Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > malloc() and implicit cast

Reply
Thread Tools

malloc() and implicit cast

 
 
blmblm@myrealbox.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome, I wonder that
> > too. But then I am a humorless feminist, apt to bristle at all kinds
> > of commonly-used phrases, from "separates the men from the boys" to
> > "you da man!" to "balls" used as roughly synonymous with "gumption"
> > to .... Well, that's probably enough, and this is off-topic anyway,
> > but maybe a belated two cents' worth from a "girl" are not entirely
> > amiss?

>
> Well, they're far from being amister.


Oh well, from that angle .... hm, how would you add "a-" to "Ms"
and come up with something with a suitable pronunciation? Sort of
a .

> I think you would be well-advised to recognise that those who seek to
> give offence will find ways of giving it, and will push any button until
> they draw a reaction. The trick, when dealing with such people, is to
> work out that they're idiots and then give their views all due weight -
> i.e. none.


Oh sure.

But I think what bugs me is that these phrases are so much a part
of the language that apparently it doesn't even occur to most
people that there might be a problem with them. I've been told,
on at least one occasion, "you da man!" by someone who clearly
meant it as a compliment. So I'm not talking here about deliberate
attempts to offend.

I'll add that not all women seem to feel the way I do -- I asked
about the above-mentioned usage of "balls" in some other discussion
and got several responses from women saying "doesn't bother me".

> As for feminism: I am opposed to any form of discrimination other than
> on merit or character. Perhaps unfairly, I have developed a rather
> negative view of feminism, as it seems to me from the (self-proclaimed)
> feminists I have met that it is just as discriminatory as the evil it
> seeks to address.


Yeah. I call myself a feminist partly because the label has
acquired so many negative connotations in recent years, especially
in the minds and language of people who seem to want to go back to
the Bad Old Days, and that ticks me off. But there are certainly a
lot of other self-proclaimed feminists who do seem to be advocating
something that's not much better than what they're opposing.
Your "I am opposed ...." sentence pretty much sums up my views.

> Where would be a good newsgroup to continue this
> discussion?


I have no idea! Once upon a time soc.feminism might have been good,
but it's been inactive for a long time. I think there are some alt.
groups where it would be topical, but the last time I checked out any
of those, they were dominated by more-heat-than-light flame wars.

> Back to C:


Thanks, and I'll try to behave myself here and not continue the
off-topic discussion ....

[ snip ]

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-21-2010
On 20 June, 23:20, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Richard Heathfield *<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > (E-Mail Removed) wrote:



> > > As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome,


considering the amount of useful stuff on a Y chromosome compared to
its counterpart I'd hardly describe it as a *lack* of a Y chromosome.

> > > I wonder that
> > > too. *But then I am a humorless feminist, apt to bristle at all kinds
> > > of commonly-used phrases, from "separates the men from the boys" to
> > > "you da man!" to "balls" used as roughly synonymous with "gumption"
> > > to .... *Well, that's probably enough, and this is off-topic anyway,
> > > but maybe a belated two cents' worth from a "girl" are not entirely
> > > amiss?

>
> > Well, they're far from being amister.

>
> Oh well, from that angle .... *hm, how would you add "a-" to "Ms"
> and come up with something with a suitable pronunciation? *Sort of
> a .
>
> > I think you would be well-advised to recognise that those who seek to
> > give offence will find ways of giving it, and will push any button until
> > they draw a reaction. The trick, when dealing with such people, is to
> > work out that they're idiots and then give their views all due weight -
> > i.e. none.

>
> Oh sure. *
>
> But I think what bugs me is that these phrases are so much a part
> of the language that apparently it doesn't even occur to most
> people that there might be a problem with them. *I've been told,
> on at least one occasion, "you da man!" by someone who clearly
> meant it as a compliment. *So I'm not talking here about deliberate
> attempts to offend.
>
> I'll add that not all women seem to feel the way I do -- I asked
> about the above-mentioned usage of "balls" in some other discussion
> and got several responses from women saying "doesn't bother me".
>
> > As for feminism: I am opposed to any form of discrimination other than
> > on merit or character. Perhaps unfairly, I have developed a rather
> > negative view of feminism, as it seems to me from the (self-proclaimed)
> > feminists I have met that it is just as discriminatory as the evil it
> > seeks to address.

>
> Yeah. *I call myself a feminist partly because the label has
> acquired so many negative connotations in recent years,


I can always admire contrariness!


> especially
> in the minds and language of people who seem to want to go back to
> the Bad Old Days, and that ticks me off. *But there are certainly a
> lot of other self-proclaimed feminists who do seem to be advocating
> something that's not much better than what they're opposing.
> Your "I am opposed ...." sentence pretty much sums up my views.


there seemed to be a lot of women around who were quite independent in
thier views and expected equal treatment but who also said they
weren't feminists. I think it was a bit of a back-lash against the
more extreme versions of feminism.

<snip>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
blmblm@myrealbox.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Nick Keighley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 20 June, 23:20, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > (E-Mail Removed) wrote:


[ snip ]

> > > As for feminism: I am opposed to any form of discrimination other than
> > > on merit or character. Perhaps unfairly, I have developed a rather
> > > negative view of feminism, as it seems to me from the (self-proclaimed)
> > > feminists I have met that it is just as discriminatory as the evil it
> > > seeks to address.

> >
> > Yeah. I call myself a feminist partly because the label has
> > acquired so many negative connotations in recent years,

>
> I can always admire contrariness!


I think in some ways my attitude here is along the lines of "the
enemy of my enemy is my friend", which isn't entirely rational
but has its attractions. I don't know how admirable that really
is, but -- oh right, the proper response to a compliment is *NOT*
an argument.

> > especially
> > in the minds and language of people who seem to want to go back to
> > the Bad Old Days, and that ticks me off. But there are certainly a
> > lot of other self-proclaimed feminists who do seem to be advocating
> > something that's not much better than what they're opposing.
> > Your "I am opposed ...." sentence pretty much sums up my views.

>
> there seemed to be a lot of women around who were quite independent in
> thier views and expected equal treatment but who also said they
> weren't feminists. I think it was a bit of a back-lash against the
> more extreme versions of feminism.


And that bugs me too -- how did a word that used to mean "in favor
of equal rights for all" come to be associated with the bad stuff, to
the point where people who support what feminism used to mean don't
want the label any more? I guess one of my pet causes is trying to
restore to the label the meaning I think it should have. <shrug>

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On 23 June, 21:22, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Nick Keighley *<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On 20 June, 23:20, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,


> > > > As for feminism: I am opposed to any form of discrimination other than
> > > > on merit or character. Perhaps unfairly, I have developed a rather
> > > > negative view of feminism, as it seems to me from the (self-proclaimed)
> > > > feminists I have met that it is just as discriminatory as the evil it
> > > > seeks to address.

>
> > > Yeah. *I call myself a feminist partly because the label has
> > > acquired so many negative connotations in recent years,

>
> > I can always admire contrariness!

>
> I think in some ways my attitude here is along the lines of "the
> enemy of my enemy is my friend", which isn't entirely rational


can get you into lots of trouble!


> but has its attractions. *I don't know how admirable that really
> is, but -- oh right, the proper response to a compliment is *NOT*
> an argument. *
>
> > > especially
> > > in the minds and language of people who seem to want to go back to
> > > the Bad Old Days, and that ticks me off. *But there are certainly a
> > > lot of other self-proclaimed feminists who do seem to be advocating
> > > something that's not much better than what they're opposing.
> > > Your "I am opposed ...." sentence pretty much sums up my views.

>
> > there seemed to be a lot of women around who were quite independent in
> > thier views and expected equal treatment but who also [say] they
> > weren't feminists.


quite vociferously in some cases. On the other hand my brother always
claimed to be a feminist.

> >*I think it was a bit of a back-lash against the
> > more extreme versions of feminism.

>
> And that bugs me too -- how did a word that used to mean "in favor
> of equal rights for all" come to be associated with the bad stuff, to
> the point where people who support what feminism used to mean don't
> want the label any more? *I guess one of my pet causes is trying to
> restore to the label the meaning I think it should have. *<shrug>


oh good luck! Perhaps when you've finished there you can go on to
campaign for "gay" to mean "happy"!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm McLean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On Jun 19, 8:04*pm, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome,
>

Some men have two X es, but no woman has a Y.

 
Reply With Quote
 
BruceS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On Jun 24, 4:02*am, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:04*pm, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome,

>
> Some men have two X es, but no woman has a Y.


This is incorrect. Of course, you could be using circular reasoning,
but I doubt that.
GIYF
 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm McLean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On Jun 24, 5:16*pm, BruceS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 4:02*am, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 8:04*pm, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome,

>
> > Some men have two X es, but no woman has a Y.

>
> This is incorrect. *Of course, you could be using circular reasoning,
> but I doubt that.
>

No, you're right. There are a few women who have a Y with a disabled
testis determining factor.

(However males are normally XY but can be XXY occasionally. It's
presence of a Y, not 2 Xes, which determines sex.)

 
Reply With Quote
 
BruceS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On Jun 24, 8:23*am, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Jun 24, 5:16*pm, BruceS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:> On Jun 24, 4:02*am, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:

>
> > > On Jun 19, 8:04*pm, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > > As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome,

>
> > > Some men have two X es, but no woman has a Y.

>
> > This is incorrect. *Of course, you could be using circular reasoning,
> > but I doubt that.

>
> No, you're right. There are a few women who have a Y with a disabled
> testis determining factor.
>
> (However males are normally XY but can be XXY occasionally. It's
> presence of a Y, not 2 Xes, which determines sex.)


Mostly (ignoring the controversial issue of those who are altered to
look like the opposite sex), but more fundamentally it's a matter of
whether the fetus is flooded with testosterone at the right stage,
AIUI. I recall a documentary in which it started with the idea that
it was the presence of the Y, then moved on to the specific part of
the Y that makes the difference (as you mention), then went on to
cases where there was no Y, but the fetus got the testosterone anyway,
leading to an XX male. Sex determination just isn't as simple as we'd
like it to be. For a long time, people believed it was the mother who
solely determined sex of the child. Even now, many believe it's the
father who does so.
 
Reply With Quote
 
blmblm@myrealbox.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
BruceS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 8:23 am, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 5:16 pm, BruceS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:> On Jun 24, 4:02 am, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > > wrote:

> >
> > > > On Jun 19, 8:04 pm, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >
> > > > > As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome,


Just for the record -- and I'm REALLY trying to resist the
temptation to continue this off-topic tangent, apparently not very
successfully -- I put in that "as far as I know" because I was
under the impression, confirmed by some of the discussion below,
that there was no way to be 100% sure without genetic testing.

Introducing a note of at least meta-topicality, maybe -- no
wonder I like this group! what a bunch of pedantic nitpickers[*],
so of course I fit right in!
[*] Very much "NTTAWWT".

> > > > Some men have two X es, but no woman has a Y.

> >
> > > This is incorrect. Of course, you could be using circular reasoning,
> > > but I doubt that.

> >
> > No, you're right. There are a few women who have a Y with a disabled
> > testis determining factor.
> >
> > (However males are normally XY but can be XXY occasionally. It's
> > presence of a Y, not 2 Xes, which determines sex.)

>
> Mostly (ignoring the controversial issue of those who are altered to
> look like the opposite sex), but more fundamentally it's a matter of
> whether the fetus is flooded with testosterone at the right stage,
> AIUI. I recall a documentary in which it started with the idea that
> it was the presence of the Y, then moved on to the specific part of
> the Y that makes the difference (as you mention), then went on to
> cases where there was no Y, but the fetus got the testosterone anyway,
> leading to an XX male. Sex determination just isn't as simple as we'd
> like it to be. For a long time, people believed it was the mother who
> solely determined sex of the child. Even now, many believe it's the
> father who does so.


--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2010
On 2010-06-24, Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:04*pm, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> As someone lacking (as far as I know) a Y chromosome,


> Some men have two X es, but no woman has a Y.


Off-topic, but also very false. Look up "androgen insensitivity".

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
implicit cast in templated function hweekuan@yahoo.com C++ 2 11-26-2008 04:59 PM
malloc() and implicit cast arnuld C Programming 7 04-16-2008 07:52 PM
Avoid implicit cast from enum to double Flo C++ 2 07-18-2006 01:27 PM
DynPtr: A pointer with implicit dynamic cast Calum Grant C++ 2 12-07-2005 04:54 AM
Implicit cast to object that implements overloaded operator pnsteiner@gmail.com C++ 7 10-12-2005 02:08 PM



Advertisments