Ahh... but you are only quoting the end results, not the roots of the problem. If you had read the article I attached, you would know that there is a real correllation between two of the items that you listed above: pornography -> character conflicts, pornography -> sex
You people scare me. Need I point out the numerous unfounded, biased, and skewed perceptions in this logic?
You see, the degradation of moral character is the CAUSE of these problems
I see. An pornography is the sole evil destroying the moral character behind all failed marriages. And behind all the moral deacy in America.
No. You seem to have missed my point: there is a difference between saying A)if you want state funds, internet access must be filtered, and B) no one may view such-and-such on the internet. "B" is censorship, but "A" is NOT
Sorry, its all censorship, just a matter of location. And as libraries are a public government supplied entity, they cannot censor. If it was Bob Jones Library which he built and operated entirely out of his own pocket, sure, he could filter all day long. But that is not the issue here.
It doesn't ban anything. No sites are made illegal under Utah law.
Ok, if your going to nitpick. It BANS access to the BANNED sites from the GIVEN library computer with the FILTERING software in place.
Don't you get it? Can't you see the difference between saying "this site may not exist" (which would be censorship) and saying "we won't provide money for people to view this stuff, but if you take this safeguard you can have the money" (which is NOT censorship)?
Again, you forget where this money comes from, and the purpose of a library.
But that wide group of people can choose to use different means of access
Sorry, but that is a lame argument. Period. See above.
The state of Utah has decided that THEIR money will be used to support a limited type of access
And since they are a government institution proposing the censorship of sites, I call this an abuse of freedom.
No speech has been limited. None. NONE! Utah just isn't going to pay to help people hear that speech. The right to free speech does not include a guarantee of listeners. The right to free speech does not include a guarantee of any kind of internet access in your local library. The right to free speech does not include a guarantee that there will even BE any local library.
The mormon hit men were disbanded years ago. They were called the Danites and were used to execute or run off individuals deemed a threat to the church.
Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.
Your bias is a cancer apparent to everyone but yourself. This is a false assumption, and blanket statement. Go preach elsewhere.
Filters are not a solution to this issue. They dont work, and they cause more harm than good. Supervision, parental review, and other such methods are faaar more effective, and involve the parents in guiding their children as to the appropriate use of information.
Your assertion that it is pornography that breaks up families is wildly unfounded and completely off base. It is character conflicts, money, and sex. There are some very insignificant other causes (under 1%) but they are rare enough as to be ignored.
It is your religious bias that leads to you view pronagraphy and sexually explicit material in general as nothing but sinister and corruptive. This too is a false pretense, propagated and held to by religious fundamentalists of all affiliation.
Sorry, but it depends on your definition of bizzare extremist. In most minds no coffe, no tea, no pre marital sex or even mastrubation, no profanity, no buying or selling on sunday, etc etc.. would be enough to consider someone extreme.
Course, from the mormon standpoint this is a good thing. They are apart from the world after all, and their ways are strange ways..
So, you'll strain out the freedom of speech GNAT to swallow the pornography CAMEL
Filters dont stop pornagraphy.
Kill you're friends as long as there's free speech, jam pornography down the kids throat as long as the pornographers get to have a web site that expresses their free speach
Need I reply to this? If kids want pr0n, they get pr0n. Period. Filters are no inconvienance for the horny youngster. (or adult for that matter).
and burn the flag because that shows that it's ok to hate the land you love, and defend the KKK because they must have their hate mongering
Sorry, but as long as they keep it to speach this is legal, and should be allowed. If you agree with their blantant hate mongering, that is your problem. Very few people are closed minded and big enough bigots to follow their filth. But they still have a right to say it.
Sure, you can't say fire in a crowded theater, but you can't say, God forbid, that pornography should be filtered
Is there supposed to be a correlation here? One endagers life, the other is a moral decision. Spare me the dramatic falsities.
that'll be heresy and an abomination to the freedom of speech god
Im glad you beleive so passionately in your fundamentalist viewpoint. Id like to send you all off to canada than hear this crap, but again, you have your right to say what you will.
If your state has a majority of Fundamentalist mentality religious groups, you may be in trouble. (this is a generalization, but holds true for a very very large majority) The Fundamentalist or very conservative types dont view this even remotely as a free speech issue, because it DOES ban some bad sites from access.
They dont care about the valid sites that get blocked, the legitimate use that is stifled, or the speach that is unfairly censored. These are minor annoyances; cansualites for the GREATER GOOD.
They dont care that these filters dont work, as long as SOME of the content is blocked, its all good and right in their eyes. Ask them, they will tell you so, there are quite a few posts showing this already.
The problem is, fundamentalists are always trying to get these kind of laws in place. I can help but laugh when I read about states where vibrators are illegal but shotguns are sold over the counter.
So, make your voice heard, and get the truth out about the filters. They dont solve the problem to any degree and DO cause much harm.
Wow, have you been in the dark during the whole censoring issue? Here are the main reasons why this stuff is a violation of free speach:
1. it DOESN'T work. Period. You still get smut, you still get offensive content.
2. it BANS valid sites. Thus stifling the availability of these sites to users for no reason.
3. it is CONTROLLED by companies with varied interests, and is thus censorship based on the views of a very small organization for a very wide group of people.
These filters cause more harm than good, and are a violation of free speech however you look at it. If something is to be done about content, these fileters are NOT the answer.
Its 1118. As is readily apparent to anyone well versed in the satanic rituals, Shifted right by one in base 10, and then multiplied by 6 gives us.. *gasp* 666!
Therfore, it is obvious that Microsoft is planning a cultish execution for our flightless mascot. Perhaps an infiltration is in order...
where the classic supercomputer does not have a cache. The supercomputer streams operand vectors from memory to vector processing units in the CPU and the results are streamed back to memory.
Damn! And I thought all those beowulf clusters on the top 500 supercomputer list were real. Imposters!!!
Screw that whole messy intercourse crap, go straight for the mentally induced orgasm!
Flip a switch and giove yourself hundreds of sequential orgasms of the most intense variety in cascading fashion until you lie limp on the floor, drool oozing form your half comatose face, and your pants glued to your waiste will a massive congealed sperm epoxy.
Yes, but its dextroamphetamine with no need for painkillers!!
And hell, any coder thats wired balls to the wall cranking code at 5 times normal human limits with no errors will praise the lord for the industrial military complex that is providing his mental juice.
But I am currently on a project implementing HA distributed CORBA frameworks for internal software deployment.
We have the framework on HP and SUN, with Java for the GUI interface. This code is written with the above precautions, and we dont have production problems aside from the rare misconfiguration issues which are quickly diagnosed and fixed. Once or twice a month a component will hang, but the HA software and internals catch this as well leaving about 5 minutes of downtime before failover.
So, your assertion that reliable, flexible cannot be written is false. But it isnt easy either.
I made a mistake by setting LilyPond code as an example, which has lots of historic baggage. And no, don't start about good design; the problem I set out to solve was much more complex than I could imagine. Trying to design stuff is relatively easy when the problem is well-known, and the requirements for the design are obvious.
Yes, that is usually the case. But good design isolates the unknown, variable and yet undiscovered parts from the concrete, well understood elements. This is where part of your problem lies. The inability to abstract and separate.
In this case, neither was. You just have to try writing something, and see how it comes out. Then comes the problem with C++: going along with the general popularity of C++, you write the prototype in C++; I did. As you go along and improve the program, you abstract things into new classes, and extend it while throwing away code. However at some point you reach rock bottom with C++: you can't abstract away the fact the C++ is compiled, and you can not generate code or treat classes as objects.
No, thats more of a C style development process. Ideally, you would design as much as you could from the known quantities, create the classes and relationships flexible enough to account for the unknowns and then your program can grow with the problem and new situations that arise. The fact that C++ is compiled SHOULDNT be an issue. Again, your blaming design issues back on the language.
It's probably been my error to start the program in C++ in the first place. That is the real design issue. And this kind of design issue is not treated anywhere in the C++ books. The language is not complete (in an abstract sense), which means that it limits you in an essential way in how you can abstract the code you write.
I would say it was an error to undertake this project in C++ with out a thourough understanding of OOD.
It is my impression that the C++ committee is also faced with limits on the language, and continually extends C++. What I can't fathom that nobody concludes
"Hey, backwards compatibility with C *and* full OOP support is too complex. Lets stop with C++ and start something new"
but they say
"great, lets bolt another thing on top of the standard."
This was the real reason behind asking my question to Bjarne. Until someone questions the design principles behind C++, it will never stop growing more complex.
Thats a whole other issue. I disagree here as well, but wont go into detail.
Besides all this it just a pain to write tight code in the language. I tried to demonstrate this by showing a small snippet of C++. This also was a mistake, because I got an enormous amount of flak for not following other people's petty rulebooks. And lots of people here seem to think that mindlessly following rules constitutes "good programming" or "good design".
That is such an ignorant statement. Think about it. Those petty rules which you violated where common practice for standard C++ development. The fact that you disregard them so easily is testament to your lack of knowledge with C++ and OOD.
What I found rather amusing is that all C++ supporters on this flamefest were very quick to attack you on grounds of your Code snippets saying you should better learn (a lot) more of C++, without realising that this is the ultimate knockout argument against C++ as a general purpose programming language
C++ isnt a general purpose programming language IMHO. C or PERL would be better for smaller more stand alone parts of computation.
But nothing can touch the power, flexibility, and scalability of well written C++ system. Period. And it is the continual persuit of such systems and their attaintment which makes C++ so popular.
The main point in criticizing this guys code was to highlight the fact that he needs to study OOD/OOP and the C++ language support for these features BEFORE he continues to bash the language itself for its percieved drawbacks.
C++ is not for everyone. It IS an incredibly complicated language. But that is a good thing. It gives you the power to write fast, scalable, flexible systems when used properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh... but you are only quoting the end results, not the roots of the problem. If you had read the article I attached, you would know that there is a real correllation between two of the items that you listed above: pornography -> character conflicts, pornography -> sex
You people scare me. Need I point out the numerous unfounded, biased, and skewed perceptions in this logic?
You see, the degradation of moral character is the CAUSE of these problems
I see. An pornography is the sole evil destroying the moral character behind all failed marriages.
And behind all the moral deacy in America.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
No. You seem to have missed my point: there is a difference between saying A)if you want state funds, internet access must be filtered, and B) no one may view such-and-such on the internet. "B" is censorship, but "A" is NOT
Sorry, its all censorship, just a matter of location. And as libraries are a public government supplied entity, they cannot censor. If it was Bob Jones Library which he built and operated entirely out of his own pocket, sure, he could filter all day long. But that is not the issue here.
It doesn't ban anything. No sites are made illegal under Utah law.
Ok, if your going to nitpick. It BANS access to the BANNED sites from the GIVEN library computer with the FILTERING software in place.
Don't you get it? Can't you see the difference between saying "this site may not exist" (which would be censorship) and saying "we won't provide money for people to view this stuff, but if you take this safeguard you can have the money" (which is NOT censorship)?
Again, you forget where this money comes from, and the purpose of a library.
But that wide group of people can choose to use different means of access
Sorry, but that is a lame argument. Period. See above.
The state of Utah has decided that THEIR money will be used to support a limited type of access
And since they are a government institution proposing the censorship of sites, I call this an abuse of freedom.
No speech has been limited. None. NONE! Utah just isn't going to pay to help people hear that speech. The right to free speech does not include a guarantee of listeners. The right to free speech does not include a guarantee of any kind of internet access in your local library. The right to free speech does not include a guarantee that there will even BE any local library.
*sigh* same argument, same flawed logic.
Generally, sites that are blocked are blocked for a reason
Right. It is the fact that many sites are blocked for NO reason, or a BIASED reason that is cause for severe concern.
Moreover, the information on a blocked site can almost always be obtained by other means in a library
Wrong! Do I have to explain this? Dont be a fool.
The mormon hit men were disbanded years ago. They were called the Danites and were used to execute or run off individuals deemed a threat to the church.
Likewise, you don't have to roll around in the smut to know that it can warp your conception of people (women esp), and turn them into nothing by sex objects.
Your bias is a cancer apparent to everyone but yourself. This is a false assumption, and blanket statement. Go preach elsewhere.
Filters are not a solution to this issue. They dont work, and they cause more harm than good. Supervision, parental review, and other such methods are faaar more effective, and involve the parents in guiding their children as to the appropriate use of information.
Your assertion that it is pornography that breaks up families is wildly unfounded and completely off base. It is character conflicts, money, and sex. There are some very insignificant other causes (under 1%) but they are rare enough as to be ignored.
It is your religious bias that leads to you view pronagraphy and sexually explicit material in general as nothing but sinister and corruptive. This too is a false pretense, propagated and held to by religious fundamentalists of all affiliation.
Dont try and spread your lies here..
Sorry, but it depends on your definition of bizzare extremist. In most minds no coffe, no tea, no pre marital sex or even mastrubation, no profanity, no buying or selling on sunday, etc etc.. would be enough to consider someone extreme.
Course, from the mormon standpoint this is a good thing. They are apart from the world after all, and their ways are strange ways..
Thanks for the fine example.
So, you'll strain out the freedom of speech GNAT to swallow the pornography CAMEL
Filters dont stop pornagraphy.
Kill you're friends as long as there's free speech, jam pornography down the kids throat as long as the pornographers get to have a web site that expresses their free speach
Need I reply to this? If kids want pr0n, they get pr0n. Period. Filters are no inconvienance for the horny youngster. (or adult for that matter).
and burn the flag because that shows that it's ok to hate the land you love, and defend the KKK because they must have their hate mongering
Sorry, but as long as they keep it to speach this is legal, and should be allowed. If you agree with their blantant hate mongering, that is your problem. Very few people are closed minded and big enough bigots to follow their filth. But they still have a right to say it.
Sure, you can't say fire in a crowded theater, but you can't say, God forbid, that pornography should be filtered
Is there supposed to be a correlation here? One endagers life, the other is a moral decision. Spare me the dramatic falsities.
that'll be heresy and an abomination to the freedom of speech god
Im glad you beleive so passionately in your fundamentalist viewpoint. Id like to send you all off to canada than hear this crap, but again, you have your right to say what you will.
If your state has a majority of Fundamentalist mentality religious groups, you may be in trouble. (this is a generalization, but holds true for a very very large majority) The Fundamentalist or very conservative types dont view this even remotely as a free speech issue, because it DOES ban some bad sites from access.
They dont care about the valid sites that get blocked, the legitimate use that is stifled, or the speach that is unfairly censored. These are minor annoyances; cansualites for the GREATER GOOD.
They dont care that these filters dont work, as long as SOME of the content is blocked, its all good and right in their eyes. Ask them, they will tell you so, there are quite a few posts showing this already.
The problem is, fundamentalists are always trying to get these kind of laws in place. I can help but laugh when I read about states where vibrators are illegal but shotguns are sold over the counter.
So, make your voice heard, and get the truth out about the filters. They dont solve the problem to any degree and DO cause much harm.
Thats proven.
Wow, have you been in the dark during the whole censoring issue? Here are the main reasons why this stuff is a violation of free speach:
1. it DOESN'T work. Period. You still get smut, you still get offensive content.
2. it BANS valid sites. Thus stifling the availability of these sites to users for no reason.
3. it is CONTROLLED by companies with varied interests, and is thus censorship based on the views of a very small organization for a very wide group of people.
These filters cause more harm than good, and are a violation of free speech however you look at it. If something is to be done about content, these fileters are NOT the answer.
P.S. Someone in utah let us know.. i'm curious if they implement a filter system baised towards mormon ends.
If the mormons are going to block sites that detail their religious cerimonies and truth about their history like:
http://members.aol.com/VeilW orker/endowment.index.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html
or even:
http://www.utlm.org/
now that would be filtering...
;)
Did anyone see their vendor ID #?
Its 1118. As is readily apparent to anyone well versed in the satanic rituals, Shifted right by one in base 10, and then multiplied by 6 gives us.. *gasp* 666!
Therfore, it is obvious that Microsoft is planning a cultish execution for our flightless mascot. Perhaps an infiltration is in order...
what tha FUCK?
scream and all its mutants SUCK ASS
This is news for lamers, stuff that sucks.
At least it was short. FOr a katz piece. In fact, the shortest Ive ever seen him write. So it gets a 2/10 instead of a -50.
They were best in chasing amy.
Jay r0x!
and silent bob is cool. even when hes not silent.
where the classic supercomputer does not have a cache. The supercomputer streams operand vectors from memory to vector processing units in the CPU and the results are streamed back to memory.
Damn! And I thought all those beowulf clusters on the top 500 supercomputer list were real. Imposters!!!
I am offering mainframe web hosting for $5 per month. Yes, $5 per month.
Service includes:
100 Meg of disk space
Free name registration
50 Gigbytes transfer / month.
One time setup fee of US $3,000,000 due at signing.
Mainframe == data pipes the size of my love rod
SuperComputer == terflops the size of my love rod
So, mainframes are data pushers. (like masssssive I/O to disk / network / processes)
supercomputers are number crunchers. Lots and lots of flops. Flopping.
Both cost a god awefull sum of greenbacks.
Damnit slashdot.. I was halfway through that article when it got splatted by the /. effect.
Fuck!
Screw that whole messy intercourse crap, go straight for the mentally induced orgasm!
Flip a switch and giove yourself hundreds of sequential orgasms of the most intense variety in cascading fashion until you lie limp on the floor, drool oozing form your half comatose face, and your pants glued to your waiste will a massive congealed sperm epoxy.
Yes, its every perverts dream cum true...
Yes, but its dextroamphetamine with no need for painkillers!!
And hell, any coder thats wired balls to the wall cranking code at 5 times normal human limits with no errors will praise the lord for the industrial military complex that is providing his mental juice.
Amen!
I wish I was coding linux candy full time.
But I am currently on a project implementing HA distributed CORBA frameworks for internal software deployment.
We have the framework on HP and SUN, with Java for the GUI interface. This code is written with the above precautions, and we dont have production problems aside from the rare misconfiguration issues which are quickly diagnosed and fixed. Once or twice a month a component will hang, but the HA software and internals catch this as well leaving about 5 minutes of downtime before failover.
So, your assertion that reliable, flexible cannot be written is false. But it isnt easy either.
Allright, your not a VB coder.. I take it back..
(nekked) I am an idiot! (/nekked)
I know pointer arithmetic in C.. does that count?
;)
I made a mistake by setting LilyPond code as an example, which has lots of historic baggage. And no, don't start about good design; the problem I set out to solve was much more complex than I could imagine. Trying to design stuff is relatively easy when the problem is well-known, and the requirements for the design are obvious.
Yes, that is usually the case. But good design isolates the unknown, variable and yet undiscovered parts from the concrete, well understood elements.
This is where part of your problem lies. The inability to abstract and separate.
In this case, neither was. You just have to try writing something, and see how it comes out. Then comes the problem with C++: going along with the general popularity of C++, you write the prototype in C++; I did. As you go along and improve the program, you abstract things into new classes, and extend it while throwing away code. However at some point you reach rock bottom with C++: you can't abstract away the fact the C++ is compiled, and you can not generate code or treat classes as objects.
No, thats more of a C style development process. Ideally, you would design as much as you could from the known quantities, create the classes and relationships flexible enough to account for the unknowns and then your program can grow with the problem and new situations that arise.
The fact that C++ is compiled SHOULDNT be an issue. Again, your blaming design issues back on the language.
It's probably been my error to start the program in C++ in the first place. That is the real design issue. And this kind of design issue is not treated anywhere in the C++ books. The language is not complete (in an abstract sense), which means that it limits you in an essential way in how you can abstract the code you write.
I would say it was an error to undertake this project in C++ with out a thourough understanding of OOD.
It is my impression that the C++ committee is also faced with limits on the language, and continually extends C++. What I can't fathom that nobody concludes
"Hey, backwards compatibility with C *and* full OOP support is too complex. Lets stop with C++ and start something new"
but they say
"great, lets bolt another thing on top of the standard."
This was the real reason behind asking my question to Bjarne. Until someone questions the design principles behind C++, it will never stop growing more complex.
Thats a whole other issue. I disagree here as well, but wont go into detail.
Besides all this it just a pain to write tight code in the language. I tried to demonstrate this by showing a small snippet of C++. This also was a mistake, because I got an enormous amount of flak for not following other people's petty rulebooks. And lots of people here seem to think that mindlessly following rules constitutes "good programming" or "good design".
That is such an ignorant statement. Think about it. Those petty rules which you violated where common practice for standard C++ development.
The fact that you disregard them so easily is testament to your lack of knowledge with C++ and OOD.
What I found rather amusing is that all C++ supporters on this flamefest were very quick to attack you on grounds of your Code snippets saying you should better learn (a lot) more of C++, without realising that this is the ultimate knockout argument against C++ as a general purpose programming language
C++ isnt a general purpose programming language IMHO. C or PERL would be better for smaller more stand alone parts of computation.
But nothing can touch the power, flexibility, and scalability of well written C++ system. Period. And it is the continual persuit of such systems and their attaintment which makes C++ so popular.
The main point in criticizing this guys code was to highlight the fact that he needs to study OOD/OOP and the C++ language support for these features BEFORE he continues to bash the language itself for its percieved drawbacks.
C++ is not for everyone. It IS an incredibly complicated language. But that is a good thing. It gives you the power to write fast, scalable, flexible systems when used properly.