Re: Long division algorithm
From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:28:00 GMT
"Randy Howard" <randy.howard@FOOmegapathdslBAR.net> wrote in message
> In article <vK9Hb.106601$2We1.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> email@example.com says...
> > "Randy Howard" <randy.howard@FOOmegapathdslBAR.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > > Once again, I'll point out that they do not have to be free to be
> > > useful. If they happen to be both, that's great.
> > >
> > > > Recommending texts you have to purchase is just another sign of
> > ignorance.
> > >
> > > Denying that any books which are not freely available are worth
> > > is a huge sign of ignorance.
> > So you're saying then, that the GPL advocates are just "ignorant" as
> > too would like to see a GPL-full world.
> *sigh* Once again you (intentionally I think now) misunderstand. For you
> to say the above, you must be claiming that "zero books which are not
> free are worth reading". It's either one or the other.
It's called a context. In the context of this thread and the OP recommending
textbooks when freely available useful resources exist is just stupid IMO.
> If you think that
> is a rational position to take, so be it. I heartily disagree. I think
> there is more than enough room for both. Apparently the GNU crowd agrees,
> as I have a hard-copy of Stallman's GNU Make book. I suppose he wouldn't
> have published it for sale if he agreed with your position entirely
> either. The fact is, I find bound books hold up much better than
> printouts. By the time you pay to have one bound (and usually in a larger
> form factor) it's more than worth it to me to have the bound version, even
> if I could have an 8.5x11 printout, which still costs ink/toner, paper,
> binding materials, etc.
The only thing I can say to this is I'm not Stallman. I don't represent GNU
either. My point though is there are plenty of people that would like to
see the average desktop user use a GPL'ed OS over MSFT Windows.
> > Why can't the same be said about knowledge. I mean, where do you think
> > knowledge comes from to write half of the software you find out there?
> From textbooks bought and paid for by CS students somewhere along the way,
> in combination with other training materials, instructors, freely
> available resources and experience. The other half probably comes from
> cosmic dust or angels. I don't care which, but I am glad that it happens.
You sir, must learn to use google. I've learned a shitload by googling
around and citeseering from time to time.
Sure textbooks are useful [I own a few dozen on various subjects]. I'd just
rather see an emerging trend of openly available resources. Call me the
> > I was simply calling Gwyn on his suggestion.
> Why is he not allowed to make a recommendation without clearing it first
> through you? Are you arrogant enough to assume that one and only one
> poster's recommendations (yours) are worthy of consideration? How do you
> know that the Knuth's writing style isn't more suitable to that person
> than your own, or any source you happen to specify? Why is it so
> unreasonable to let grownups make decisions on their own after being
> given recommendations from multiple people?
He doesn't [and afaik hasn't]. I just like calling him on stuff like that
to see if he will ever support anything he writes. I assume he lives in a
free country. So if he wants to suggest something he can. Doesn't mean I
can't question his suggestion?
> > If he thinks his suggestion was a good one why not back it up?
> He shouldn't have to. It's not a court of law, you are not the grand
> inquisitor (although you act like a school yard bully in need of lunch
> money) and it is an opinion. If you don't like it, so what? You said
> your piece, it's not up to you to decide.
Dude, holy crap, I stopped posting about this a while ago. Right now I
don't care if he replies or not. I did say my piece and now I'm through.
==>YOU ARE<== the one who is dragging this on and on. Just say "Tom I don't
like you, probably never will. You suck, die in hell" and go on your way.
Give it up.
> > Well until you started replying tonight I had no intentions to talk
> > again. Funny thing that.
> Just desperately in need of the last word then? Stop making unsupportable
> claims, misreading evil into things not meant that way and it won't be
> necessary. I'm simply arguing for free expression (a fundamental tenet
> of the open source movement) and you are acting like a censor. That's a
> bit of a hypocritical stance given your feelings on open source is it not?
I get the last word in because I can, unless the thread really is going too
As for misreading evil into things, well then you should either think twice
about what you write or just killfile me and close the issue. As for
arguing for free expression if all we do is make statements and never
questions what sort of expression is that?
> > Well when even the author of something doesn't support it why would
> > else?
> Strange, I've never seen Knuth running around hawking his books on Usenet,
> yet they sell very well for technical books. Rumor is, millions of $$$
> over the years. I don't recall seeing Dennis Ritchie or Brian Kernighan
> recommending K&R all over the place either, yet even though the last
> edition is about 10 years out of date, it is still recommended daily all
> over the place. In short, great books sell themselves.
Not really. I bought TAOCP because I heard people talking about it. My
text is far too new to rely solely the few readers to put it forth [that and
the text requires editing and I don't have a publisher to put the thing in
bookstores]. And for the record, Knuth does stand by his texts, 2.56$ per
> Your premise seems flawed. If your book in its final form is excellent,
> and you don't alienate everyone that might otherwise recommend it, you
> may also achieve similar notoriety within your chosen field. If you
> continue to act like a child yelling "me too, me too" I sort of doubt
> you'll be completely satisfied with the results.
I don't plan on selling my text, in fact the source to the book is PUBLICLY
available for FREE.
And the "me too" while maybe a bit selfish isn't meant to be harmful. I
think my works are good and getting better and I want to share. If you
spent half as much time developing something as you do shooting your mouth
off in usenet you might have something to share.
> > Sure I plug LTM but it isn't as if I don't recommend/know of other
> > I plug LTM because if I didn't nobody would know about it. And it isn't
> > if people don't use LTM so I'd say overall I'm doing a good thing here.
> Writing code and making it publicly available is a good thing. Harassing
> anyone that has the gall to recommend anything but your work is a bad
> thing. Surely you can see the miles of difference between the two if
> you just step back and think about it for a few minutes.
Obviously you're totally clueless to the crux of the problem I *HAD* with
Gwyn's post. It wasn't that Gwyn didn't recommend my text. It was that
Gwyn made yet another random suggestion which was just simply a bad idea [in
most instances]. I called him on it and didn't look back.
At this point I don't really care if he replies. I said my piece to Gwyn
and I'm done with that. It's you spreading misinformation about myself that
I'm trying to correct.