A question

[Savage]

If God maked a woman from 1 rib, what would he make from a radiator?

Discuss..

Savage

[Motoma]

Quick put them on your head.

They will increase your geekness and nerdeness signatificly..

Savage

Err...So you are advocating me answering questions without any pants?

[Savage]

Err...So you are advocating me answering questions without any pants?

U can put on another pants,dumber ones..

Savage

[NeoPa]

OH GOD, MY PANTS ARE SMARTER THAN I AM!!

Please follow the posting guidelines!
The seventh point in Things that are generally unacceptable is most relevant.

[Motoma]

Please follow the posting guidelines!
The seventh point in Things that are generally unacceptable is most relevant.

I directly intended emphasis on the entire sentence. Please note, the entire post was not in all caps, the exclamation points were perfectly natural.

[NeoPa]

I directly intended emphasis on the entire sentence. Please note, the entire post was not in all caps, the exclamation points were perfectly natural.

You say that, but I checked all the punctuation and they were definitely upper case (ASCII code <0x60) - even the comma (,).
Tilde (~) may be considered acceptable at a stretch.

[Motoma]

You say that, but I checked all the punctuation and they were definitely upper case (ASCII code <0x60) - even the comma (,).
Tilde (~) may be considered acceptable at a stretch.

#! /bin/bash
if [[ "!" != *[[:upper:]]* ]]; then
echo "NeoPa is wrong."
fi
 
$ ./excheck.sh
NeoPa is wrong.
 

>>> if '!' == '!'.lower():
    print 'NeoPa is wrong.'
 
 
NeoPa is wrong.
 

#include <iostream>
 
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
  char ex = '!';
  char lex = tolower(ex);
  if(ex == lex) printf("NeoPa is wrong.");
}
 
// Try this one out for yourself
 

[NeoPa]

As with any logic Motoma - the results are only as good as the underlying principles.
You don't really need me to post all the code to compare it with the equally incorrect check against the results of the upper & toupper constructs in the various languages.
It would contradict, but be just as unreliable as your efforts (no more so though).

[Motoma]

As with any logic Motoma - the results are only as good as the underlying principles.
You don't really need me to post all the code to compare it with the equally incorrect check against the results of the upper & toupper constructs in the various languages.
It would contradict, but be just as unreliable as your efforts (no more so though).

So to paraphrase: "I could prove you wrong, but I'm not going to."

(Community discussions are how Motoma hits the Top Contributors list)

[NeoPa]

So to paraphrase: "I could prove you wrong, but I'm not going to."

(Community discussions are how Motoma hits the Top Contributors list)

To paraphrase, I could provide proof just as good as yours to show I was right. Unfortunately, it's also just as bad ==> useless :( No less valid than yours, but no more so either.
You don't need me to spell it out surely?

[Motoma]

To paraphrase, I could provide proof just as good as yours to show I was right. Unfortunately, it's also just as bad ==> useless :( No less valid than yours, but no more so either.
You don't need me to spell it out surely?

I guess the only one that really proves my point is the bash script, which correctly asserts that "!" is not uppercase.

[Motoma]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Perhaps these should be added to the FAQ.

I sure am glad this discourse led to something productive! :D

[MMcCarthy]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Perhaps these should be added to the FAQ.

I sure am glad this discourse led to something productive! :D

If you two have nothing better to do, I'm sure I could find something to keep you busy.

[Savage]

If you two have nothing better to do, I'm sure I could find something to keep you busy.

Hahahh,busted..


Savage

[Motoma]

If you two have nothing better to do, I'm sure I could find something to keep you busy.

Does involve correcting this problem in the FAQ?

[MMcCarthy]

Does involve correcting this problem in the FAQ?

You are welcome to refer your suggestions regarding the FAQ to Banfa. I'm sure he'll receive them in the spirit they deserve.

[Banfa]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Read again

[NeoPa]

Additionally, after rereading the section you sent me to, I see no mention of uppercase letters, nor use of the term All caps (which would lead to my defeat in this discussion).

Perhaps these should be added to the FAQ.

I sure am glad this discourse led to something productive! :D

What was so complicated in what I said that you were able to miss it so many times? If '!'=tolower('!') proves that it is not upper case, then surely '!'=toupper('!') is just as strong proof that it is upper case.
Generally, when items proven using specific 'logic' are contradictory, then that 'logic' can be considered to be flawed.

My 'logic', though flawed in itself (I'll leave you to discover why), was a far closer approximation to a valid rule for determining upper case.

[Banfa]

What was so complicated in what I said that you were able to miss it so many times? If '!'=tolower('!') proves that it is not upper case, then surely '!'=toupper('!') is just as strong proof that it is upper case.
Generally, when items proven using specific 'logic' are contradictory, then that 'logic' can be considered to be flawed.

All these arguments are based on the implicit assumption that case is an attribute that applies to the character '!'. It is not it only applies to letters. Therefore the assumption is false, but both arguments assume it is true.

They have assumed something that is false to be true and therefore anything can be proved.

[Motoma]

All these arguments are based on the implicit assumption that case is an attribute that applies to the character '!'. It is not it only applies to letters. Therefore the assumption is false, but both arguments assume it is true.

They have assumed something that is false to be true and therefore anything can be proved.

From false premises, anything can be concluded.

[MMcCarthy]

From false premises, anything can be concluded.

It was a stupid bl**** argument in the first place.

These two would probably sit for hours and argue about whether or not black is a colour. Oh! That reminds me of someone else, I wonder who.

[RedSon]

It was a stupid bl**** argument in the first place.

These two would probably sit for hours and argue about whether or not black is a colour. Oh! That reminds me of someone else, I wonder who.

Bloody 'ell !

[MMcCarthy]

Bloody 'ell !

Don't tell me you want to start too.

[r035198x]

It was a stupid bl**** argument in the first place.

These two would probably sit for hours and argue about whether or not black is a colour. Oh! That reminds me of someone else, I wonder who.

Technically speaking of course the absence of all colour cannot be called a colour.

[MMcCarthy]

Technically speaking of course the absence of all colour cannot be called a colour.

I give up, you're all hopeless :p

[NeoPa]

They have assumed something that is false to be true and therefore anything can be proved.

From false premises, anything can be concluded.

A point I made in post #57 I thought.

[Banfa]

A point I made in post #57 I thought.

Possibly, but if so very obliquely. I find that sometimes you have no option to ram the obvious into people faces before they take note (and sometimes that doesn't work either).

Salesman: I've told the customer he can have the software at the end of the week.
Me: Interesting, you may want to ring them back and advise them that it actually wont be ready for another 4 weeks.

<beginning of the next week>

Salesman: So are we on for the delivery at the end of the week?
Me: No, as I told you last week the software wont be in a working state for another 3 weeks. Perhaps you could inform the customer of that.
Salesman: OK

<Thursday>

Salesman: All set for tomorrow?
Me (having forgotten on the assumption it had been dealt with): Why? What happens tomorrow?
Salesman: We make our delivery to the client.
Me: Hmmm, you seem to have been ignoring me when I have been telling you that the software will not be finished for another 2 weeks. Look here is the job list, here is the time for each job and here is the total. It does not matter how many times you assert the software will be ready tomorrow, I am telling you that it wont.

<30 minutes later>

Salesman: OK I have rung the client.
Me: Excellent!
Salesman: And agreed that they can have the software next Wednesday.
Me (Speechless)

[Banfa]

Technically speaking of course the absence of all colour cannot be called a colour.

OI that's my argument, you were the one arguing that black and white where the only 2 colours.

[Frinavale]

<30 minutes later>

Salesman: OK I have rung the client.
Me: Excellent!
Salesman: And agreed that they can have the software next Wednesday.
Me (Speechless)

Typical (hehe)
Had this happen to me only once before
Wasn't fun at all!

[NeoPa]

Possibly, but if so very obliquely. I find that sometimes you have no option to ram the obvious into people faces before they take note (and sometimes that doesn't work either).

Salesman: I've told the customer he can have the software at the end of the week.
Me: Interesting, you may want to ring them back and advise them that it actually wont be ready for another 4 weeks.

<beginning of the next week>

Salesman: So are we on for the delivery at the end of the week?
Me: No, as I told you last week the software wont be in a working state for another 3 weeks. Perhaps you could inform the customer of that.
Salesman: OK

<Thursday>

Salesman: All set for tomorrow?
Me (having forgotten on the assumption it had been dealt with): Why? What happens tomorrow?
Salesman: We make our delivery to the client.
Me: Hmmm, you seem to have been ignoring me when I have been telling you that the software will not be finished for another 2 weeks. Look here is the job list, here is the time for each job and here is the total. It does not matter how many times you assert the software will be ready tomorrow, I am telling you that it wont.

<30 minutes later>

Salesman: OK I have rung the client.
Me: Excellent!
Salesman: And agreed that they can have the software next Wednesday.
Me (Speechless)

Well, I was up to about "<30 minutes later>" when you came in ;)

[r035198x]

OI that's my argument, you were the one arguing that black and white where the only 2 colours.

Have you ever come across anyone who speaks technically?