Note that most of these attack are in Islamic countries, so they don't get Western press coverage.
They aren't trying to murder small numbers of people to effect political change
Look at the list. That's what they're doing for these numbers: ~2500 small attacks. I don't think ISIS battle casualties are included, and probably bring the total up to the 27k I saw elsewhere.
Anyway, the idea that ISIS could bring their war to US shores is laughable. Maybe some terror attacks at best.
Just the occasional truck through a crowd - no problem, right? I agree we won't see small communities slaughtered in "door-to-door beheadings" as in Africa, but a suicide bomber in a crowded nightclub could have a similar death toll.
But that's fine if the limited use case is "Uber". Lots of customers can get the benefit from few vehicles. $3M would probably still be impractical, but $300k would be fine, I think.
The biggest "infrastructure change" would be more helipads on top of office buildings. That already happens here and there in big cities, and it's not all that expensive (as commercial building construction goes). The ability to fly between work and the airport, or between office buildings in the city, would get a lot of demand from the crowd that could afford $500 taxi rides.
Where's the outrage in that? Clearly he wanted to keep those filthy console peasants from touching the mouse and keyboard of their glorious PC ovlerlords! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
27,000? Big whoop. More people died in the US from car crashes.
Not by much, and are we content with that death rate from car crashes? No need to make anything safer on the roads? It's not global nuclear war, but it's not trivial either. In the US people tend to brush it off, since the risk is relatively low here. I'd really like to keep it that way - if nothing else, the TSA would get worse.
Get a PC computer. Install Ubuntu. Connect to Internet. Google free tutorial. Start programming.
AC is not wrong.
First, learn simple scripting. Use Python - it teaches better habits than a lot of alternatives. When you're comfortable with the basics of ordering your thoughts in a formal language, there are 3 real challenges, and I'd take them in this order. 1. Pointers 2. Recursion 3. Threading
C is great after you're comfortable with the basics. Pickup the K&R C book and have some fun with it. Implement all the basic data structures using C. Learn to use a nice GUI debugger, and step through your code, then step through the object. Learn what's really happening under the covers. Keep going until there's no mystery about pointers and the stack, registers, and so on.
For recursion, learn Scheme. Yeah, you could use Python too, and maybe there are some good intro texts now (what does MIT use these days instead of SICP?), but Scheme forces you to do everything with recursion. Keep going until it's totally natural. Write a Scheme interpreter in Scheme (it's easier that you think, and a lot of fun).
There's no easy path to learning threading, I fear, but if you made it past the above two, you'll manage this.
Once all that is done, then learn Java. Java sucks, but it's where most the jobs are. Everything in Java should seem quite easy once you have the fundamentals.
Islamic terrorists killed ~27000 people last year. That's a fair-sized war. It's simple rationality to keep that war off our shores - like any other war.
It's not some fantasy. ISIS has bragged that they hide terrorists among "refugees", and they have done so, e.g. the recent Paris attacks. It's wonderful that it's not a real threat in the US - let's keep it that way,.
Again: the resonating phrase was coined in a context where roughly every 20th statement was a GOTO. It never was meant to abolish GOTOs in situations where it is the straight forward solution.
Almost no one in the industry today understands that context. C programming standards around the world ban goto thoughtlessly. That's about like demanding all your devs use VI - of course there's a fierce holy war as a result.
Well, your claim of "I don't get why people defend the usage of GOTOs with claws and teeth." was rather broad. People defend proper use of goto in C fiercely, because of the constant stream of idiots who've never worked with that sort of code, but are sure it must be wrong, because they read that somewhere.
One line, surgically removed from its context? Who knows. It's a quite reasonable statement about the failure of the US educational system. It's also a fairly reasonable thing to say "key industries in the US should be run by US citizens". But who knows what he had in mind.
It's almost as if we need laws protecting privacy, since if it were theft the 4th amendment would work properly here. Sadly, we seem to have lost the spirit of Constitutional Amendments.
How on earth would you write "safe C" without goto? Deeply, deeply nested if blocks, adding a layer of indentation below every function call? That's the stuff of nightmares. Heck, the MS compiler added the goofy __try, __leave, and __finally statement just to encourage proper use of goto in C code, by calling goto something different.
goto is vital to safe C code. You want to be able to jump to your clean-up code from each place something might go wrong. The alternative is to add another layer of indentation under an "if" for each place something might go wrong, the stuff of nightmares.
regularly. About every other month. It's kind of eerie how reglarly it happens that I'm saying 'this is an A and a B with some new stuff but I can't do this can I" to my java IDE.
Java added back multiple inheritance via "default implementation of interface methods". It's awkward, but that's java for you.
Meh, "manual recursion" is still recursion - allocating your own stack on the side isn't really changing the problem, just expressing it awkwardly in code.
You have to be extremely careful with recursion, because often you have a very small stack. We also try to avoid any dynamic memory allocation when possible, only using [the stack]
You wot mate?
When I did low-level programming last, we didn't use a stack, most memory used was either a fixed-sized data structure loaded with the code, or a fixed-size data structure passed by the caller (and, in turn, either loaded with it's code or passed by its caller).
The limited dynamic allocation we did was all slab-allocated. E.g., the spec says we support 100 connections, and we pre-allocate a slab of 100 connection data structures, but allocate dynamically within that.
That's true for trivial tail recursion, and refactoring that into a loop often makes sense, with no loss in clarity. But for something like a tree walk, the iterative approach (one that doesn't just make its own stack) is usually "too clever", the sort of code that breaks the first time a maintainer touches it.
Well, most compilers convert most recursions into loops anyway: it is called tail recursion optimization.
They don't though, is the problem. But that's a problem with compilers, not the concept.
I've done "manual recursion" before -- creating a stack as a variable in order to use a loop -- in kernel space where the stack was too small to do otherwise. It's not a pleasant approach, but was still better than the alternatives.
"no meaningful interference with the account holder's possessory interest" WTF?
I believe a federal judge just ruled that "copying isn't theft, since the owner still has his copy". I know I've heard that argument before somewhere. Interesting precedent.
truly great fix would be to raise the H1-B minimum wage to 120% of the median income for jobs with a given job title within your particular geographic region
That's already more-or-less the system. You can see how well that works. A fixed number prevents all sorts of abuse. A market-based approach limits gaming the system in other ways. Even when $130k is low, employers like Amazon will pay what it takes to meet their hiring goals, pulling the rug out from under the scammers.
And how will folks in less expensive areas be "punished"? Top talent has already moved to the coast, so you're already hiring local.
Math is not an empirical concept. It's not a property of our universe. It's a set of first principles, plus a set of principles of deduction, like any other formal system.
Math works shockingly well in predicting our universe, though. Handy, that.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one source - shows 21k killed, 27k injured. http://www.thereligionofpeace....
Note that most of these attack are in Islamic countries, so they don't get Western press coverage.
They aren't trying to murder small numbers of people to effect political change
Look at the list. That's what they're doing for these numbers: ~2500 small attacks. I don't think ISIS battle casualties are included, and probably bring the total up to the 27k I saw elsewhere.
Anyway, the idea that ISIS could bring their war to US shores is laughable. Maybe some terror attacks at best.
Just the occasional truck through a crowd - no problem, right? I agree we won't see small communities slaughtered in "door-to-door beheadings" as in Africa, but a suicide bomber in a crowded nightclub could have a similar death toll.
But that's fine if the limited use case is "Uber". Lots of customers can get the benefit from few vehicles. $3M would probably still be impractical, but $300k would be fine, I think.
The biggest "infrastructure change" would be more helipads on top of office buildings. That already happens here and there in big cities, and it's not all that expensive (as commercial building construction goes). The ability to fly between work and the airport, or between office buildings in the city, would get a lot of demand from the crowd that could afford $500 taxi rides.
Where's the outrage in that? Clearly he wanted to keep those filthy console peasants from touching the mouse and keyboard of their glorious PC ovlerlords! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
Bah, you and your rational interpretation.
27,000? Big whoop. More people died in the US from car crashes.
Not by much, and are we content with that death rate from car crashes? No need to make anything safer on the roads? It's not global nuclear war, but it's not trivial either. In the US people tend to brush it off, since the risk is relatively low here. I'd really like to keep it that way - if nothing else, the TSA would get worse.
Get a PC computer. Install Ubuntu. Connect to Internet. Google free tutorial. Start programming.
AC is not wrong.
First, learn simple scripting. Use Python - it teaches better habits than a lot of alternatives. When you're comfortable with the basics of ordering your thoughts in a formal language, there are 3 real challenges, and I'd take them in this order.
1. Pointers
2. Recursion
3. Threading
C is great after you're comfortable with the basics. Pickup the K&R C book and have some fun with it. Implement all the basic data structures using C. Learn to use a nice GUI debugger, and step through your code, then step through the object. Learn what's really happening under the covers. Keep going until there's no mystery about pointers and the stack, registers, and so on.
For recursion, learn Scheme. Yeah, you could use Python too, and maybe there are some good intro texts now (what does MIT use these days instead of SICP?), but Scheme forces you to do everything with recursion. Keep going until it's totally natural. Write a Scheme interpreter in Scheme (it's easier that you think, and a lot of fun).
There's no easy path to learning threading, I fear, but if you made it past the above two, you'll manage this.
Once all that is done, then learn Java. Java sucks, but it's where most the jobs are. Everything in Java should seem quite easy once you have the fundamentals.
Islamic terrorists killed ~27000 people last year. That's a fair-sized war. It's simple rationality to keep that war off our shores - like any other war.
It's not some fantasy. ISIS has bragged that they hide terrorists among "refugees", and they have done so, e.g. the recent Paris attacks. It's wonderful that it's not a real threat in the US - let's keep it that way,.
Again: the resonating phrase was coined in a context where roughly every 20th statement was a GOTO. It never was meant to abolish GOTOs in situations where it is the straight forward solution.
Almost no one in the industry today understands that context. C programming standards around the world ban goto thoughtlessly. That's about like demanding all your devs use VI - of course there's a fierce holy war as a result.
Well, your claim of "I don't get why people defend the usage of GOTOs with claws and teeth." was rather broad. People defend proper use of goto in C fiercely, because of the constant stream of idiots who've never worked with that sort of code, but are sure it must be wrong, because they read that somewhere.
The clever way of saying this is "if everyone you see is an asshole, look in the mirror".
One line, surgically removed from its context? Who knows. It's a quite reasonable statement about the failure of the US educational system. It's also a fairly reasonable thing to say "key industries in the US should be run by US citizens". But who knows what he had in mind.
It's almost as if we need laws protecting privacy, since if it were theft the 4th amendment would work properly here. Sadly, we seem to have lost the spirit of Constitutional Amendments.
How on earth would you write "safe C" without goto? Deeply, deeply nested if blocks, adding a layer of indentation below every function call? That's the stuff of nightmares. Heck, the MS compiler added the goofy __try, __leave, and __finally statement just to encourage proper use of goto in C code, by calling goto something different.
goto is vital to safe C code. You want to be able to jump to your clean-up code from each place something might go wrong. The alternative is to add another layer of indentation under an "if" for each place something might go wrong, the stuff of nightmares.
regularly. About every other month. It's kind of eerie how reglarly it happens that I'm saying 'this is an A and a B with some new stuff but I can't do this can I" to my java IDE.
Java added back multiple inheritance via "default implementation of interface methods". It's awkward, but that's java for you.
It's only the first thing you learn to do in SICP.
Not even MIT still uses SICP, sadly.
Meh, "manual recursion" is still recursion - allocating your own stack on the side isn't really changing the problem, just expressing it awkwardly in code.
You have to be extremely careful with recursion, because often you have a very small stack. We also try to avoid any dynamic memory allocation when possible, only using [the stack]
You wot mate?
When I did low-level programming last, we didn't use a stack, most memory used was either a fixed-sized data structure loaded with the code, or a fixed-size data structure passed by the caller (and, in turn, either loaded with it's code or passed by its caller).
The limited dynamic allocation we did was all slab-allocated. E.g., the spec says we support 100 connections, and we pre-allocate a slab of 100 connection data structures, but allocate dynamically within that.
That's true for trivial tail recursion, and refactoring that into a loop often makes sense, with no loss in clarity. But for something like a tree walk, the iterative approach (one that doesn't just make its own stack) is usually "too clever", the sort of code that breaks the first time a maintainer touches it.
Well, most compilers convert most recursions into loops anyway: it is called tail recursion optimization.
They don't though, is the problem. But that's a problem with compilers, not the concept.
I've done "manual recursion" before -- creating a stack as a variable in order to use a loop -- in kernel space where the stack was too small to do otherwise. It's not a pleasant approach, but was still better than the alternatives.
"no meaningful interference with the account holder's possessory interest" WTF?
I believe a federal judge just ruled that "copying isn't theft, since the owner still has his copy". I know I've heard that argument before somewhere. Interesting precedent.
I think it's more accurate to say that people tend to be *obsessed* with sex.
Ah, I see. It was a secret alt-right conspiracy, as you know through your secret sources. Sure it was buddy.
truly great fix would be to raise the H1-B minimum wage to 120% of the median income for jobs with a given job title within your particular geographic region
That's already more-or-less the system. You can see how well that works. A fixed number prevents all sorts of abuse. A market-based approach limits gaming the system in other ways. Even when $130k is low, employers like Amazon will pay what it takes to meet their hiring goals, pulling the rug out from under the scammers.
And how will folks in less expensive areas be "punished"? Top talent has already moved to the coast, so you're already hiring local.
Except allocating slots based on salary is not a good idea. That just means x number of US workers never get salary raises.
How do you figure? You do realize we're talking about allowing the folks who get the higher salaries to come work here, right?
Math is not an empirical concept. It's not a property of our universe. It's a set of first principles, plus a set of principles of deduction, like any other formal system.
Math works shockingly well in predicting our universe, though. Handy, that.