Dev-C++ compiling problem

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

>Whilst this is
>perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>netiquette breaches.

>
I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because the
so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
requirement.

So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the failure
to snip signatures.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[CBFalconer]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

Richard Heathfield wrote:

CBFalconer said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
<snip>
>

>>Whilst this is
>>perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>>weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>>netiquette breaches.

>>
>I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because
>the so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
>requirement.

>
So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the
failure to snip signatures.

And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
<whatever>".

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

In article <471E6DC4.D4ED3 4AB@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cbfalconer@mai neline.netwrote :

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>CBFalconer said:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>
><snip>
>>

>>>Whilst this is
>>>perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>>>weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>>>netiquette breaches.
>>>
>>I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because
>>the so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
>>requirement .

>>
>So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the
>failure to snip signatures.

>
>And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
>request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
><whatever>".

In CLC-speak, "Please" is a demand.
I think this is pretty well understood.

(To the extent that anyone can make a demand in the online-world...)

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

CBFalconer said:

<snip>

And you may have noticed I don't make demands. I advise and
request. The typical message is of the form "Please do (or don't)
<whatever>".

Fine. Please do fix your sig block to conform to netiquette conventions or,
failing that, please don't advise others about conforming to netiquette
conventions.

Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
you yourself won't do?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:43:13 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
>the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
>you yourself won't do?

Talk about sanctimonious prats.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:22:30 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

>CBFalconer said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
><snip>
>

>>Whilst this is
>>perfectly understandable in your situation, it significantly
>>weakens your justification for criticising other people's
>>netiquette breaches.

>>
>I'll go along with 'weakens slightly'. The slightly is because the
>so-called 4 line maximum is only a recommendation, not a
>requirement.

>
>So are the behaviours about which you often complain, such as the failure
>to snip signatures.

if this is such a HUGE deal to you that you feel it necessary to write
thousands of lines of justification for your sanctimoniousne ss, why
not just killfile Chuck?

After all, *you* don't need his advice on C any more than you need it
on usenet ettiquette.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

Mark McIntyre said:

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:43:13 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>

>>Chuck, you're wiggling on a stick, and it's silly. Why don't you just fix
>>the sig block, switch ISP, or stop nagging other people to do something
>>you yourself won't do?

>
Talk about sanctimonious prats.

I'm sorry, Mark, but I think it would be a really bad idea for me to start
talking about some of the sanctimonious prats I see around Usenet. It
might be hurtful to them, and in any case it would be off-topic. And it
would take too long. And it wouldn't even be fun. Mind you, nor is going
on about this stupid sig block thing.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

In article <AJ6dnQO-__D5urzanZ2dnUV Z8uadnZ2d@bt.co m>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
....

>Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
>if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
>permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
>irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
for me)

But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it really
different in the UK?
[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
your wheels.

[Tony Quinn]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

In message <ffrdu2$nd6$1@n ews.xmission.co m>, Kenny McCormack
<gazelle@xmissi on.xmission.com writes

>In article <AJ6dnQO-__D5urzanZ2dnUV Z8uadnZ2d@bt.co m>,
>Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>...

>>Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
>>if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
>>permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
>>irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

>
>(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
>for me)
>
>But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
>thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
>complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
>over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it really
>different in the UK?
>
>[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
>your wheels.

What we call the pavement, you call the sidewalk
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

[santosh]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <AJ6dnQO-__D5urzanZ2dnUV Z8uadnZ2d@bt.co m>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
...

>>Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a
>>bicycle, but if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement
>>except where it is permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from
>>first-hand experience how irritating and indeed dangerous
>>pavement-using cyclists can be.

>
(This is not a troll - which is to say, this post is out-of-character
for me)
>
But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
thing?

Er, because it's meant for pedestrians?

I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
complicated than "road".

We do. Pavement means footpath.

In any case, we cycle on the road all the
time over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it
really different in the UK?
>[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
your wheels.

IIRC, most of Europe has a small "bicycle lane" between the footpath and
the road proper, which is the "proper" place to cycle.

[Kenny McCormack]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

In article <LFpUCbEM7TIHFw 2A@tqvideo.co.u k>,
Tony Quinn <tony@tqvideo.c o.ukwrote:
....

>>But I have to ask, what's this about cycling on pavement being a bad
>>thing? I'm assuming that by "pavement", we don't mean anything more
>>complicated than "road". In any case, we cycle on the road all the time
>>over here in the US (where else would you cycle?[*]) Is it really
>>different in the UK?
>>
>>[*] If you actually want to get somewhere, as opposed to just spinning
>>your wheels.

>
>What we call the pavement, you call the sidewalk

I see. Still, I'm a little surprised. While I personally don't think
riding on the sidewalk is a good idea, I would say that it is believed
by many that it is safer (particularly for children and other infirmed
types) and it is generally not discouraged.

I know of exactly one neighborhood (in the US) where they have posted
signs forbidding riding on the sidewalk. Two comments regarding this
neightborhood:
1) The existence of these signs "sticks out", since it is rare.
2) Because of the roads and traffic, this is one neighborhood
where it would actually be useful/desirable to be on the
sidewalk (which is, of course, why they forbid it).

[Philip Potter]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Mark McIntyre said:

>cycling on the pavement, whatever.

>
Again, I don't do this. As it happens, I don't actually have a bicycle, but
if I did have one, I would not ride it on the pavement except where it is
permitted (e.g. a cycle track). I know from first-hand experience how
irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
facilities. I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm
not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines. I
particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.

I cycle on one particular pavement which I can't avoid because it's on a
short, quiet route to university and getting off and pushing my bike for
20m kills the momentum which I have fought hard to build up. This route
is even marked on the official London cycle map! (In both cases, I give
way to pedestrians.) A friend of mine was once told in a nudge-nudge way
by a policeman to cycle on the pavement round a particular junction in
Glasgow because it was safer for both cars and cyclists.

Cycling through red lights is safer:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

Cycling facilities are inadequate:

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

(I particularly like September 2007)

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

Philip Potter said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>I know from first-hand experience
>how irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

>
A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
facilities.

As long as you stay off the pavement, that's fine by me.

I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm

....risking a collision with a car driving across your lane at speed, and
risking the lives of the people in that car as the driver swerves to avoid
you. You are also risking the lives of the pedestrians that are struck
down by the car as it careers out of control after the swerve. Nice one.

not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines.

Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk other
people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without breaking the
law, find another means of transportation.

I
particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.

I particularly get irritated with a minority of cyclists who are prepared
to risk *my* life by cycling very fast along a narrow pavement, forcing me
to choose between being struck by a bicycle or stepping into the road and
risking being struck by a car. It happens a lot around here.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Philip Potter]

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Philip Potter said:
>

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>I know from first-hand experience
>>how irritating and indeed dangerous pavement-using cyclists can be.

>A lot of "irritating and indeed dangerous" behaviour of cyclists in UK
>cities is either self-preservation or compensation for lack of
>facilities.

>
As long as you stay off the pavement, that's fine by me.
>

>I cycle in London and I jump red lights because it means I'm

>
...risking a collision with a car driving across your lane at speed, and
risking the lives of the people in that car as the driver swerves to avoid
you. You are also risking the lives of the pedestrians that are struck
down by the car as it careers out of control after the swerve. Nice one.

Richard, your argument is let down by your tacet assumptions. I don't go
through /every/ red light, and indeed if there is traffic driving across
my lane I won't cross.

>not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
>aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
>cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines.

>
Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk other
people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without breaking the
law, find another means of transportation.

So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The roads
are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle paths
are too daft.

>I
>particularly get irritated with a minority of motorists who are prepared
>to risk /my life/ to get themselves home 30 seconds earlier.

>
I particularly get irritated with a minority of cyclists who are prepared
to risk *my* life by cycling very fast along a narrow pavement, forcing me
to choose between being struck by a bicycle or stepping into the road and
risking being struck by a car. It happens a lot around here.

Yes, I agree with you here.

(Incedentally, when I was small my mum would /only/ allow me to cycle on
the pavement...)

[santosh]

OT - Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem

Philip Potter wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Philip Potter said:

<snip>

>>not cycling alongside cars, lorries and buses, some of whom are not
>>aware of the highway code section which guarantees me a full lane to
>>cycle in and instead expect me to cycle on the double-yellow lines.

>>
>Yes, I understand your frustration, but it is not an excuse to risk
>other people's lives. If it is impossible to cycle safely without
>breaking the law, find another means of transportation.

>
So there we have it. Cycling as a means of transport is dead. The
roads are too dangerous, the pavements are too illegal, and the cycle
paths are too daft.

This is indeed the case here too. And it's really frustrating because
I'm a big fan of cycling. Not to mention it's benefits to health and
the environment.

Unfortunately money and politics rule.

<snip>