Re: notifying particular thread to wake up.

On Oct 21, 9:06 pm, Arne Vajhøj <a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So spamming is okay, as long as it's somewhat targeted?

No.

But that is irrelevant since the message was not spam.

As defined by you, arbitrarily (since clearly you consider some
targeted, commercial-content-only messages to qualify and others not
to seemingly at random).

And that making an entire post solely to refer someone to a commercial
site, providing nothing else in the way of relevant information other
than some site offering to sell that information, is suspicious
behavior, though maybe not ipso facto evil.

No. That is common usenet practice.

No, disliking that sort of behavior is the common usenet practice. Or
perhaps you spent the last decade or two using a different usenet than
I did? If so, I suggest you go back to that other usenet; you'll like
it better than this one. :P

I think you have a serious problem.

I do, and its name is Arne Vajhøj (disclaimer: looks correct as
pasted, but GG may mangle it horribly). I'm still trying to think up a
solution to that problem. I'm beginning to suspect that it involves
emailing staff@xxxxxxxxxxx (If I weren't using GG, and the problem
weren't spreading lies about me in earshot of third parties, a
killfile would solve it.)

A question: do you believe the Java tutorial has as good
information about multithreading as the recommended book ?

I don't know, because I've only read one of the two, but it has
information that's frequently "good enough" for many purposes, and
therefore is likely to have satisfied at least the OP's short-term
needs. Indeed, may have actually done so, for all we know -- he hasn't
weighed in lately with any new comments so who knows what he's done?
Maybe he bought that book. Maybe not. If he did he's probably still
waiting for delivery, but already out the price tag, whereas the Java
Tutorial section on concurrency is available almost instantly with one
click of the mouse from a link I provided, and without costing a dime
over whatever his normal internet usage fees are, too.

The Java Tutorial is certainly no-risk to try: if you read it and
apply it, but it's not enough or you find it outright bad or whatever,
well you didn't spend any money at least, and you're free to go book
shopping. If you bought the book and the same thing happens, though,
you're going to have to eat the cost.

In other words, I present a cogent and unassailable argument that you
cannot defeat by specifically addressing particular points with cogent
objections, so you resort to generally insulting it and engaging in /
ad hominem/ attacks.

????

There were plenty of specific points.

Not in the area where I responded with that paragraph. There was a
chunk of quoted material by me, a blank line, and a general-purpose
insult by you. Probably all that someone of your IQ is capable of
coming up with; it would explain why you do it so often.

That's for the original poster to decide, using other relevant
information as well that only he knows, such as what his budget is.
For the OP to make this decision in a way that is self-maximizing, he
needs all of the relevant facts. The existence of a free source of
relevant information is certainly one of those facts.

So is the book !!

It's not symmetrical. If the prices were equal it would be, but
they're not.

OP knows of neither -> asks, perhaps here.
OP knows of both -> informed choice between them.
OP knows of tutorial, but not book -> uses tutorial. If adequate,
good! If not, comes back looking for more, or searches the net, finds
book.
OP knows of book, but not tutorial -> pays for book. If tutorial would
have been adequate, outcome is not Pareto-optimal.

Only the fourth situation risks a substantially sub-optimal outcome
for the OP, unnecessary expenditure of money.

Have you tried counting how many people here that consider it common
sense and how many that does not consider it common sense ?

The silent majority is rather hard to count on usenet because being
silent makes you invisible here.

Then try count the non silent !

A small sample size, and by the very nature of their being vocal on
the issue, likely a biased sample too.

Small, self-selecting samples are doubly bad statistics and you
fucking know it.

No no no - you were never able to produce anything backing
your claims.

Yeah, go ahead, keep telling yourself that, even though a quick google
search quickly reveals the post where I cited no fewer than three
sources to back them up. If you close your eyes the monster can't see
you to eat you. I suppose I shouldn't expect reasoning of a higher
caliber from someone of your apparent age and IQ.

[lying insult deleted]

*** off.

I again ask you: What is your objection to
a) Disclosure when a link is not to the information requested
directly, whether because it "requires registration", or requires you
to buy access to the information, or whatever;
b) Disclosure when any such link will benefit you financially;
c) Disclosure of any cheaper and especially free alternatives you know
of for getting information that may satisfy the OP; and
d) Directly answering the OP's immediate question while you're at it.

re a)

Rather unnecsaryy since the reader will find out.

Rather necessary (note spelling) since the reader won't like being
conned into clicking a trick link. Why do you think I rarely follow
links in usenet posts? Because so damn many of them are useless,
moneygrubbing, or even outright dangerous (malware, fraud/phishing,
etc.)

And the link may immediately give an undeserved financial benefit to
someone, due to ad impressions, or being treated as an ad click-
through even, even assuming the victim isn't tricked into paying
through the nose for information they might have found elsewhere for
free had they not been led down the garden path.

If you feel the author of this book is especially deserving of money,
make that decision with your own money and buy extra copies or donate
money to him or something rather than trying to cause other people to
do so (perhaps unnecessarily, as they might later judge things when
they have all the facts) by withholding information from them (or
granting information to them selectively).

You can even be doubly charitable by buying extra copies and then
donating them to educational institutions and libraries in your area!

Let other people make their own informed choice, and that means they
should know of the cheapest variation of what they want at a bare
minimum.

But as has been proven

Nothing of the sort has been proven. I'd need to see detailed
financials for all of that guy's accounts to determine with certainty
whether or not he got some sort of kickback.

It's also true that it has not been proven that he *did* receive
anything of the sort.

It's a complete unknown at this point.


People post what they think is the best answer.

People post for all kinds of reasons, and cannot always be trusted.
For example, you don't post insulting twaddle like this, implying that
I'm an idiot simply by posting to disagree vocally with everything I
say instead of quietly nodding your head, explicitly calling me an
idiot in two separate places, and making other insulting insinuations,
because it's the best answer (and besides -- best answer to what?),
but because you're an *** and you hate me and you want everyone
else to feel the same way you do.

People certainly don't post the various spams nobody is disputing were
spams because they think those are the best answers, but rather
because they make money from people that get suckered.

People post all kinds of things with motivations other than to inform
honestly (including without lies of omission) and that has to be taken
into account.

If somebody think they have a better answer they must post it.

And they do. But I don't like seeing posts that, were I the OP, would
leave me feeling tricked and cheated. A link promising the answers to
my questions that goes to some page saying "Please insert a coin to
continue" or "Please login" or an ad for a commercial product or
whatever would have exactly that effect. I hoped the OP would make a
genuine effort to inform me, and succeed in that effort, and instead
all I found was a waste of my time. Either the OP had another
motivation than to inform me, or they did intend to inform me but did
not succeed because they assumed that I was an affluent American with
a credit card and no problems with making $40-50 purchases at the drop
of the proverbial hat. 99+% of the people in the world don't meet such
a description, and the bulk of the people posting questions here will
be students, the bulk of whom do not fit any of that except perhaps
"American", typically being anti-affluent, in too much debt to even
contemplate charging anything else to credit, and seriously debating
$4-5 purchases such as whether to skip lunch, nevermind ones ten times
that size.

re d)

If possible and optimal.

If you know the answer it's possible. If you don't know the answer,
you're not qualified to decide if book XYZ or site JKL is appropriate
to suggest. If you know the answer it's also certainly optimal, since
it likely requires about the same amount of typing on your part and
certainly requires less mouse clicks (and perhaps less money!) on the
OP's part.


.