eight highly active years on slashdot, and you're the fifth person i've marked as a foe. consider yourself potent - maybe that'll get you off of your podium.
If you are yourself acquainted with the issues then obviously I would exclude you from the ranks of the politically naive.
Yeah, but that's exactly the point: you didn't. In fact, you've already accused me of being ignorant, and once I pointed out that I'm quite a bit closer to this than most people, you started backpedalling.
This is the fundamental problem: you believe nobody gets it but you, and you exclude people on a case by case basis. That's arrogant and ugly. That's dismissive and contemptuous. That's also born of a prejudice you have no basis for. By and on the whole, the people I know in this country are in fact well informed.
Nowhere did I say *everyone* in America was uninformed.
Horseshit. The line between everyone and most everyone is unimportant here. You said verbatim that the bulk of Americans are ignorant of our lives. Frankly, sir, we're not terribly interested in baseless hollow slanderous prejudice from the other side of the pond.
I said "***Most*** ordinary American people don't even know or understand...", which I would stand by absolutely
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me, given the contempt you show. This is the social equivalent of racism, plain as day, and I find it offensive. If you actually fail to understand why, then I guess I've nothing left to say.
So it's fruitless for you to complain that I should "do something more productive".
Quit putting words into my mouth in the desperation to demonise me. I've said no such thing.
I'm already doing you a big favour in spending my time in this discussion.
Do you honestly believe that? Here, I'll help you out: don't reply. Stop doing me "favors." Your libel of my nation doesn't improve my life or the life of my friends in any way, and your chattrel doesn't help your nation or your peers in any way. Where the hell this favor comes from is beyond me.
In response to the other direct charges you made, I know very well what ad hominem means but I can't find anything ad hominem in the phrase "if you knew, you wouldn't be complacent".
Then you clearly don't know what Ad Hominem is. Ad Hominem is attacking what someone has said by attacking the person behind it. You pretended that I didn't have substantive knowledge underlying what I said in the attempt to take the air out from under it, when that was unwarranted. That is textbook ad hominem, and if you had any sense you'd be ashamed of yourself.
You guys have got to rid yourselves of this knee-jerk, trigger finger mentality and start realizing who your friends are.
Here's the same stuff. "You guys have..." This is the sort of stuff that makes me wonder what's going on here. Why is it that my personal beef with your bad behavior has been clumsily translated into another attack of nationalism? This isn't about Britain. Many of my dearest friends are in the United Kingdom. This is about you. The sanctimony isn't coming from Britain, it's coming from you. This has nothing to do with America or England. This has to do with your desperation to paint any interpersonal failing with the brush of international politics, as if your caustic egotism has anything to do with relations between the colonies and the motherland.
In as regards realizing who our friends are, look at your foreign aid. You think it's us who's forgotten who relies on who? Get your head out of your ass and look at the world around you, kid. This is classical marginalized master behavior. You (personally, not nation) believe that you have some importance, and you talk down to anyone around you, hoping to shame them into lauding you with thank-yous and so on.
I'm just trying to present the issues to raise awareness and stimulate debate in the US.
Since you don't seem to have much by way of people skills, let me let you in on a hint. If the very first thing you say to a person is "if you knew what you were
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it never has been.
But it *should* be. It is unjust to hold someone accountable for violations of rules they were unaware of.
And yet, it cannot and must not be. If ignorance of the law is a defense, given that there's essentially no way in which to prove what someone is and is not aware, simply to feign cluelessness would become a blanket defense for essentially anything. "Oh, I didn't know I was supposed to pay state and local taxes." "What do you mean, I have to register my car?" "How was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to use the city power taps?"
Consequently we have a lot of people being held accountable for violations of esoteric codes they cannot reasonably be expected to know about.
Can you think of an example which comes in a situation wherein the person should not already have been aware? The fact of the matter is that of personal responsibility - if you're going to engage in a practice, it's your responsibility to find out whether said practice is legal, and if so whether one is doing it in a legal fashion.
Consider a world wherein one is not culpable for the results of one's actions. People could just go on, behaving however the hell they wanted to, and up and until a police officer called them on it, they'd be fine - and then, all they'd need to do would be to go to the courts and say that they didn't know any better. At such a point, the only place wherein law would have any utility whatsoever would be repeat offenders, or a society so overrun with law enforcement officers that essentially nothing would be done.
Your prescription is one of either an authoritarian state or anarchy. We cannot regress to a society in which "I didn't know any better" is a defense. A responsible adult does research, and the law supports that. To "reform" the law such that this research is no longer nessecary is a recipe for abuse, ignorance and general disaster.
I am sure that myself and almost every single person reading this is guilty of something that they are not aware of.
Does it not strike you as odd to begin a discussion based on supposed egregious cases of abuse of jurisprudence based on supposed major legal esoterica, only to follow it up with a discrete admission that it has never actually happened to you or to anyone you know?
Unlike you, I actually have been subject to such a thing. What I learned that day is that judges aren't robotic, faceless automatons, subserviant to the whimsy of a judicial arcana. In fact, it turns out that the reason judges are given the leeway they're given, under the design of the Shakers, is to allow for these laws to exist to protect against instances of abuse, and to still allow for the legal system to give for honest mistakes.
I was running a business, and I had made a fairly serious mistake in as regards the installation of equipment under OSHA regulations. (It was just a UPS, and it didn't occur to me that I'd need to do anything other than to follow the directions just like I would at home; this turned out to be incorrect.) The law said I was good for almost $60K in violations.
The judge said that I had just screwed up. He gave me three weeks to fix it, and I wouldn't be fined unless at the end of those three weeks the fix was not yet in place.
Look, you can say all you want that there's this awful authoritarian bent in our current legal system. But, please, consider this word of advice before you continue: there are documents out there written by the religious group which designed the system, and they directly address the very concerns which it appears you have. The Shakers are the origins of phrases like "better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison an innocent man." Does that sound like the sort of thing which would be said by a group party to generalized oppression?
Really, give them a chance. They worked on this system for nearly a hundred years, and the American criminal jurispruden
Considering that I run two profitable anti-Bush stores, that I campaign publically against the ethical practices of the republican party (have been on television for it,) and that I've held public office, I think you'd do well to investigate someone's background before calling them complacent. Chances are very good that I've done a hell of a lot more about the situation than anyone you know personally. Perhaps instead of lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you or points out your hypocrisy, you could begin to do something more productive than pointing fingers.
By the way, that's called Argumentum ad Hominem - trying (and failing) to make your point by attacking the person to whom you speak.
"No, ISA was under a government-mandated Reasonable And Non-Discrimatory hardware license program which dated from the minicomputer wars of the 1970s."
I'll just disagree in a friendly way with you.
That would be the friendly way in which one avoids looking at easily and publically available court documents saying "yes, this court did exactly what you just pretended didn't happen," right?
There's nothing friendly about lying with a smile on your face and a pleasant tone.
Grammar and Spelling Nazis tremble in the face of His Noodily Might!
The appropriate spelling would be "noodley."
Might should not be capitalized.
Spelling should not be capitalized.
Because it is an admonition, "nazis" should be followed by a comma.
Noodley should not be capitalized.
Using an exclamation mark on an admonition implies a sense of surprise, not of power; you should be using a period.
It's spelling fascists, not spelling nazis.
Naziism is a political premise, not a concrete political party; therefore it is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalized. The insult you are attempting to make is "a spelling National Socialist German Worker."
If you're going to adopt the silly and broken modern trend in religious English of capitalizing nouns pronouns, "face" would be a much stronger candidate for false capitalization than "might."
Anger not the members of the International Socialist Internet Speller and Grammarian Party, for your silly sentences are crunchy, and good with ketchup. (Fear greatly, however, the application of knowledge to the other sentences in your post.)
You don't understand, it's nothing personal. In the first place, Europeans don't hate ordinary American people as such. But it's not ordinary American people who are running the show. Most ordinary American people don't even know or understand what their government are doing, including (especially) most the ones who think they *do* know.
There's nothing sadder than someone who begins by telling us that we don't know what's going on in their home, then proceeds to tell us that they know better than we do what's going on in our home.
It's refreshing to see media skepticism on the other side of the pond. The people who post tend generally not to have any, and whereas the skeptics over here know there are skeptics over there, it's still a wonderful thing to see you sapients come out of the woodwork.
In world war three, the satellites will be the first things to go. They're far too easy targets with far too high military importance. In respect to that fact, the US military has been generating land- and air-based alternatives for the last several years.
Redundancy is great for tragedy. In a nearly indefensible system like satellites, it pretty much doesn't do a damn for war.
Yes, it was, for six hours. It's the only time in the history of the GPS system that this has been done. The reason this was done was due to fear that still-active agents were using the system for precise positioning of further attacks. If you take the time to research things which you happily call urban legends, you will find that the New York state senate held an emergency gather to force the system back to high resolution despite the potential risks, because of the absolute need presented by firefighters and police officers needing to save survivors in very low visibility, high chaos situations.
Please don't announce things as urban legends when you don't have concrete evidence. It's a disgusting spread of disinformation.
They're the same system. It's just that a fragment of the data, the accurate positioning part, is encrypted in a fashion which only certain entities have the capacity to decode.
As far as the military authorizing the use of the more accurate one, sure they do. They just retain the ability to shut off private use during wartime. Given that they've only once ever actually done this, despite that the system has been active throughout six wars, and then only during the 9/11 attack, it is presumed that this ability is largely to be retained to curb domestic problems.
Conspiracy theorists working against easily available public data, start your engines.
Actually, it's 0.007% of the global output, if you'd check the easily available stats you admit you didn't bother to.
And since when has 0.01% of the total output of an entire continent been a small amount, especially on something as frivolous as a redundant satellite positioning system with essentially no added value except the ability to not have to listen to the French bitch about the possibility of a US cutoff?
But still, it is funny to listen to you how whole world is your enemy.
Because we're a popular enemy. It's okay to hate the haves, and not to hate the have-nots. America represents the haves of the last two centuries, so people tend to peg their problems on us. It's the same as it was for Britain in the previous century, France and China before them, and so on.
You want an enemy? Fine. We'll keep feeding you, funding your economies, donating to you your technologies, and generally behaving in a humanitarian fashion that no other country in the history of mankind has ever done. (This will certainly aim at me some flames from people who refuse to check statistics on fear of finding out it's true, but c'est la vie.)
Why? Because it's who we are. We can only hope that China and India will be so generous once their economies become dominant in 30 or so years.
If not, you're bound to learn just how nice it was to have the button under an American thumb.
Service, support, extensions to the software base platform, deployment assistance, design assistance, professional schema optimization, cluster verification, usage licensure for baseline requirement satisfaction, the list goes on and on...
You do realize that open source companies have to turn a profit, right? This sort of thing is usually how it's done - produce a product then make the client pay you if the client is unable to maintain it themselves (or if it's just cheaper than to hire such a person.)
The entire purpose of the article was to display that people who said things like "That should be C" were mired in history, rather than aware of current trends. The only significant subset of C++ given the way the study was made was Embedded C++, as implemented by compilers like GHOC. It's 6:1, C++ versus everything else. C is in everything else, not in C++.
Generally it's a bad idea to contradict people quoting specific-purpose studies based on rumor and common sense. As every engineer learns someday, common sense is more often wrong than right. These days, forth is almost one third as common as C in embedded programming, something almost nobody I know would even think to expect.
Re:translation: LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. According to the RAND corporation, embedded is 6:1 C++ versus everything else combined. C is rolled in with everything else, not with C++. The point of the article was to display the pervasive nature of C++ when making the case for reliable and secure systems, against myths like have otherwise been widely spread throughout this article's response chain.
This isn't cold fusion, it's just a sneaky way of achieving hot fusion without huge x-ray lasers and giant magnets and such.
Bzzt. Cold fusion means achieving fusion with mechanisms other than temperature, for which the temperature generally needs to be on the order of middle seven digits; the bubbles in these machines rarely break the low six digits, and have only twice been measures to break 100,000 degrees F.
Cold fusion is a blanket term covering various techniques, of which this is one; the proper name for use here is Piezofusion. This machine creates fusion through pressure, rather than temperature. In fact, it is cold fusion, arguably the canonical example thereof.
Re:We just got tired of being insulted
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
a big bunch of drones regurgitate some absurdities... Some morons even go so far as... Some morons go so far as... We're just plain tired of... and carry on regurgitating the same crap they heard from some uninformed idiot... very few of the readers here have actually used... You're only hurting yourselves...
Whereas I am a huge C++ zealot, the tone you're taking is the exact same uncompromising assumption of superiority in knowledge and authority that leads other people to saying the very things you're railing against. Your attitude is in fact the facilitator of that which you assail. Like it or not, C++ does have flaws. If you lash out blindly every time someone points one out, you're going to get marginalized very quickly.
Flies with vinegar. Nobody listens to people throwing tantrums, regardless of whether or not they're correct. There are in fact times when other languages are better, for one of several potential reasons falling on either side of the margin wherein C++ is the appropriate language. C++ is fairly clearly a language well-suited to general use; there's a reason it's globally dominant, despite being difficult to learn and fairly error ridden in the case of novice code. For other langauges those characteristics would be a death knell.
Nonetheless, even if you've taken it as some sort of personal insult every time someone raises a viewpoint with which your experiences disagree, perhaps you should take a point from Good Ol' Doctor Valium, and luude out. You'll actually reach people who don't already agree with you if you're, how does that go again, pleasant.
Re:translation: LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Unfortunately for C++, there are very few programs for which this is the appropriate niche.
The RAND corporation says that more than 70% of all software is embedded software. Embedded as an industry is almost universally C++. Please do not confuse being in a different branch of the industry with a branch of industry simply not existing.
Yeah, except that two years ago, the common cry was that Windows was bad because it shipped unsecure - even the things which could be trivially secured with a configuration change weren't. Now, even though the same problem has begun to crop up in some Unix distros, that problem has been swept under the rug. It really doesn't so much matter to the end user whether the fault is in the operating system or the tools running by default there. Most end users boot their machine, and if there's a hole the way it was given to them, there's a hole, period.
Slashdot Mirror
eight highly active years on slashdot, and you're the fifth person i've marked as a foe. consider yourself potent - maybe that'll get you off of your podium.
If you are yourself acquainted with the issues then obviously I would exclude you from the ranks of the politically naive.
..." This is the sort of stuff that makes me wonder what's going on here. Why is it that my personal beef with your bad behavior has been clumsily translated into another attack of nationalism? This isn't about Britain. Many of my dearest friends are in the United Kingdom. This is about you. The sanctimony isn't coming from Britain, it's coming from you. This has nothing to do with America or England. This has to do with your desperation to paint any interpersonal failing with the brush of international politics, as if your caustic egotism has anything to do with relations between the colonies and the motherland.
Yeah, but that's exactly the point: you didn't. In fact, you've already accused me of being ignorant, and once I pointed out that I'm quite a bit closer to this than most people, you started backpedalling.
This is the fundamental problem: you believe nobody gets it but you, and you exclude people on a case by case basis. That's arrogant and ugly. That's dismissive and contemptuous. That's also born of a prejudice you have no basis for. By and on the whole, the people I know in this country are in fact well informed.
Nowhere did I say *everyone* in America was uninformed.
Horseshit. The line between everyone and most everyone is unimportant here. You said verbatim that the bulk of Americans are ignorant of our lives. Frankly, sir, we're not terribly interested in baseless hollow slanderous prejudice from the other side of the pond.
I said "***Most*** ordinary American people don't even know or understand...", which I would stand by absolutely
Honestly, this doesn't surprise me, given the contempt you show. This is the social equivalent of racism, plain as day, and I find it offensive. If you actually fail to understand why, then I guess I've nothing left to say.
So it's fruitless for you to complain that I should "do something more productive".
Quit putting words into my mouth in the desperation to demonise me. I've said no such thing.
I'm already doing you a big favour in spending my time in this discussion.
Do you honestly believe that? Here, I'll help you out: don't reply. Stop doing me "favors." Your libel of my nation doesn't improve my life or the life of my friends in any way, and your chattrel doesn't help your nation or your peers in any way. Where the hell this favor comes from is beyond me.
In response to the other direct charges you made, I know very well what ad hominem means but I can't find anything ad hominem in the phrase "if you knew, you wouldn't be complacent".
Then you clearly don't know what Ad Hominem is. Ad Hominem is attacking what someone has said by attacking the person behind it. You pretended that I didn't have substantive knowledge underlying what I said in the attempt to take the air out from under it, when that was unwarranted. That is textbook ad hominem, and if you had any sense you'd be ashamed of yourself.
You guys have got to rid yourselves of this knee-jerk, trigger finger mentality and start realizing who your friends are.
Here's the same stuff. "You guys have
In as regards realizing who our friends are, look at your foreign aid. You think it's us who's forgotten who relies on who? Get your head out of your ass and look at the world around you, kid. This is classical marginalized master behavior. You (personally, not nation) believe that you have some importance, and you talk down to anyone around you, hoping to shame them into lauding you with thank-yous and so on.
I'm just trying to present the issues to raise awareness and stimulate debate in the US.
Since you don't seem to have much by way of people skills, let me let you in on a hint. If the very first thing you say to a person is "if you knew what you were
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it never has been.
But it *should* be. It is unjust to hold someone accountable for violations of rules they were unaware of.
And yet, it cannot and must not be. If ignorance of the law is a defense, given that there's essentially no way in which to prove what someone is and is not aware, simply to feign cluelessness would become a blanket defense for essentially anything. "Oh, I didn't know I was supposed to pay state and local taxes." "What do you mean, I have to register my car?" "How was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to use the city power taps?"
Consequently we have a lot of people being held accountable for violations of esoteric codes they cannot reasonably be expected to know about.
Can you think of an example which comes in a situation wherein the person should not already have been aware? The fact of the matter is that of personal responsibility - if you're going to engage in a practice, it's your responsibility to find out whether said practice is legal, and if so whether one is doing it in a legal fashion.
Consider a world wherein one is not culpable for the results of one's actions. People could just go on, behaving however the hell they wanted to, and up and until a police officer called them on it, they'd be fine - and then, all they'd need to do would be to go to the courts and say that they didn't know any better. At such a point, the only place wherein law would have any utility whatsoever would be repeat offenders, or a society so overrun with law enforcement officers that essentially nothing would be done.
Your prescription is one of either an authoritarian state or anarchy. We cannot regress to a society in which "I didn't know any better" is a defense. A responsible adult does research, and the law supports that. To "reform" the law such that this research is no longer nessecary is a recipe for abuse, ignorance and general disaster.
I am sure that myself and almost every single person reading this is guilty of something that they are not aware of.
Does it not strike you as odd to begin a discussion based on supposed egregious cases of abuse of jurisprudence based on supposed major legal esoterica, only to follow it up with a discrete admission that it has never actually happened to you or to anyone you know?
Unlike you, I actually have been subject to such a thing. What I learned that day is that judges aren't robotic, faceless automatons, subserviant to the whimsy of a judicial arcana. In fact, it turns out that the reason judges are given the leeway they're given, under the design of the Shakers, is to allow for these laws to exist to protect against instances of abuse, and to still allow for the legal system to give for honest mistakes.
I was running a business, and I had made a fairly serious mistake in as regards the installation of equipment under OSHA regulations. (It was just a UPS, and it didn't occur to me that I'd need to do anything other than to follow the directions just like I would at home; this turned out to be incorrect.) The law said I was good for almost $60K in violations.
The judge said that I had just screwed up. He gave me three weeks to fix it, and I wouldn't be fined unless at the end of those three weeks the fix was not yet in place.
Look, you can say all you want that there's this awful authoritarian bent in our current legal system. But, please, consider this word of advice before you continue: there are documents out there written by the religious group which designed the system, and they directly address the very concerns which it appears you have. The Shakers are the origins of phrases like "better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison an innocent man." Does that sound like the sort of thing which would be said by a group party to generalized oppression?
Really, give them a chance. They worked on this system for nearly a hundred years, and the American criminal jurispruden
Considering that I run two profitable anti-Bush stores, that I campaign publically against the ethical practices of the republican party (have been on television for it,) and that I've held public office, I think you'd do well to investigate someone's background before calling them complacent. Chances are very good that I've done a hell of a lot more about the situation than anyone you know personally. Perhaps instead of lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you or points out your hypocrisy, you could begin to do something more productive than pointing fingers.
By the way, that's called Argumentum ad Hominem - trying (and failing) to make your point by attacking the person to whom you speak.
And, given that it's dictionary.com in question, it's remarkable the definition doesn't involve a board, dice, and tin sculptures of dogs and hats.
Those with an axe to grind shout the loudest and post the most often.
I DO NOT!
"No, ISA was under a government-mandated Reasonable And Non-Discrimatory hardware license program which dated from the minicomputer wars of the 1970s."
I'll just disagree in a friendly way with you.
That would be the friendly way in which one avoids looking at easily and publically available court documents saying "yes, this court did exactly what you just pretended didn't happen," right?
There's nothing friendly about lying with a smile on your face and a pleasant tone.
Anger not the members of the International Socialist Internet Speller and Grammarian Party, for your silly sentences are crunchy, and good with ketchup. (Fear greatly, however, the application of knowledge to the other sentences in your post.)
"Bob" says no.
You don't understand, it's nothing personal. In the first place, Europeans don't hate ordinary American people as such. But it's not ordinary American people who are running the show. Most ordinary American people don't even know or understand what their government are doing, including (especially) most the ones who think they *do* know.
There's nothing sadder than someone who begins by telling us that we don't know what's going on in their home, then proceeds to tell us that they know better than we do what's going on in our home.
It's refreshing to see media skepticism on the other side of the pond. The people who post tend generally not to have any, and whereas the skeptics over here know there are skeptics over there, it's still a wonderful thing to see you sapients come out of the woodwork.
In world war three, the satellites will be the first things to go. They're far too easy targets with far too high military importance. In respect to that fact, the US military has been generating land- and air-based alternatives for the last several years.
Redundancy is great for tragedy. In a nearly indefensible system like satellites, it pretty much doesn't do a damn for war.
It wasn't degraded for 9/11 (urban legend)
Yes, it was, for six hours. It's the only time in the history of the GPS system that this has been done. The reason this was done was due to fear that still-active agents were using the system for precise positioning of further attacks. If you take the time to research things which you happily call urban legends, you will find that the New York state senate held an emergency gather to force the system back to high resolution despite the potential risks, because of the absolute need presented by firefighters and police officers needing to save survivors in very low visibility, high chaos situations.
Please don't announce things as urban legends when you don't have concrete evidence. It's a disgusting spread of disinformation.
They're the same system. It's just that a fragment of the data, the accurate positioning part, is encrypted in a fashion which only certain entities have the capacity to decode.
As far as the military authorizing the use of the more accurate one, sure they do. They just retain the ability to shut off private use during wartime. Given that they've only once ever actually done this, despite that the system has been active throughout six wars, and then only during the 9/11 attack, it is presumed that this ability is largely to be retained to curb domestic problems.
Conspiracy theorists working against easily available public data, start your engines.
Actually, it's 0.007% of the global output, if you'd check the easily available stats you admit you didn't bother to.
And since when has 0.01% of the total output of an entire continent been a small amount, especially on something as frivolous as a redundant satellite positioning system with essentially no added value except the ability to not have to listen to the French bitch about the possibility of a US cutoff?
Well, maybe that might make it worth it.
But still, it is funny to listen to you how whole world is your enemy.
Because we're a popular enemy. It's okay to hate the haves, and not to hate the have-nots. America represents the haves of the last two centuries, so people tend to peg their problems on us. It's the same as it was for Britain in the previous century, France and China before them, and so on.
You want an enemy? Fine. We'll keep feeding you, funding your economies, donating to you your technologies, and generally behaving in a humanitarian fashion that no other country in the history of mankind has ever done. (This will certainly aim at me some flames from people who refuse to check statistics on fear of finding out it's true, but c'est la vie.)
Why? Because it's who we are. We can only hope that China and India will be so generous once their economies become dominant in 30 or so years.
If not, you're bound to learn just how nice it was to have the button under an American thumb.
Yeah, we stick tight with our former allies, like Iraq, France and Korea, and we avoid old enemies, like Germany, Japan and China.
(Hint: bullshit.)
To amortize is to spend over time. To look at money well-spent in terms of not needing to re-spend is equity, not amortization.
Service, support, extensions to the software base platform, deployment assistance, design assistance, professional schema optimization, cluster verification, usage licensure for baseline requirement satisfaction, the list goes on and on...
You do realize that open source companies have to turn a profit, right? This sort of thing is usually how it's done - produce a product then make the client pay you if the client is unable to maintain it themselves (or if it's just cheaper than to hire such a person.)
The entire purpose of the article was to display that people who said things like "That should be C" were mired in history, rather than aware of current trends. The only significant subset of C++ given the way the study was made was Embedded C++, as implemented by compilers like GHOC. It's 6:1, C++ versus everything else. C is in everything else, not in C++.
Generally it's a bad idea to contradict people quoting specific-purpose studies based on rumor and common sense. As every engineer learns someday, common sense is more often wrong than right. These days, forth is almost one third as common as C in embedded programming, something almost nobody I know would even think to expect.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said. According to the RAND corporation, embedded is 6:1 C++ versus everything else combined. C is rolled in with everything else, not with C++. The point of the article was to display the pervasive nature of C++ when making the case for reliable and secure systems, against myths like have otherwise been widely spread throughout this article's response chain.
This isn't cold fusion, it's just a sneaky way of achieving hot fusion without huge x-ray lasers and giant magnets and such.
Bzzt. Cold fusion means achieving fusion with mechanisms other than temperature, for which the temperature generally needs to be on the order of middle seven digits; the bubbles in these machines rarely break the low six digits, and have only twice been measures to break 100,000 degrees F.
Cold fusion is a blanket term covering various techniques, of which this is one; the proper name for use here is Piezofusion. This machine creates fusion through pressure, rather than temperature. In fact, it is cold fusion, arguably the canonical example thereof.
a big bunch of drones regurgitate some absurdities... Some morons even go so far as... Some morons go so far as... We're just plain tired of... and carry on regurgitating the same crap they heard from some uninformed idiot... very few of the readers here have actually used... You're only hurting yourselves...
Whereas I am a huge C++ zealot, the tone you're taking is the exact same uncompromising assumption of superiority in knowledge and authority that leads other people to saying the very things you're railing against. Your attitude is in fact the facilitator of that which you assail. Like it or not, C++ does have flaws. If you lash out blindly every time someone points one out, you're going to get marginalized very quickly.
Flies with vinegar. Nobody listens to people throwing tantrums, regardless of whether or not they're correct. There are in fact times when other languages are better, for one of several potential reasons falling on either side of the margin wherein C++ is the appropriate language. C++ is fairly clearly a language well-suited to general use; there's a reason it's globally dominant, despite being difficult to learn and fairly error ridden in the case of novice code. For other langauges those characteristics would be a death knell.
Nonetheless, even if you've taken it as some sort of personal insult every time someone raises a viewpoint with which your experiences disagree, perhaps you should take a point from Good Ol' Doctor Valium, and luude out. You'll actually reach people who don't already agree with you if you're, how does that go again, pleasant.
Unfortunately for C++, there are very few programs for which this is the appropriate niche.
The RAND corporation says that more than 70% of all software is embedded software. Embedded as an industry is almost universally C++. Please do not confuse being in a different branch of the industry with a branch of industry simply not existing.
Wait, let me get this straight. You used QT and it wasn't unpleasant? When did that happen?
Yeah, except that two years ago, the common cry was that Windows was bad because it shipped unsecure - even the things which could be trivially secured with a configuration change weren't. Now, even though the same problem has begun to crop up in some Unix distros, that problem has been swept under the rug. It really doesn't so much matter to the end user whether the fault is in the operating system or the tools running by default there. Most end users boot their machine, and if there's a hole the way it was given to them, there's a hole, period.