From: Peter T. Daniels on
On Feb 28, 11:49 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> "Skitt" <skit...(a)comcast.net> writes:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> "Skitt" wrote:
> >>> It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the
> >>> process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official
> >>> sponsor. The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis
> >>> facility, so all was not lost.
>
> >> I don't think you have to be Christian (or Young) to use the YMCA ...
>
> > Not to use, but there was some sort of commitment that had to be
> > expressed to join the Y.
>
> If so, they changed their policy by the time I started taking swimming
> lessons there in the '60s.  My family were members, but we wouldn't
> have made any statement that expressed an affiliation with
> Christianity.
>
> Or perhaps it varied by Y.
>
> >> you certainly don't have to be Jewish (or male) to use the YMHA;
> >> the 92nd St. Y is one of New York City's great cultural
> >> institutions.  (They don't seem to use the MHA in their name any
> >> more.)
>
> Their web pages still say
>
>     2010 92nd Street Young Men's and Young Women's Hebrew Association
>
> but I suspect that the "Hebrew" euphemism (from latter half of the
> nineteenth century) is considered just too archaic.  Outside of New
> York, most became "Jewish Community Centers" (JCCs or J's) in, I
> believe, the '20s.

I didn't know whether it started out as a YMHA or a YWHA, and I had to
dig down into the "history" page to find anything but "Y" used as its
name.
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on
Robert Bannister <robban1(a)bigpond.com> writes:

> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2010 17:41:22 -0800, R H Draney
>> <dadoctah(a)spamcop.net> wrote in
>> <news:hm204201q19(a)drn.newsguy.com> in
>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
>>
>>> Robert Bannister filted:
>>
>>>> The eternal rift between morning and evening people. I
>>>> get very ratty when politicians force me to get up in
>>>> the dark more often than need be, whereas I think
>>>> dinner is best eaten when it is dark outside.
>>
>>> Quite right...I had breakfast yesterday at noon, and
>>> dinner at midnight....r
>> That sounds about right, though my dinner might well be
>> later than that.
>
> This reminds me of difficulties I had in reading some Russian
> novels: "breakfast" was 2-4 pm, supper at midnight and dinner in the
> early hours of the morning.

Well, they *are* in a different time zone.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


From: Skitt on
Hatunen wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:

>> I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're
>> baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then
>> you're a Christian.
>
> There are those who claim so.

Just to provide some data -- I was so baptized (at the age of 16), but it
didn't make me a Christian, at least, not in my beliefs. I mean, even if I
do or say certain things, maybe my fingers are crossed behind my back. <g>

--
Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU)
"The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

From: Peter Moylan on
jmfbahciv wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:

>>> You always could "start" at numbers other than one. Or are
>>> you talking about the actual memory assigned to the array?
>>
>> Yes, there were ways of doing that but when you defined an array with,
>> say,
>>
>> DIMENSION A(100)
>>
>> The array elements were A(1) to A(100).
>>
>> I think it was Fortran77 where, say,
>>
>> REAL (0:99) :: A
>>
>> became a valid declaration.
>>
> Thanks. I swear I read the 77 ANSI proposal but I don't
> remember this stuff. That one had to cause bugs.

I've never used Fortran 77, but I don't see how that would cause bugs.
If the array bounds have to be declared, the compiler can insert checks
for subscripts being out of bounds, and in fact that is what is done in
most of the modern programming languages I know something about.

The reason you get so many "array overrun" errors in C - it seems to be
the means most used by hackers to break system security - is not the
confusing "count from zero" convention, but the fact that the language
doesn't really have the concept of "array". Instead, it has a kludge
that lets you write pointer arithmetic in a way that looks like array
subscripting notation. As a result, the language specification more or
less explicitly prohibits compilers from inserting checks for subscript
errors.

Admittedly the common "off by one" errors are often caused by zero-based
subscripting. With most programming languages, though, such an error
will make itself evident the first time you run the program, when you
run off the end of the array; and the exception information will quickly
lead you to the cause of the crash. It's safe to declare subscript
ranges in any way that is natural to the application, as long as the
generated code includes range checks. The main thing that makes C so
unsuitable for real-world applications is the paucity of run-time checks.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Peter Moylan on
Robert Bannister wrote:

> My first computer at the beginning of the 80s used to spend up to 4
> minutes "cleaning up" every couple of days. I figure that is what dreams
> are about: wiping unused variables, erasing unnecessary data, having one
> last check before erasure on the dirty pictures...

To the best of my knowledge, my dream subsystem doesn't delete the dirty
pictures. They still turn up in subsequent dreams.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.