Re: notifying particular thread to wake up.
nebulous99@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 18, 8:28 pm, Arne VajhHj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
But you are completely missing the point: there is a big difference in
unsolicited posts about site and referring to a site in a relevant
thread.
So spamming is okay, as long as it's somewhat targeted?
No.
But that is irrelevant since the message was not spam.
It follows from the above that referring to a site only in a relevant
thread is not sufficient to mean you're not doing something wrong.
True.
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.
Add this to my generally finding trying to keep information from
people unless they pay you for it to be immoral and greedy. Anyone
posting exclusively links to pay sources of particular information is
clearly participating, whether consciously or not, in such
questionable behavior.
I find withholding anything from someone willing and able to pay the
marginal cost of providing it to them to be questionable, with rare
exceptions (e.g. nuclear weapons). In this case there are legal free
sources of information about Java concurrency and it was not until
after a few pay links that the OP heard of any of these free sources,
which is a situation likely to result in unnecessary costs for
someone. Causing such costs where they are avoidable is at best a form
of negligent behavior; at worst (given intent) borderline criminal.
Even if the causer doesn't gain financially themselves by doing so,
though especially if they do.
I think you have a serious problem.
OP asks for info; gets directed to pay source with conspicuous lack of
mention of a free source I know exists.
Hmm.
A question: do you believe the Java tutorial has as good
information about multithreading as the recommended book ?
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.
The original poster is much better off with a resource that
can help solve not only this problem but also the next ten
or hundrer problems within the domain.
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 !!
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 !
You are the only one who has this bizarre idea.
Incorrect. I am the only one being particularly vocal about it, for
some odd reason. Also I gave a bunch of references establishing that
this "bizarre idea" is actually commonplace and well-documented in
usenet's long and storied history. Postings that consist solely of
pointers to commercial sites have long been viewed with disdain
online.
No no no - you were never able to produce anything backing
your claims.
You assumed the readers had as low an IQ as you and could be fooled
by just posting some links to something different than what you
claimed.
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.
re b)
I agree.
But as has been proven that was not the case here and your
accusations about such was wrong.
re c)
People post what they think is the best answer.
If somebody think they have a better answer they must post it.
re d)
If possible and optimal.
Arne