It'll take more than me making a fool of myself to convince me to RTFA before commenting;-P
As I understand it, the kernel support isn't really a game-changer for GCD. Microsoft's TPL machinery seems to get by fine without any such kernel-awareness. The same goes for Intel TBB. Perhaps it starts to matter under particularly heavy loads, I don't know.
In other words, have the languages tried to compensate for the fact that there are no new OS-level light-weight paradigms to take advantage of multi-core processors?
But this isn't true. Apple's Grand Central Dispatch has kernel support in Darwin.
A fair point. A bit like this programming language is slow, which might be broadly true in practice, but is really a property of existing implementations rather than the language.
You apparently don't understand even the first thing about the US constitution.
Again, it imposes restrictions on the government, not on private corporations. The only way the constitution relates to your ability to refuse to hire racial minorities, is in whether or not it's unconstitutional for the government to ban you from doing it.
Personally, I consider Google to be a company with a very impressive history of technical achievements, but with a worrying penchant for collecting private data.
I doubt I'm far off the Slashdot, uh, 'median opinion' here.
Shuttleworth and Ubuntu have acutally been quite generous. They should start sueing the companies in question and make some noise about why exactly they are doing it.
Indeed, particularly considering that trademarks can be lost if not defended.
To play Devil's advocate: the 'upside' of the way things work at the moment is that actual harm having been caused is a far more reliable indicator of the potential for harm, that lawyers' arguments. That, combined with limited government resources, means the current system has at least some merit.
It's certainly not government-run-amok material, but when it comes to questions on the role of government, one shouldn't be dismissive of the government intruding into tiny details of society.
Slashdot Mirror
It'll take more than me making a fool of myself to convince me to RTFA before commenting ;-P
As I understand it, the kernel support isn't really a game-changer for GCD. Microsoft's TPL machinery seems to get by fine without any such kernel-awareness. The same goes for Intel TBB. Perhaps it starts to matter under particularly heavy loads, I don't know.
Close, but they're purely compile-time, and apply to the question of what types should be accepted by code templates?
In other words, have the languages tried to compensate for the fact that there are no new OS-level light-weight paradigms to take advantage of multi-core processors?
But this isn't true. Apple's Grand Central Dispatch has kernel support in Darwin.
Opaque binary-only windowing environments don't qualify as modern Unix.
How does having a disagreeable front-end prevent the OS from qualifying as UNIX?
Surely the more relevant matter is that Darwin is so unremarkable.
A fair point. A bit like this programming language is slow, which might be broadly true in practice, but is really a property of existing implementations rather than the language.
So the phone is 'in on the act', huh? Do all phones do this?
Gotcha. Forgive my snark.
Surely a sensible manager would realise that the real liability is in getting owned by a genuinely malicious attacker, no?
How does this work? NAT-detection? Or is the phone notifying Verizon that it's running a hotspot?
I think that AC is just laughing at Trump's style of speech.
C is written in machine code
Nope. Maybe the earliest C compilers were, but all modern C compilers are written in C/C++.
Of course not. Don't be absurd.
You apparently don't understand even the first thing about the US constitution.
Again, it imposes restrictions on the government, not on private corporations. The only way the constitution relates to your ability to refuse to hire racial minorities, is in whether or not it's unconstitutional for the government to ban you from doing it.
Pretty much, yeah.
The US constitution restricts the government, remember?
if they said "Don't even look at GPLed code", that would be far more understandable
Not really. The learning aspect of studying Free software is never bound by viral licensing. See: Freedom 1.
Bzzz. Python isn't typeless, it's dynamically typed.
If you want typeless, look at assembly languages, or FORTH.
Huh. So if you visit the UK, you won't be given access to Amazon Prime Video, despite that it's available in the UK?
Personally, I consider Google to be a company with a very impressive history of technical achievements, but with a worrying penchant for collecting private data.
I doubt I'm far off the Slashdot, uh, 'median opinion' here.
Nope. Slashdotters are generally nervous when it comes to corporate power of this sort. Brand isn't the deciding factor.
Shuttleworth and Ubuntu have acutally been quite generous. They should start sueing the companies in question and make some noise about why exactly they are doing it.
Indeed, particularly considering that trademarks can be lost if not defended.
It's not a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue. You're not allowed to break Ubuntu and still call it Ubuntu.
See also the Debian/Mozilla trademark silliness.
But that's not really how this works. You just pay for a service like Amazon Glacier, and it's a constant renewal fee.
To play Devil's advocate: the 'upside' of the way things work at the moment is that actual harm having been caused is a far more reliable indicator of the potential for harm, that lawyers' arguments. That, combined with limited government resources, means the current system has at least some merit.
that requires humans
Well that's the thing. If machines can replace not only the human body, but also the human mind, what's left for humans?
I think we agree.
It's certainly not government-run-amok material, but when it comes to questions on the role of government, one shouldn't be dismissive of the government intruding into tiny details of society.