Why is it dangerous?

[Julian]

'evening.

I'm not new to C and have been programming in it since I was 8 but
here's a strange problem I've never seen before.

When I compile a program from our C course with a windows compiler
there is no problem but when I try to compile it with a linux compiler
it complains that

a_03.c:(.text+0x4d): warning: the `gets' function is dangerous
and should not be used.

Is linux more dangerous than windows? Where can I download a
non dangerous gets function? I have never used gets before is
there undefined behavior somewhere?
Here is a trimmed down example program from my assignment that
demonstrates the problem

#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>

void main()
{
char *string;
printf("enter string (max 2000 chars): ");
fflush(stdin);
fflush(stdout);
string = (char *)malloc(2001);
if(!string) exit(1);
gets(string);
printf("you entered: %s\n", string);
free(string);
exit(0);
}

On windows with TurboC and Lcc no error is printed. On linux with
gcc it says gets is dangerous.

Please advise my instructor says gcc is overly pedantic.

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Doug Miller said:

In article <6g************@mid.individual.net>, "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>At the very least, please consider the possibility that people

who use >>the term are not being deliberately offensive.

>
I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and
more with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use
that term. I don't for a minute believe that users of the term
are bleeding their hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out
by the use of the term to mean only those from the USA.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular
word, phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word,
phrase, etc. is being deliberately offensive.

Fine. For future reference, I find these following terms deeply
upsetting, and would appreciate your refraining from their usage:

"a", "been", "being", "causes", "continue", "deliberately", "etc",
"has", "informed", "is", "moreover", "of", "offense", "offensive",
"once", "one", "particular", "phrase", "that", "the", "to", "use",
"word".

I'm somewhat surprised, as you have used each of those words at some
time or the other in usenet posts. However, if you will agree to avoid
the use of those words yourself, then so will I. I'll need a
clarification on "continue" as to whether that includes the C keyword,
or just other uses.

Naturally, as a part of that agreement, you'll avoid the word I find
offensive (while I do as well, naturally).

Do we have an agreement?

Brian

[Paul Hsieh]

On Aug 14, 12:22*am, James Dow Allen <[e-mail]:

On Aug 13, 7:44 am, Paul Hsieh wrote:

On Aug 11, 1:38 am, James Dow Allen <[e-mail]:

The fingerd->gets() exploit was not trivial.

Well by today's standards it is. *...
I know exactly how this is done and why and how it works.

Even *I* could and did write a 'fake finger' from the brief
description.

Then what point are you making when you say its not trivial? I would
say the number of people who know how to do this, may number in the
100s of thousands.

[...] and programmers are left with the take-home
lesson: use gets() and the Russian mob will take
over your machine and the rest of the world.

Uh ... the Russian mob *does* use hackers ...

Uh ... yes. *But watch the conclusion you're about to reach
and see if blind dogma is subverting rational thought.

You mean the conclusion about taking over the world? That's a
conclusion *you* created. Straw men are so much more convenient to
argue against then real arguments aren't they?

One doesn't have to be a gets() enthusiast to note
fingerd's special nature, and that the claim that
all gets() usage risks catastrophe is confused.

fingerd's special nature is that it used an auto buffer
to accept input and it used gets()....

No. *fingerd's special nature was that stdin was directed
to a socket connected to an (untrusted) external machine.
Obviously gets()'er's in that environment deserve to have
their n*ts c** *ff. *No one has implied anything different.

No ... users of gets() in *ANY* environment deserve to have their
programming privileges diminished. The environment only dictates the
most likely consequences of using gets() (the simplest undefined
behavior to try to deterministically invoke), it doesn't have any
relevant bearing on the validity of using gets() in of itself.

You managed to write several paragraphs on this subtopic
without even hinting that you understand that the gets()'s
we're "defending" are simply not subject to Russian mob
exploitations!

First of all that's not true, and very explicitly so. Deliberately
deleting my comment about your mysterious "13" values in your sample
code doesn't change the fact that I made it. The argument against
gets() does not rely on the behavior of the Russian Mob, and you
really need to learn what a straw man argument is, before some
religious apologist accuses you of patent infringement.

I live with a few "dangerous"
messages during the build (although I'm sure the pedants
would prefer that each of the several hundred thousand
gets()'s produced its own such message. *:-)
Perhaps there's a way to disable gcc's "dangerous"
message but, in keeping with the FSF philosophy, I'm
sure the cure is worse than the disease, something like
setenv I\'M_AN_UNREPENTANT_MORONIC_ASSHOLE

In what sense is removing this message worth it? *Why not
just call fgets() and nail the trailing \n?

I've time to read very few Usenet groups these days.
Are many as totally devoid of humor as c.l.c?

No just devoid of contextual and rational thinkers. My comment is
clearly directed at what you think about warning messages about
gets(), not about attempts at rhetorical self-deprecating humor.

Did anyone seriously think I was worried about the warning message?

You must be very new to the internet or something: make your sarcasm
very obvious, demarcate it, or expect it to be misinterpreted.

[...]*(I *do* use a simple 'grep -v' to remove
one irrelevant gcc warning, but haven't bothered for
the friendly "dangerous" message.)

That's about the saddest thing I have read in a long time. You
intentionally ignore messages through a crude post process, rather
than commenting your code explicitly with compiler shield pragma to
turn the warning off ... oh wait, is this another one of your examples
of demarcated self deprecating sarcastic humor?

Another poster implied that a reason gets() is "dangerous"
is that it will disappear when the pedants take over
libc!

<sarcasm>Of course, because everyone who has a problem with gets() is
a 'pendant'.</sarcasm>

[...]*Does anyone think any of us would have trouble
writing our own gets() when it goes missing from libc?

You are responding to the wrong person and to the wrong post.
Remember I want the compiler to detect an attempted use of gets() and
remove the developer's source code, and I even refer to this fact *IN
THE POST YOU ARE RESPONDING TO*. (To do it right, of course, you
would want to catch it in the pre-processor *and* the compiler *and*
the linker.)

Either way, if someone is writing the source for a semantic gets()
clone, any serious development house would file a bug against it
immediately.

(This would also be a trivial way to get rid of the
"dangerous" message.) *In fact, at the risk of encouraging
the mob to Repeat_The_Obvious One_More_Time I'll put a
gets implementation in the public domain right now:

* * /* Not tested * :-) **/
* * char *gets(char *s)
* * {
* * * * * s = fgets(s, 1000000, stdin);
* * */* core-dump immediately if a cosmic ray has
* * * * damaged the terminating LineFeed:
* * * */ *if (s) 0[index(s, '\n')] = 0;
* * * * * return s;
* * }

Doug Gwyn already tried to get something essentially the same as this
standardized, but was shot down by his own cohorts on the ANSI C
committee.

Hmmm. *Surprised that the pedants don't add a string length
count to index() to deal with unterminated strings.
* :-) * :-) * :-) * :-)

Again, you've got the wrong guy. I think fgets() is an amateur's hack
job and will tend to avoid it as well.

I have looked at your code (on your website).
Buggy is not the right word for it.
*Narrow* is more what I would use.

"Narrow" is unclear. *I'll assume you meant something
worse, but are being polite!

No, I meant that I cannot use it because it doesn't generalize in any
useful way. You know ... its narrow.

I won't your straw men for you. You get to do that all by yourself.

[...]*In any event *most* of
the example programs at my website are just that:
*examples* rather than library functions intended for
immediate reuse.

I think there may be some useful ideas at my site.
For example, real-time programmers might benefit from a
glance at
* *http://james.fabpedigree.com/lesson9.htm#p94
but I imagine if you condescend to comment further
it will be to nitpick or to gloat when you find some
fragment still written in old-fashioned K&R C.

Recently I added functions to operate on compressed
sparse bit strings:
* *http://james.fabpedigree.com/sofa.c
which *is* intended as a small but useful (for some)
downloadable package. *Paul (and anyone else) is welcome
to examine it and offer comments.

The code is unreadable, and I have no idea or motivation to figure out
what it does anyway. You don't even document which compression method
you are using. I am *currently* working on a project in which I work
very closely with state of the art compression. If I don't get
minimal documentation (actually I got a tutorial instead) on the
*algorithm*, I refuse to touch it. I would seriously laugh at anyone
who tried to use someone else's undocumented unknown compression
method.

... like your hash table. *Your program can only ever
support one of them, so its flaw is more fundamental.

I guess I've not uploaded my cuckoo hash implementation
yet, so you're referring to the hash table I introduced some
years ago under a Subject like "Reusable Source code".

Indeed I am. I found the code to be totally unusable, let alone
*reusable*.

To say that program "can only ever support one [hash table]"
is to ignore that its source code can be modified!

To support multiple instances, and different types simultaneously, you
need to rewrite it (or do something insane like have a duplicated
source file for each instance). From the ground up. There wasn't
anything worth saving, as I recall.

It's My Own(tm) code for My Own(tm) projects; I use
Just-In-Time Programming(tm) for My Own(tm) projects,
and have found this code easy to modify. *As it turns
out, not supporting the feature you mention was the correct
Just-In-Time Programming(tm) decision, as that routine has
been superseded by my cuckoo hash implementation which
*does* support multiple users.

I still don't get why you needed to start with a less functional one.
The cost for making it data context relative is basically nothing.

[...] But the whole point was completely lost, as Chuck reacted
defensively re his own hashlib (without ever explaining how
the user needing two bytes maximum could cope with hashlib's
eight-byte minimum), and Paul enlightened us with code in
which Paul (or his dog?) proudly allows the programmer to
replace the confusing, error-prone predicate
* * *(! p->curr)
with an invocation of the function

* * int utilGenLinkedListIteratorEndReached \
* * * * * * (struct genLinkedListIterator * iter) {
* * * *if (iter == NULL) return -__LINE__;
* * * *return NULL == iter->curr;
* * }

Is this the kind of code you think I need to improve
my pedigree generator, Paul?

Quoting-mining out of context, missing the point, erecting more straw
men. I posted more, and will not dignify this repeat performance of
the straw man argument with a defense. Anybody who wishes can look up
the posts and see that I was clearly making a special kind of point.

Besides, can you explain what's actually wrong with that code? I
highly doubt it given your lame follow up. (Which I will snip.)

When I was rehired after a year to
add new support to a complete OS I wrote as a contractor
I was pleased to note that no changes had been found
necessary to my delivered code....

Can I obtain your OS and run the
Firefox browser on top of it?

Hunh? *The OS performed to customer spec, which was
to do a MS-DOS lookalike on MC68000 chip.

Like I said, undemanding customers. Did you know that the sort.exe
and fc.exe programs in MS-DOS are, were and have always been
chronically and totally broken? You'd think that MS would have gotten
around to fixing those at some point. They never did, and as far as I
know, users never rose a stink about it. I wonder, are your customers
any more demanding?

My customer (who got exclusive rights -- I never claimed
to be a businessman) ended up selling the source to
A Very Big Company You've All Heard Of(tm) and recovering
his payment to me. *(The Company's representative spent
several days on-site at my customer's examining the source
"eyes only" and concluded with a comment: "Originally I
was almost sure we'd develop our own in-house instead,
but after examining the source ... Sold!")

You found someone who actually likes your bizarre style of coding? ...
Oh wait, I know which really big company you are talking about now; I
think we all do.

The gets() deprecators aren't wrong; indeed I'll cheerfully
concede that their position is more defensible than mine!
But I'm happy to take a Devil's Advocate position to
encourage critical thinking when I see the preposterous and
dogmatic over-generalizations which become so routine in
this ng.

I'm sure you could peg me as the worst of the gets "pedants" ...
... I honestly take the position that gets() should, as a
side effect, attempt to delete the source file that
contained it the moment it is run.

With your "honestly", one is tempted to guess you might
not even be joking! *If so: *Wow! *Words fail me.

Well you are actually an unashamed user of gets(). My "eccentric"
approach would actually save the industry millions (by now, it would
probably not be billions as programmers have escaped to Java and C++/
STL; the damage has been done). I can defend my position completely
without introducing false arguments.

Earlier I wrote:

The gets() deprecators aren't wrong; indeed I'll cheerfully
concede that their position is more defensible than mine!

I'm afraid I'll have to (cheerfully) retract that concession
in your case, Paul.

Ok, so attack my position. Try.

As I compose this reply, I'm reading, in another window, about
present-day Internet security problems, despite the Billion$
of $$$ spent on $oftware by Micro$oft and others. Frankly,
I doubt that the problem is programmers using simple
functions to do simple things, but is more likely to be
the overly complex methods some of you seem to advocate.

A straw man and unsubstantiated speculation in a single sentence. Its
a two for one! Not bad.

I am unaware of anyone having a security citation from any of the
source code I've produced. On the contrary, people have been
desperately seeking things like my Better String Library precisely
because they just don't want to deal with security problems. A huge
bulk of C based security flaws involve some incorrect processing of C
strings. With the standard mainline usage of Bstrlib (which provides
a complete substitute for C strings) it is almost inconceivable to
produce a security flaw analogous to any I've seen with standard C
string manipulation.

... you did the whole thing in C didn't you?

Call it a fetish if you wish, but I *do* like to program in C.
My brain isn't completely dormant here, raising my kids and
smelling the roses: I read up on a variety of topics, e.g.
historical linguistics. Learning a new programming language
is *not* a priority and wasn't even before I retired, unless
you count LaTeX as a "programming" language.

You can become a Python expert in < 3 days. You can become an Lua
expert in < 3 hours.

And you chose C because ...
you think its actually tighter or something;
even though you are using
massively over-sized buffers to hold those strings.

LOL, chuckle! Call me simplistic but I process one line
at a time. The PC I use has relatively little memory,
but it's enough to spare one (1) 2000-byte buffer
for one (1) 200-byte string. :-) :-)

Moreover, your comments show another confusion: one uses
the "over-sized buffer" whether one gets()'s or fgets()'s.

Trust me, I'm not the one confused. Of course you'll end up using an
over-sized buffer no matter what you do unless you do some insane
linked-list then exact sized buffer copy thing. I was pointing out
that using C for string processing of a fairly low-taxing job like
building a family and making something like a trie out of it is *NOT*
something you use C for unless you are some sort of masochist.

I did not realize that you actually don't *KNOW* other programming
languages.

In either case, if the string needs to be preserved,
one strlen()'s, malloc()'s, and strcpy()'s (*) Yes, one can
hire Chuck F. to implement this trivial functionality, but
so what? (* - or do the pedants use strncpy() instead of
strcpy() even when they've just strlen()'ed on the off-chance
a gamma-ray zapped the null terminator? :-)

True, the fgets() *can* handle lines too long to fit in
the already "over-sized" buffer, but if you're doing that
handling in more than 2% of your fgets() applications you must
be coding like a masochist! The whole point of gets()/fgets()
is the simplicity of reading exactly one line: if you lose
that, you might as well just use fread().

Yeah whatever, you still don't know who you are talking to.

Of course you do, you revere K&R as if they were gods.

If you've been reading my website, you're misquoting!
I revere T&R (not K&R) as if they were human, but excellent
and creative designers.

What I mean by that is that you use C even when it is insane to do so
(you have no performance constraints and you want to do processing
with primitives precisely where C is weak (i.e., strings)).

That's the wrong lesson. The right lesson: the only way to catch
everything via a test, is to test everything....

I'm agnostic about whether the taxpayers should have been
required to fund the expensive test; the point is that the
flaw would have surfaced readily (with the $50 test) in a
less pedantic testing environment. You seem to have missed
this point; indeed you seem to be arguing that *no* test is
too expensive for the taxpayers! ... Where do you fit on the
political spectrum, Paul? :-)

Taxpayers pay NASA not individual engineers. People at NASA have to
decide how to allocate their budget, and I am *NOT* an advocate of run-
away costs to solve a complex problem. I would rather they spent a
quarter of the money on a rushed job version of Hubble 1, watched it
fail, then learned some lessons and made a Hubble 2, and maybe a
Hubble 3 until it worked. See the Mars lander programs as an
example. Many of them have failed, yet overall its been an incredible
success. How can repeated failure lead to such a high degree of
success? Because there are *MANY* probes, many missions, and they are
*SUPER CHEAP*. It makes the space shuttle program look like a big
joke by comparison. If I were in charge of NASA I would ask for 10
times the budget for these cheaper probe missions under the proviso
that there be 10 times as many missions (and consequently 10 times as
many failures).

If you read what I was saying with a bit of contemplation you would
realize by claiming you need to test absolutely everything to be sure,
I am implicitly arguing *against* doing that. Because *OBVIOUSLY*
that's too expensive. Giving up sureness, and accepting a failure
rate ultimately can end up being cheaper.

So long as you see the world in false dichotomies and learn entirely
the wrong lessons from them, it will prevent you from seeing the real
answers even when they appear to you right before your very eyes.

Regarding my claim, which you contested, that one
SHOULD SPEND ONE'S THOROUGHNESS WISELY
consider again the table hander you deprecated as
single instance. Making it multi-instance *would* have
complicated it and did indeed prove unnecessary.

So you claim. Obviously I don't speak from a position of ignorance
here. Why do you think I examined your code and CBFalconer's code so
closely? Neither was worth effort to try to fix, so I just rolled my
own.

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed
http://bstring.sf.net/

[Flash Gordon]

Richard Heathfield wrote, On 15/08/08 10:08:

s0****@gmail.com said:

<snip>

> - Proper use of English words

No, not really.

> - Nationalities abbreviations

Nor that. Go tell Default User, why don't you? All I did was say "Usanian",
but he's acting like I said "Jehovah" or something. Sheesh.

Fine.

Default User, stop arguing with Richard about the use of the term
"Usanian" on this group.

Richard, stop arguing with Default User about the term "Usanian" on this
group.

You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.

If you can't read each others posts without getting in to these
arguments then killfile each other or take them else-where (e.g. email).

It has taken both of you for this argument to run on, so by now in my
opinion you are both just as guilty of holding a long-running off-topic
argument and for *this* group it is completely irrelevant which if you
is right or wrong.
--
Flash Gordon

[Ian Collins]

Flash Gordon wrote:

>
It has taken both of you for this argument to run on, so by now in my
opinion you are both just as guilty of holding a long-running off-topic
argument and for *this* group it is completely irrelevant which if you
is right or wrong.

I bet they both want to come 'top' in the monthly stats!

--
Ian Collins.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

<snip>

Realizing that they are *North* (or South) Americans is a long way from
thinking of themselves as "Americans".

Tell a Brazilian that.

I'm guessing you don't know many (if any) Canadians ...

A few.

or you wouldn't imagine that they would think of
themselves as "Americans".

Really.

--
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

[Paul Hsieh]

On Aug 14, 10:16*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

* - Networking in C
* - Threading in C
* - Creating directories in C
* - Future C standards
* - Programs written in C

You forgot:

- The general practice of programming and computer science
- C compilers
- Any real world program written in C outside of command line
utilities
- Comparisons of C with any other language

On-topic:

* - Prototyping main()
* - (Not) casting malloc() calls
* - Proper use of English words
* - Nationalities abbreviations

You forgot:

- Complaining about google groups
- Complaining about signatures
- Bible study -- err, I mean ANSI standard recitations.

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
http://bstring.sf.net/

[s0suk3]

On Aug 15, 3:06*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>

>
You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.

Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.

<snip>

Sebastian

[Antoninus Twink]

On 15 Aug 2008 at 22:33, s0****@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 15, 3:06Â*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:

>You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point.

Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.

By their own definition of "troll", you are a "troll" as soon as you
question their ultra-narrow view of topicality, or point out examples
of their hypocrisy.

My advice is to pretend the mud-slingers don't exist, and contribute to
the group whatever you like.

[Doug Miller]

In article <Wu******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

>Doug Miller said:

>I'm guessing you don't know many (if any) Canadians ...

A few.

Not very well, evidently.

I spent several years working for a small US subsidiary of a much larger
Canadian firm. I can assure you that *none* of the Canadians I worked with
thought of themselves as "Americans".

>

>or you wouldn't imagine that they would think of
themselves as "Americans".

Really.

Ask them.

[Keith Thompson]

s0****@gmail.com writes:

On Aug 15, 3:06*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>

>>
You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.

Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.

<snip>

Flash will no doubt answer for himself, but I don't believe he was
referring to you, and I'm at a loss to understand why you would assume
that he was.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[s0suk3]

On Aug 15, 6:45*pm, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

s0****@gmail.com writes:

On Aug 15, 3:06*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>

You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.

Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.

<snip>

Flash will no doubt answer for himself, but I don't believe he was
referring to you, and I'm at a loss to understand why you would assume
that he was.

Because I'm the one who posted the humorous list about "On-topic" and
"Off-topic" subjects, which may well be interpreted as someone
"bitching about topicality rules."

Sebastian

[Keith Thompson]

s0****@gmail.com writes:

On Aug 15, 6:45*pm, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>s0****@gmail.com writes:

On Aug 15, 3:06*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>

>You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.

Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.

<snip>

Flash will no doubt answer for himself, but I don't believe he was
referring to you, and I'm at a loss to understand why you would assume
that he was.

Because I'm the one who posted the humorous list about "On-topic" and
"Off-topic" subjects, which may well be interpreted as someone
"bitching about topicality rules."

Antoninus Twink has posted in this thread. I wouldn't worry about
anyone calling *you* a troll.

But I'll point out that Flash didn't mention your name, yet you jumped
very quickly from asking him whether he was calling you a troll to
stating, with no apparent doubt, that he was deliberately doing so.
If you really were worried about it, you might have asked and then
waited for an answer.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Flash Gordon]

s0****@gmail.com wrote, On 16/08/08 00:59:

On Aug 15, 6:45 pm, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>s0****@gmail.com writes:

>>On Aug 15, 3:06 pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>
You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.
Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.
<snip>

Flash will no doubt answer for himself, but I don't believe he was
referring to you, and I'm at a loss to understand why you would assume
that he was.

Keith is correct.

Because I'm the one who posted the humorous list about "On-topic" and
"Off-topic" subjects, which may well be interpreted as someone
"bitching about topicality rules."

It was not because of you posting that list.

To be honest I can't remember enough posts by you to have formed *any*
opinion about you. I've no idea if this is because of my bad memory or
if you have not posted enough to this group for me to have formed an
opinion.
--
Flash Gordon

[s0suk3]

On Aug 15, 7:11*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:

s0****@gmail.com wrote, On 16/08/08 00:59:

On Aug 15, 6:45 pm, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

s0****@gmail.com writes:
On Aug 15, 3:06 pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>
You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.
Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.
<snip>
Flash will no doubt answer for himself, but I don't believe he was
referring to you, and I'm at a loss to understand why you would assume
that he was.

Keith is correct.

Because I'm the one who posted the humorous list about "On-topic" and
"Off-topic" subjects, which may well be interpreted as someone
"bitching about topicality rules."

It was not because of you posting that list.

To be honest I can't remember enough posts by you to have formed *any*
opinion about you. I've no idea if this is because of my bad memory or
if you have not posted enough to this group for me to have formed an
opinion.

Then, sorry for the misunderstanding :-/

Sebastian

[Ben Bacarisse]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Default User said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Default User said:

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Such as?

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation.

....and later...

| United States of America -United States of American (for which "Usanian"
| is a convenient contraction).

<snip>

| Just remind me how many angels it was? :-)

There's another pin-full right there.

--
Ben.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

In article <Wu******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:

>>Doug Miller said:

>>I'm guessing you don't know many (if any) Canadians ...

A few.

Not very well, evidently.

Begging the question.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Ben Bacarisse said:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>Default User said:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:

Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.

Such as?

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation.

...and later...

| United States of America -United States of American (for which
| "Usanian" is a convenient contraction).

No contradiction, according to my lights. When I was in school, I was
taught that to form an abbreviation you took the first letter of each
word, as in "BBC" for "British Broadcasting Corporation", "RAF" for "Royal
Air Force", "MCC" for "Marylebone Cricket Club", etc. (If they happened to
form a pronounceable word, then you had not only an abbreviation but also
an acronym.) But "contraction" was a more general term that referred to a
more general shortening, not merely the taking of each first letter.

--
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]

Flash Gordon wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
Default User, stop arguing with Richard about the use of the term
"Usanian" on this group.

Richard, stop arguing with Default User about the term "Usanian"
on this group.

.... snip ...

>
It has taken both of you for this argument to run on, so by now in
my opinion you are both just as guilty of holding a long-running
off-topic argument and for *this* group it is completely irrelevant
which if you is right or wrong.

Applause.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
No contradiction, according to my lights. When I was in school, I
was taught that to form an abbreviation you took the first letter
of each word, as in "BBC" for "British Broadcasting Corporation",
"RAF" for "Royal Air Force", "MCC" for "Marylebone Cricket Club",
etc. (If they happened to form a pronounceable word, then you had
not only an abbreviation but also an acronym.) But "contraction"
was a more general term that referred to a more general shortening,
not merely the taking of each first letter.

I see none of this in any C99 standard.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>

... snip ...

>>
No contradiction, according to my lights. When I was in school, I
was taught that to form an abbreviation you took the first letter
of each word, as in "BBC" for "British Broadcasting Corporation",
"RAF" for "Royal Air Force", "MCC" for "Marylebone Cricket Club",
etc. (If they happened to form a pronounceable word, then you had
not only an abbreviation but also an acronym.) But "contraction"
was a more general term that referred to a more general shortening,
not merely the taking of each first letter.

I see none of this in any C99 standard.

If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviated" (which has the same root as "abbreviation") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3) for
details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the Standard! So
it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all. :-)

--
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

[Ben Bacarisse]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Ben Bacarisse said:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>Default User said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Default User said:
>
Please try not to use odd abbreviations that are not standard
English.
>
Such as?

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation?

It's not an abbreviation.

...and later...

| United States of America -United States of American (for which
| "Usanian" is a convenient contraction).

No contradiction, according to my lights.

In the part you clipped I said this was another whole pin-full of
angels to count -- i.e. that it is endlessly debatable.

When I was in school, I was
taught that to form an abbreviation you took the first letter of each
word, as in "BBC" for "British Broadcasting Corporation", "RAF" for "Royal
Air Force", "MCC" for "Marylebone Cricket Club", etc. (If they happened to
form a pronounceable word, then you had not only an abbreviation but also
an acronym.) But "contraction" was a more general term that referred to a
more general shortening, not merely the taking of each first letter.

OK. While I would not trust my schooling to have been accurate about
anything, I accept that you might. I won't cite any authorities in
support of a much broader meaning for the term because that would just
invite you to cite still more. Instead, I invite you to agree that it
is debatable and that we should not debate it here.

--
Ben.

[santosh]

CBFalconer wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>

... snip ...

>>
No contradiction, according to my lights. When I was in school, I
was taught that to form an abbreviation you took the first letter
of each word, as in "BBC" for "British Broadcasting Corporation",
"RAF" for "Royal Air Force", "MCC" for "Marylebone Cricket Club",
etc. (If they happened to form a pronounceable word, then you had
not only an abbreviation but also an acronym.) But "contraction"
was a more general term that referred to a more general shortening,
not merely the taking of each first letter.

I see none of this in any C99 standard.

A bit too late for this thread. Just killfile it.

[santosh]

Paul Hsieh wrote:

On Aug 14, 10:16*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

- Networking in C
- Threading in C
- Creating directories in C
- Future C standards
- Programs written in C

You forgot:

- The general practice of programming and computer science

comp.programming?

[ ... ]

- Any real world program written in C outside of command line
utilities

They are topical. However most of the posters are newbies with
elementary questions.

- Comparisons of C with any other language

This should be topical, though of course, it's prone to spiralling into
flamewars.

<snip>

[Joachim Schmitz]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Willem said:

>>The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
seatbelt.

They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their belt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

Bye, Jojo

[Ian Collins]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

>On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Willem said:
The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
seatbelt.
They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their belt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

--
Ian Collins.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 16 Aug 2008 at 10:38, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

>On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their belt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Antoninus Twink wrote:

>>On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Willem said:
The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
seatbelt.
They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.
Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their
belt injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.

--
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

[Doug Miller]

In article <jr******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

>Doug Miller said:

>In article <Wu******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:

>>>Doug Miller said:

I'm guessing you don't know many (if any) Canadians ...

A few.

Not very well, evidently.

Begging the question.

I notice you snipped the rest of my post, restored here for your convenience:
---------------
I spent several years working for a small US subsidiary of a much larger
Canadian firm. I can assure you that *none* of the Canadians I worked with
thought of themselves as "Americans".

>or you wouldn't imagine that they would think of
themselves as "Americans".

>Really.

Ask them.
----------------
Go on -- ask those few Canadians of your acquaintance how they think of
themselves. Ask them if they consider themselves to be Americans. If fortune
smiles on you, all they will do is laugh uproariously, or simply give you a
puzzled look.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

In article <jr******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:

>>Doug Miller said:

>>In article <Wu******************************@bt.com>,
rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:
Doug Miller said:

I'm guessing you don't know many (if any) Canadians ...

A few.

Not very well, evidently.

Begging the question.

I notice you snipped the rest of my post,

Yes, because the part of your response to which I was replying was the part
in which you were begging the question. The rest of your post was merely
anecdotal, and I had no comment to make on it, which is why I snipped it.

restored here for your convenience:

No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which differs from
mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact that Canadians are
likely to think of and describe themselves as Canadians rather than
Americans for the same reason that Germans are likely to think of and
describe themselves as Germans rather than Europeans. That does not mean
that Canadians are not Americans, any more than it means that Germans are
not Europeans.

<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

[Doug Miller]

In article <WL******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

>No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which differs from
mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact that Canadians are
likely to think of and describe themselves as Canadians rather than
Americans for the same reason that Germans are likely to think of and
describe themselves as Germans rather than Europeans. That does not mean
that Canadians are not Americans, any more than it means that Germans are
not Europeans.

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't* consider
themselves to be "Americans", your anti-American fantasies to the contrary
notwithstanding.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

In article <WL******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:

>>No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which differs
from mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact that
Canadians are likely to think of and describe themselves as Canadians
rather than Americans for the same reason that Germans are likely to
think of and describe themselves as Germans rather than Europeans. That
does not mean that Canadians are not Americans, any more than it means
that Germans are not Europeans.

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't* consider
themselves to be "Americans",

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people living
in North and South America. Canadians /are/ Americans (whether or not they
consider themselves to be Americans), because they live in America
(specifically, North America) - just as much as Usanians are Americans and
Brazilians are Americans.

your anti-American fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm anti-American from the fact
that I don't like the idea of discriminating against the 70% of them that
don't live in the USA.

--
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

[Keith Thompson]

sp******@milmac.com (Doug Miller) writes:
[...]

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't* consider
themselves to be "Americans", your anti-American fantasies to the contrary
notwithstanding.

I am now determined to ignore the point, whatever it might be.
I invite everyone to join me in ignoring the point. If you must
continue to discuss this, please take it somewhere else.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Doug Miller]

In article <WY******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

>Doug Miller said:

>In article <WL******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:

>>>No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which differs
from mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact that
Canadians are likely to think of and describe themselves as Canadians
rather than Americans for the same reason that Germans are likely to
think of and describe themselves as Germans rather than Europeans. That
does not mean that Canadians are not Americans, any more than it means
that Germans are not Europeans.

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't* consider
themselves to be "Americans",

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people living
in North and South America.

No, *you're* confusing the point -- which is that while *you* might think
this, *they* don't.

>Canadians /are/ Americans (whether or not they
consider themselves to be Americans), because they live in America
(specifically, North America) - just as much as Usanians are Americans and
Brazilians are Americans.

Ahh, I see -- what *they* think they are doesn't matter. *You* already know.

[Richard Heathfield]

Doug Miller said:

In article <WY******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:

>>Doug Miller said:

<snip>

>>>
You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't*
consider themselves to be "Americans",

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people living
in North and South America.

No, *you're* confusing the point

We are not having an argument, merely a contradiction. As such, it is
pointless to continue it.

--
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

[santosh]

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <WY******************************@bt.com>,
rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

>>Doug Miller said:

>>In article <WL******************************@bt.com>,
rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

No point. I have no comment to make on your experience, which
differs from mine. It is possible that you are confused by the fact
that Canadians are likely to think of and describe themselves as
Canadians rather than Americans for the same reason that Germans are
likely to think of and describe themselves as Germans rather than
Europeans. That does not mean that Canadians are not Americans, any
more than it means that Germans are not Europeans.

You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't*
consider themselves to be "Americans",

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people
living in North and South America.

No, *you're* confusing the point -- which is that while *you* might
think this, *they* don't.

>>Canadians /are/ Americans (whether or not they
consider themselves to be Americans), because they live in America
(specifically, North America) - just as much as Usanians are Americans
and Brazilians are Americans.

Ahh, I see -- what *they* think they are doesn't matter. *You* already
know.

I tend to note that in literature from before the mid 20th century, the
word "America" and "the Americas" is used quite often to refer to the
entire north and south American landmass, while early travellers seem
to have used the word "American" for all the people of this landmass
simultaneously with other more specific designations.

In any case, calling a Brazilian or a Canadian, or a Cuban "American" is
as "correct" as calling a Japanese, a Mongol, an Indian, a Russian, an
Israeli, and an East Timorese, as an "Asian", even though in day-to-day
life a representative individual of all these countries will not think
of himself as "Asian".

Just as the word "Asian" applies to collectively to all the people of
Asia and not exclusively to the citizens of one or more of it's
constituent countries, the word "American" should also apply to all the
people of north and south America and not exclusively to the citizens
of the USA. I agree that in common usage that it doesn't, but that
doesn't make it "correct".

Personally I don't like the word "Usanian" for a country-specific
designation of the citizens of the USA (the word sounds and feels
awkward), but I can't think of a better word either.

Maybe the time has come to deprecate and mark as obsolescent the whole
notion of continents, and instead just deal with countries? :-)

[Ian Collins]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ian Collins said:

>Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>>Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Willem said:
>The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
>the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
>opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
>seatbelt.
They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.
Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their
belt injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.

Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

--
Ian Collins.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2008-08-16, Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

>Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

The wide world of stdin is far more dangerous than the roadways, and
it's much less obvious - especially to somebody new to the field -
what horrible things could happen by feeding gets() a finite buffer.

--
Andrew Poelstra ap*******@wpsoftware.com
To email me, use the above email addresss with .com set to .net

[santosh]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

>Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who
in the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say
that I can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Because one of the "state's" responsibility is to improve the safety of
it's subjects and to inform them of the same?

BTW, this debate about seat-belts is mildly amusing to me, seeing as
here, most cities do not mandate even drivers to wear seat-belts, while
even in the few that do, the very vast majority put them on at traffic
intersections (where a cop or a CCTV might be watching you) and take
them off as soon as they are on their way again.

The accident rate is horrendous, but that has nothing to do with
seat-belts, but with poor driving and completely flouting road
regulations and safety. This is one issue where the "state" might do
well to let it's subjects work it out for themselves and in the
meanwhile accept the minutely larger fraction of causalities that might
result from non-enforcement.

[Ian Collins]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

>Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who in
the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say that I
can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Because the 200lb twat in the back of a 70mph car carries on moving at
70mph when the car comes to an unscheduled stop, not only doing himself
harm (fair enough) but taking out the poor souls in the front on his way
to oblivion.

Same happens to the careful project team when the stubborn nonconformist
idiot team member uses gets.

--
Ian Collins.

[kenny.riodan]

On Aug 16, 7:08 am, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

>
On 16 Aug 2008 at 10:38, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

AntoninusTwinkwrote:

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQNe4uTxJ38

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

- Kenny Riodan

[kenny.riodan]

On Aug 16, 5:21 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>
On Aug 16, 7:08 am, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 10:38, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

AntoninusTwinkwrote:
>
Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
>
Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQNe4uTxJ38

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

It was just pointed out to me that UK also mandates
rear seat passengers must wear seat belts.
This UK Police pamphlet states the reason very well:
http://www.psni.police.uk/seatbelts-leaflet.pdf

"In a crash at 30mph, if you are unrestrained, you will hit the
front seat, and anyone in it, with a force of between 30
and 60 times your own body weight"

Now 30mph is not "high speed". And let's say your rear passenger is
150 lb.
Would you like to be hit with a force of 4500 pounds?

- Kenny Riodan

[Doug Miller]

In article <GM******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid wrote:

>Doug Miller said:

>In article <WY******************************@bt.com>, rj*@see.sig.invalid
wrote:

>>>Doug Miller said:

<snip>

>>>>
You seem determined to ignore the point here: Canadians *don't*
consider themselves to be "Americans",

You seem to be confusing the point, which is that the term "American",
whilst it /does/ apply to Usanians, *also* applies to other people living
in North and South America.

No, *you're* confusing the point

We are not having an argument, merely a contradiction. As such, it is
pointless to continue it.

It's a "contradiction" instead of an argument only because you keep snipping
my arguments instead of responding to them -- a sure sign that you know you've
lost the debate.

'bye.

[Serve Lau]

<ke**********@gmail.comschreef in bericht
news:7d**********************************@8g2000hs e.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 16, 5:21 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>>
On Aug 16, 7:08 am, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 10:38, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
AntoninusTwinkwrote:

Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?

Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using
theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQNe4uTxJ38

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

It was just pointed out to me that UK also mandates
rear seat passengers must wear seat belts.
This UK Police pamphlet states the reason very well:
http://www.psni.police.uk/seatbelts-leaflet.pdf

"In a crash at 30mph, if you are unrestrained, you will hit the
front seat, and anyone in it, with a force of between 30
and 60 times your own body weight"

Now 30mph is not "high speed". And let's say your rear passenger is
150 lb.
Would you like to be hit with a force of 4500 pounds?

you're assuming that accidents are always frontal which they arent. Most of
the time people try to steer away or are hit by a car from the side who was
trying to steer away. crash test dummies dont do that.

>
- Kenny Riodan

[Joachim Schmitz]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:39, Ian Collins wrote:

>Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

No, it is an outrageous affront to personal freedom.

Utter nonsense. Your freedom ends, were the other's freedom starts. It is
forbidden to kill, this is not a matter of personal freedom. It is forbidden
to put someone elses life at danger, this is not a matter of personal
freedom either.

I wear a seatbelt whenever I am in a car. I am not an idiot. But who
in the hell does the state think it is to try to legislate and say
that I can't be an idiot if I damn well want to?

Of couse the state (whichever) cannot prevent you from being an idiot.
But it can punish you for being one. The jails are full of idiots.

Bye, Jojo

[Joachim Schmitz]

Serve Lau wrote:

<ke**********@gmail.comschreef in bericht
news:7d**********************************@8g2000hs e.googlegroups.com...

>On Aug 16, 5:21 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>>>
On Aug 16, 7:08 am, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 10:38, Joachim Schmitz wrote:
AntoninusTwinkwrote:
>
>Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
>
Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using
theirbelt
injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

[citation needed]

This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

Other studies using dummies also show how violent the damage
to the front seat person is. See this YouTube video for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQNe4uTxJ38

Canada and Japan and several US states currently mandate
that back seat passenger must wear seat belts.

It was just pointed out to me that UK also mandates
rear seat passengers must wear seat belts.
This UK Police pamphlet states the reason very well:
http://www.psni.police.uk/seatbelts-leaflet.pdf

"In a crash at 30mph, if you are unrestrained, you will hit the
front seat, and anyone in it, with a force of between 30
and 60 times your own body weight"

Now 30mph is not "high speed". And let's say your rear passenger is
150 lb.
Would you like to be hit with a force of 4500 pounds?

you're assuming that accidents are always frontal which they arent.

But that's the worst case scenario you're best prepaired for. And frontal
chrashes do happen frequently enough.

Most of the time people try to steer away or are hit by a car from
the side who was trying to steer away. crash test dummies dont do
that.

>>
- Kenny Riodan

Bye, Jojo

[Antoninus Twink]

On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, ke**********@gmail.com wrote:

>This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

You've completely missed the point.

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone with
half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
the risk.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing the
person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should that be
illegal?

[Joachim Schmitz]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, ke**********@gmail.com wrote:

>>This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

You've completely missed the point.

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone
with half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid
taking the risk.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing the
person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should that be
illegal?

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

Bye, Jojo

[Antoninus Twink]

On 17 Aug 2008 at 10:36, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

Who said anything about suicide?

[santosh]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 17 Aug 2008 at 10:36, Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

Who said anything about suicide?

Ignoring basic safety rules can be construed as being motivated by a
death wish.