the local police authority in Horsens have forbidden minors under 15 to visit an internet cafe "because it gets them into crime."
What is most scary isn't that individuals in authority
got these misconceptions (elder people have always had that about what the youth is doing), but that they have the right to act upon it and make their own local "laws" without it being contested.
The good thing about making garbage collection standeard in C++ would be that it would reduce the language a bit by forinstance forbidding typecasts between pointers and integers and even between pointers (?). That in itself might force coders to make more readable programs...
I disagree: GC does belong in any production level language. I experience with C tells me that at least half of the bugs comes from manual memory management.
But to Bjarne Stoustrup: By paying the cost of fragmenting the language, why not have a standeard ("C++GC" or whatever) where GC is build in and the above mentioned typecasts are restricted or even forbidden?
Ofcourse such that "new" language will not be usuable to code lowlevel stuff, but then again: Use C. There is already so many implementation dependencies in C++ that I would not dare try to use manipulate pointers down to the single byte level as you can in C, anyway. Especially, the memory allocation routines and the garbage collector will probably have to be written in plain C or old C++.
Or what about my alpha? It would be cool to be able to run all those 3D games my alpha machine... But when people say 'Linux' they mean Linux on x86:-(
Well, I am also doing quantum physics, but I do not meddle around with the philosophy of it, I just do calculations.
However, I think there might be another argument that might rescue McFadden's general picture within the Many World Interpretation: We are here. We are not in the universe where a lot of mutations went wrong. Therefore our observation is not unbaises but strongly correlated to a lot of "good" mutations.
Lucky bastard: here we can only buy Pepsi not Coke.
I can't simply believe this mentallity of restricting the competition. Ofcourse the companies want to restrict it so they are free to raise thier prices. The problem is that many people seem to have mistaken the concept of "free market" with the original concept "free competition". Just look at many of the comments to the DOJ v. Microsoft case: "Let the free market decide". It seems like those people can't understand that the first thing a company will do if it optains the opportunity is to quench all competion. In this case it is the universities and Coca Cola or Pepsi that do it together. This can only happen because the market is too "free", i.e. without some governmental interference that blocks these local monopolies.
Therefore: maximise the "free competition", not the "free market", which ultimately will lay all power into the hand of the coorporations.
As a dane living in USA (in no-Darwin Kansas of all places) I get more and more scared about what I see:
The first small thing I see in this bill is the americans's general scare of "abuse of taxpayers' money". I see it on this university as well. The americans seem to want to pay 10$ to a beurocrat controlling that another public employee does not use 1$ for personal perposes. Besides spending the 10$ in the first place it also makes working climate intolerable and make everyone work less. Forinstance, if I used the university's copy machine to take a personal photocopy once in a while would probably cost the tax payers 1$ a month. But no, I have to bike downtown and pay for it myself. Lost time a month: probably a 1 hour or around 20$ worth of lost work. Plus, that I like the place less. Unfortunately this attitude is also gaining ground in Denmark.
Secondly, I see the really, really old fashioned, not even belonging to the last century but the 19th century, sex moral: "Oh, my daughter should not have sex yet she is not married!". Any person should ofcourse be allowed to think like that but make laws where you try to inforce upon everyone just demostrates one thing:
That in USA there is in reality no respect for individuals' personal freedom. It is all words and principles, but when it comes to practical laws and regulations the americans (in general?) are very happy about restricting the freedom of other peoples. Let me quote Rage Against the Machine (probably not a 100% correct qoute) "The land of freedom? Whoever told you that is your enemy."
As I am a costumer in "Den Danske Bank" but living in USA I wanted to use their "Netbank" service. That is a Java applet you have to download. The website states: Only tested with Windows 9*/NT with Explorer or Netscape, can't be used on Mac at all because the Java implementation is not good enough.
Ok, I thought, but as it is Java let me try the demo on the Sun-Sparc I have access to: Netscape crashed. Reply when I emailed the bank: Sorry, only tested on win*. A few weeks later I tried again and now the demo was stable. I mailed them that result and they answered that they could not guarentie that I could use their service if I ordered it. Then I didn't order it because they take money for giving me access and I clearly do not want to pay unless I am sure it will work. They claimed that some customers have made it work on Linux if they run it as root. And as the only Linux machines I have access to at work are Alpha and not x86 based that would not help me much.
Is this just because Java sucks (too many differences between the implementations on Windos* and unices) that it is fair for the bank only to develop and test on Windows*? Is their excuse for not suporting Mac-users real then? Or is it just lazyness as most Danes are using Windows* (it is actually worse than in US)?
Slashdot Mirror
the local police authority in Horsens have forbidden minors under 15 to visit an internet cafe "because it gets them into crime."
What is most scary isn't that individuals in authority
got these misconceptions (elder people have always had that about what the youth is doing), but that they have the right to act upon it and make their own local "laws" without it being contested.
The good thing about making garbage collection standeard in C++ would be that it would reduce the
language a bit by forinstance forbidding typecasts between pointers and integers and even between pointers (?). That in itself might force coders to make more readable programs...
I disagree: GC does belong in any production level language. I experience with C tells me that at least half of the bugs comes from manual memory management.
But to Bjarne Stoustrup: By paying the cost of fragmenting the language, why not have a standeard
("C++GC" or whatever) where GC is build in and the above mentioned typecasts are restricted or even forbidden?
Ofcourse such that "new" language will not be usuable to code lowlevel stuff, but then again: Use C. There is already so many implementation dependencies in C++ that I would not dare try to use manipulate pointers down to the single byte level as you can in C, anyway. Especially, the memory allocation routines and the garbage collector will probably have to be written in plain C or old C++.
Or what about my alpha? :-(
It would be cool to be able to run all those 3D games my alpha machine... But when people say 'Linux' they mean Linux on x86
Well, I am also doing quantum physics, but I do not meddle around with the philosophy of it, I just do calculations.
However, I think there might be another argument that might rescue McFadden's general picture within the Many World Interpretation: We are here. We are not in the universe where a lot of mutations went wrong. Therefore our observation is not unbaises but strongly correlated to a lot of "good" mutations.
Lucky bastard: here we can only buy Pepsi not Coke.
I can't simply believe this mentallity of restricting the competition. Ofcourse the companies want to restrict it so they are free to raise thier prices. The problem is that many people seem to have mistaken the concept of "free market" with the original concept "free competition". Just look at many of the comments to the DOJ v. Microsoft case: "Let the free market decide". It seems like those people can't understand that the first thing a company will do if it optains the opportunity is to quench all competion. In this case it is the universities and Coca Cola or Pepsi that do it together. This can only happen because the market is too "free", i.e. without some governmental interference that blocks these local monopolies.
Therefore: maximise the "free competition", not the "free market", which ultimately will lay all power into the hand of the coorporations.
As a dane living in USA (in no-Darwin Kansas of all places) I get more and more scared about what I see:
The first small thing I see in this bill is the americans's general scare of "abuse of taxpayers' money". I see it on this university as well. The americans seem to want to pay 10$ to a beurocrat controlling that another public employee does not use 1$ for personal perposes. Besides spending the 10$ in the first place it also makes working climate intolerable and make everyone work less. Forinstance, if I used the university's copy machine to take a personal photocopy once in a while would probably cost the tax payers 1$ a month. But no, I have to bike downtown and pay for it myself. Lost time a month: probably a 1 hour or around 20$ worth of lost work. Plus, that I like the place less. Unfortunately this attitude is also gaining ground in Denmark.
Secondly, I see the really, really old fashioned, not even belonging to the last century but the 19th century, sex moral: "Oh, my daughter should not have sex yet she is not married!". Any person should ofcourse be allowed to think like that but make laws where you try to inforce upon everyone just demostrates one thing:
That in USA there is in reality no respect for individuals' personal freedom. It is all words and principles, but when it comes to practical laws and regulations the americans (in general?) are very happy about restricting the freedom of other peoples. Let me quote Rage Against the Machine (probably not a 100% correct qoute) "The land of freedom? Whoever told you that is your enemy."
Ok, I thought, but as it is Java let me try the demo on the Sun-Sparc I have access to: Netscape crashed. Reply when I emailed the bank: Sorry, only tested on win*. A few weeks later I tried again and now the demo was stable. I mailed them that result and they answered that they could not guarentie that I could use their service if I ordered it. Then I didn't order it because they take money for giving me access and I clearly do not want to pay unless I am sure it will work. They claimed that some customers have made it work on Linux if they run it as root. And as the only Linux machines I have access to at work are Alpha and not x86 based that would not help me much.
Is this just because Java sucks (too many differences between the implementations on Windos* and unices) that it is fair for the bank only to develop and test on Windows*? Is their excuse for not suporting Mac-users real then? Or is it just lazyness as most Danes are using Windows* (it is actually worse than in US)?
If you can read Danish check the banks website.