "Look out your window..."
> > you have explicitly excluded the rest of the world from consideration in
> > answering; you have narrowed the
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> And I would argue that by starting with "Look out your window..."
> you have explicitly excluded the rest of the world from consideration in
> answering; you have narrowed the focus to only the region visible from
> "my window".
>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:22:59AM -0700, rusi wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:58 pm, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> > On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
> >
> > > By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain
>
On Sep 30, 8:58 pm, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer wrote:
>
>
>
> > I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
>
> > By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain
> > condition, doesn't mean that condition is non-existant.
>
> > I also
On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer wrote:
> I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
>
> By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain
> condition, doesn't mean that condition is non-existant.
>
> I also propose that just because something seems to contradict
I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective.
By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain
condition, doesn't mean that condition is non-existant.
I also propose that just because something seems to contradict doesn't
mean it is false. Take for instance
from attitude import humour
Funny. url link to gif. Funny. Youtube video. Funny.
True Pythonees do not speak in English they speak in Python.
Shame, this discussion will be sent to the Pearly gates or the Flaming
Iron Bars in 5 days. Well, not so much a shame.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
On Sep 29, 10:05 pm, alex23 wrote:
> On Sep 30, 9:37 am, MRAB wrote:
> > alex23:
> > """And like the Bible, the Zen was created by humans as a joke. If you're
> > taking it too seriously, that's your problem."""
>
> Strangely, calling the bible self-contradictory wasn't seen as
> inflammatory...
> If you are more upset at my describing the Catholic Church as protecting
> child molesters than you are at the Church for actually protecting child
> molesters
I'm not, and your rhetoric is ridiculous.
Devin
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>
On 2011-09-30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:24 PM, rusi wrote:
>> "You are right," said Nasrudin after carefully hearing one side.
>> "You are right," he said after carefully hearing the other side.
>> "But both cannot be right!" said the court clerk bewildered.
>> After prof
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:24 PM, rusi wrote:
> "You are right," said Nasrudin after carefully hearing one side.
> "You are right," he said after carefully hearing the other side.
> "But both cannot be right!" said the court clerk bewildered.
> After profound thought said the Mulla:
>
> "You are r
On Sep 30, 4:03 am, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>
> But anyway, no, we don't agree on what it means to be friendly or what
> a hostile atmosphere is. I've noticed that people tend to be a lot
> harsher here than what I'm used to, so perhaps your attitude to it is
> more common on mailing-lists and I s
alex23 writes:
> I always enjoyed the possibly apocryphal claim that the design of VRML
> was influenced by the story of Indra's Net.
You see, folks? It's by “mingling in” other aspects of life with
technical discussion that we can improve the technical discussion :-)
> Maybe some religious tom
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:05 PM, alex23 wrote:
> Strangely, calling the bible self-contradictory wasn't seen as
> inflammatory...
Well, that part is factual. Whether that makes it a joke is subjective.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> Well... We could try for equality in offense -- the Torah or the
> Koran? Maybe the Tripitaka or Sutras?
I always enjoyed the possibly apocryphal claim that the design of VRML
was influenced by the story of Indra's Net. Maybe some religious tomes
are just better
Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> I also didn't reprimand anyone, except maybe Steven.
If you are more upset at my describing the Catholic Church as protecting
child molesters than you are at the Church for actually protecting child
molesters, then your priorities are completely screwed up and your
repri
On Sep 30, 9:37 am, MRAB wrote:
> rantingrick:
> """Since, like the bible the zen is self contradicting, any argument
> utilizing
> the zen can be defeated utilizing the zen."""
>
> alex23:
> """And like the Bible, the Zen was created by humans as a joke. If you're
> taking it too seriously, that'
On Sep 29, 6:40 pm, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Okay, that's what I get for skimming -- it was alex23, not rr. My
> apologies, rr, for the misattribution.
Oh don't worry Ethan, this is not the first time I've been falsely
accused, misquoted, and kicked in the testicles, and i'm quite sure
with this fi
Ethan Furman wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
But whoever takes that joke and says it's deliberately hurtful is being
presumptuous and censorious and unreasonable. If they then castigate the
joker for supposedly hurting someone's feelings, it's at that point the
atmosphere turns hostile to discussion.
On 30/09/2011 00:21, Ethan Furman wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
But whoever takes that joke and says it's deliberately hurtful is being
presumptuous and censorious and unreasonable. If they then castigate the
joker for supposedly hurting someone's feelings, it's at that point the
atmosphere turns hos
Ben Finney wrote:
But whoever takes that joke and says it's deliberately hurtful is being
presumptuous and censorious and unreasonable. If they then castigate the
joker for supposedly hurting someone's feelings, it's at that point the
atmosphere turns hostile to discussion.
Um, wasn't it Rantin
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Devin Jeanpierre
wrote:
> But anyway, no, we don't agree on what it means to be friendly or what
> a hostile atmosphere is. I've noticed that people tend to be a lot
> harsher here than what I'm used to, so perhaps your attitude to it is
> more common on mailing-li
> There we disagree. The hurt feelings of someone who attaches their identity
> to a text should not restrain our discourse.
Yes, we do.
> That would eliminate just about every joke: a huge range of jokes *depend*
> for their humour on connecting seemingly-unrelated ideas. So by your logic,
> we
On 29-Sep-2011, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> >> This was a technical discussion, and calling the bible a joke was not
> >> necessary at all. It creates a hostile atmosphere.
> >
> > I disagree. It was not an attack on any person nor group of people. If
> > we are to be required to avoid jokes not dire
MRAB writes:
> On 29/09/2011 04:05, Ben Finney wrote:
> > But the topic of keeping this forum safe for technical discussion
> > entails that it must be safe for *any* idea to be the butt of a
> > joke, be it a religious text or the Zen of Python, and that is very
> > much on-topic.
>
> Even if it
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 02:49:05PM -0400, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> >> This was a technical discussion, and calling the bible a joke was not
> >> necessary at all. It creates a hostile atmosphere.
> >
> > I disagree. It was not an attack on any person nor group of people. If
> > we are to be requir
On Sep 29, 2011, at 9:37 PM, Navkirat Singh wrote:
> I am looking for the python mailing list. . ? Have you guys seen it
> somewhere? I think I accidently reached the cry-me-a-river list?
The portal can be reactivated by intoning Bobby Brown Goes Down in unison.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailm
Petite Abeille wrote:
On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
It could certainly be _interpreted_ as an attack
(and was interpreted that way), and that's really all that's necessary
for a hostile environment.
In other news:
http://alt.textdrive.com/assets/public/non/nq050616.gi
Hi,
I am looking for the python mailing list. . ? Have you guys seen it
somewhere? I think I accidently reached the cry-me-a-river list?
Regards,
Nav
On Sep 30, 2011 1:03 AM, "Petite Abeille" wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>
>> It could certainly be _interpreted_
On Sep 29, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> It could certainly be _interpreted_ as an attack
> (and was interpreted that way), and that's really all that's necessary
> for a hostile environment.
In other news:
http://alt.textdrive.com/assets/public/non/nq050616.gif
--
Tout le monde
>> This was a technical discussion, and calling the bible a joke was not
>> necessary at all. It creates a hostile atmosphere.
>
> I disagree. It was not an attack on any person nor group of people. If
> we are to be required to avoid jokes not directed at people, then *that*
> is an atmosphere hos
On 29/09/2011 04:05, Ben Finney wrote:
Devin Jeanpierre writes:
Forget money, or even the love of money. The idea that one mustn't
criticise another person's beliefs is the root of all evil.
This was a technical discussion, and calling the bible a joke was not
necessary at all. It creates a
Devin Jeanpierre writes:
> > Forget money, or even the love of money. The idea that one mustn't
> > criticise another person's beliefs is the root of all evil.
>
> This was a technical discussion, and calling the bible a joke was not
> necessary at all. It creates a hostile atmosphere.
I disagre
> Forget money, or even the love of money. The idea that one mustn't
> criticise another person's beliefs is the root of all evil.
This was a technical discussion, and calling the bible a joke was not
necessary at all. It creates a hostile atmosphere.
Can't you pick somewhere else to attack Chris
DevPlayer wrote:
> On Sep 27, 10:25 pm, alex23 wrote:
>> And like the Bible, the Zen was created by humans as a joke. If you're
>> taking it too seriously, that's your problem.
[...]
> Calling the Bible a joke is used to hurt people, not enlighten them.
> Those words show bitter arrogance, not co
75 matches
Mail list logo
