[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: performance and style advice requested

Austin Ziegler

9/15/2003 7:46:00 PM

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:22:32 +0900, Robert Feldt wrote:

I would change this to:

> def fact(n)
@facts ||= [1]
> @facts[n] ||= (@facts.length..n).inject(@facts.last) { |f, i|
> @facts[i] = i * f
> }
> end

-austin
--
austin ziegler * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.09.15
* 15.43.57



16 Answers

Barb May

10/7/2011 3:25:00 PM

0

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:42:48 -0700, "Barb May"
> <barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>
>>> Groups like the
>>> Working Families Party and the Strong Economy for All Coalition are
>>> basically socialistic outfits.
>>
>> Again with the old guilt by association smear.
>
> Who you "choose" to associate with, tells a lot about who you are.

An undesirable person can choose to "associate" with me by being seen in
the same places I go but that wouldn't mean that I was associating with
them. Do you understand the difference?


>
> The old ideas are based in reality, you aren't.

My reality is based on fact, not fiction like yours.

--
Barb


Nickname unavailable

10/7/2011 3:33:00 PM

0

On Oct 6, 4:42 pm, "Barb May" <barb...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
> > On Wednesday in New York City there was another far-left demonstration
> > as a bunch of people marched on Wall Street. Why? We aren't exactly
> > sure.
>
> The Wall Street protests don't have a clearly defined set of goals
> because they are not an astroturf creation like the teabaggers.
>
> > What we do know is that these folks are zealots who are being
> > organized by some very interesting people. Does the name MoveOn.org
> > mean anything to you? How about George Soros? Well, for the first
> > time MoveOn, funded in part by Soros, has openly allied itself with
> > the protesters.
>
> Ah, the old guilt by association smear: MoveOn says they support the
> protests. MoveOn is funded in part by George Soros. Therefore George
> Soros is organizing the protests.
>
>
>
> > In addition, we have some unions in the mix: the United Auto Workers,
> > the United Federation of Teachers and, of course, the always reliable
> > SEIU. Of course not all workers in those unions support bringing down
> > capitalism.
>
> Earlier Bill said, "We aren't exactly sure" why people are protesting.
> Now he's sure it's about "bringing down capitalism."
>
> > They don't. But their leadership is certainly sympathetic
> > to the demonstrators.
>
> So union leadership wants to bring down capitalism too?
>
> > But again, what do these people want?
>
> You just said they wanted to bring down capitalism.
>
>
>
> > The common thread seems to be "income equality."
>
> No, the common thread is anger at what Wall Street and the Banks have
> gotten away with and what they are liable to do in the future if they
> aren't stopped.
>
> > Groups like the
> > Working Families Party and the Strong Economy for All Coalition are
> > basically socialistic outfits.
>
> Again with the old guilt by association smear.
>
> > They want the government to take money
> > away from the affluent and give it to them, a nice deal if you can
> > get it. And you can get it in places like Cuba and Zimbabwe.
>
> > The big money behind these protesters, Soros, he doesn't want
> > socialism.
>
> Soros contributes to MoveOn so that means he is the boogyman behind
> anything that MoveOn endorses.
>
> > Soros is the biggest capitalist on the planet. He wants
> > power and these groups are using the far-left zealots to try to
> > achieve that.
>
> So the biggest capitalist on the planet is trying to bring down
> capitalism because that'll make him more powerful?
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday the protesters issued a statement: "[We want to] voice
> > our belief that the American dream will live again, that the American
> > way is to help one another succeed. Our voice, our values, will be
> > heard."
>
> > The key phrase there is "to help one another succeed." But these
> > people are not asking for voluntary help. They want to take stuff by
> > force if necessary.
>
> Like the government does already through regulation and taxation.
>
> Here again Bill claims to know exactly what they want after he has said
> repeatedly that he's not sure what they want.
>
>
>
> > It is true the far-left is very disappointed with President Obama
> > because he has not been radical enough. Mr. Obama rightly knows the
> > vast majority of Americans do not want socialism, and while some of
> > his programs are designed to redistribute income, the president knows
> > he would be politically doomed if he threw in with these hard-core
> > radicals.
>
> So Obama won't make the same mistake as Republicans have with the
> teabaggers.
>
> --
> Barb

there are three levels of decay in conservatism, first off, you get a
conservative revolution that implements their unworkable, strange,
even scary policies. the second happens when the first fails, as it
always does. the second is the drive for purity, its libertarian
fundamentalism, a harder more pure drive to get the polices working.
this to will fail, which will lead to conservatism's eventual ultimate
decay, the third level, fascism, where the conservatives,
libertarians, and fundamentalists will turn to their ayn rand fascist
superman to right all of the wrongs.

Ed Stasiak

10/7/2011 6:01:00 PM

0

> Barb May
>
> The Wall Street protests don't have a clearly defined set of goals
> because they are not an astroturf creation like the teabaggers.

No, but they are working on it. Thou for some reason, the posts I
made
to the thread quickly disappeared without explanation;

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-edit...

But then true to form, the Left shoots itself in the foot and drives
average
Americans into the arms of the Rightwingers;

http://feministing.com/2011/10/04/guest-post-my-hope-for-occupy-wa...

"Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary
“progressive stack.”

A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A
progressive
stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak
before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in
place
since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.

“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week,
encouraging
white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire
lives
and to step back from continually speaking."

Barb May

10/7/2011 6:26:00 PM

0

Ed Stasiak wrote:
> But then true to form, the Left shoots itself in the foot and drives
> average
> Americans into the arms of the Rightwingers;

Because nothing will drive "Americans into the arms of the Rightwingers"
faster than giving women and minorities an equal voice.

Yeah, I can see that.

--
Barb


BeamMeUpScotty

10/7/2011 6:28:00 PM

0

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:24:32 -0700, "Barb May"
<barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

>BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:42:48 -0700, "Barb May"
>> <barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>>
>>>> Groups like the
>>>> Working Families Party and the Strong Economy for All Coalition are
>>>> basically socialistic outfits.
>>>
>>> Again with the old guilt by association smear.
>>
>> Who you "choose" to associate with, tells a lot about who you are.
>
>An undesirable person can choose to "associate" with me by being seen in
>the same places I go but that wouldn't mean that I was associating with
>them. Do you understand the difference?


And why would you continue to go where someone who is undesirable is
stalking you ?

Are you confused?


>> The old ideas are based in reality, you aren't.
>
>My reality is based on fact, not fiction like yours.


Reality says you are irrational.

Barb May

10/7/2011 6:39:00 PM

0

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:24:32 -0700, "Barb May"
> <barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:42:48 -0700, "Barb May"
>>> <barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Groups like the
>>>>> Working Families Party and the Strong Economy for All Coalition
>>>>> are basically socialistic outfits.
>>>>
>>>> Again with the old guilt by association smear.
>>>
>>> Who you "choose" to associate with, tells a lot about who you are.
>>
>> An undesirable person can choose to "associate" with me by being
>> seen in the same places I go but that wouldn't mean that I was
>> associating with them. Do you understand the difference?
>
>
> And why would you continue to go where someone who is undesirable is
> stalking you ?

This is a classic example of right-wing extrapolation that attempts to
turn a benign concept into something sinister, so that it can be turned
on its head.

>
> Are you confused?

You're the one who can't understand a simple analogy that proves your
assertions are BS.


>>> The old ideas are based in reality, you aren't.
>>
>> My reality is based on fact, not fiction like yours.
>
>
> Reality says you are irrational.

No, any objective reading of your responses here indicates that you are
a moron.
--
Barb


BeamMeUpScotty

10/7/2011 9:29:00 PM

0

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:39:01 -0700, "Barb May"
<barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

>BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 08:24:32 -0700, "Barb May"
>> <barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 14:42:48 -0700, "Barb May"
>>>> <barbmay@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Groups like the
>>>>>> Working Families Party and the Strong Economy for All Coalition
>>>>>> are basically socialistic outfits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again with the old guilt by association smear.
>>>>
>>>> Who you "choose" to associate with, tells a lot about who you are.
>>>
>>> An undesirable person can choose to "associate" with me by being
>>> seen in the same places I go but that wouldn't mean that I was
>>> associating with them. Do you understand the difference?
>>
>>
>> And why would you continue to go where someone who is undesirable is
>> stalking you ?
>
>This is a classic example of right-wing extrapolation that attempts to
>turn a benign concept into something sinister, so that it can be turned
>on its head.


Half right, I did extrapolate and question....

Actually it's an example of me carrying on the scenario you created.

I was curious as to what you might give as a good reason to NOT change
your habits when you have an obvious reason to do so.

if you hang with drug addicts and start using drugs, then changing
your hang-outs and associations might be an option, lest you be
thought of as a drug addict.

Not that I mind if you are a drug addict, I'm all for you doing what
you want, but then I'm also for others and myself using your
associations to make an initial judgment of what kind of person you
are.

I am after all, for the repeal of all the unconstitutional Federal
drug laws. The fact I don't use illegal drugs is also a factor. But
feel free to think what you want in light of the fact I am against
Federal government regulations of many items that are not under the
constitutional powers of the Federal government.

By the way I am no where near Right wing, I would guess the
Libertarians are probably closest to my ideology. I even want the
State government to leave you alone to become a prostitute if that's
what you want.

>> >> Are you confused?
>
> You're the one who can't understand a simple analogy that proves your
> assertions are BS.

I see holes in your analogy.



>>> >>>> The old ideas are based in reality, you aren't.
>> >>>
>> >>> My reality is based on fact, not fiction like yours.
> >>
> >>
> >> Reality says you are irrational. >
> No, any objective reading of your responses here indicates that you are a moron.

That may well be, yet it has zero to do with your scenario being
contrived and ridiculous and the old saying of "who you associate with
tells a lot about you"


I don't associate with morons.... well other than here, and I have
no history of being a moron, unless you base it all on opinion. Still
there is little I can do to dissuade others from having that opinion
of me. All I can do is keep going places where I go and they know
me as someone who is NOT a MORON.






Ed Stasiak

10/8/2011 1:49:00 AM

0

> Barb May
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > But then true to form, the Left shoots itself in the foot and
> > drives average Americans into the arms of the Rightwingers;
>
> Because nothing will drive "Americans into the arms of the
> Rightwingers" faster than giving women and minorities an
> equal voice.

It's politically correct quotas on speech, for Christ's sake!

This is nothing but the same, tired "evil white patriarchy" bullshit
we've been getting from the Left for generations now. Is it any
surprise that average Americans don't give a crap about the
protestors?

> Yeah, I can see that.

I'm not surprised in the least that you can't.

trotsky

10/8/2011 11:49:00 AM

0

On 10/7/11 1:25 PM, Barb May wrote:
> Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> But then true to form, the Left shoots itself in the foot and drives
>> average
>> Americans into the arms of the Rightwingers;
>
> Because nothing will drive "Americans into the arms of the Rightwingers"
> faster than giving women and minorities an equal voice.
>
> Yeah, I can see that


I have no idea what "Ed Stasiak" thinks he trying to say, but "Average
Americans" would make a great name for a rock band.

Barb May

10/8/2011 5:19:00 PM

0

Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Barb May
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> But then true to form, the Left shoots itself in the foot and
>>> drives average Americans into the arms of the Rightwingers;
>>
>> Because nothing will drive "Americans into the arms of the
>> Rightwingers" faster than giving women and minorities an
>> equal voice.
>
> It's politically correct quotas on speech, for Christ's sake!

No, it's making sure that those who normally aren't heard from get a
chance to speak.

>
> This is nothing but the same, tired "evil white patriarchy" bullshit
> we've been getting from the Left for generations now.

Has the "evil white patriarchy" loosened their grip on power yet? Nope.

> Is it any
> surprise that average Americans don't give a crap about the
> protestors?

Average WHITE American males feel threatened by any attempt to give
those they have disenfranchised a voice.

--
Barb