Some are ignorant fools. Others realize that they have a choice of two bad actors and a few real nuts when it comes time to vote. And only the bad actors have a serious chance to win. For some reason voting keeps falling off.
And this is the kind of free charging that I expect will be going away as the number of electric cars increases. Currently it's a novelty that attracts even some people who don't have an electric car, just to see them. But unless the electricity prices drop this "free charge" is going to disapear. And charging your car at home depends on having a garage, or at least a special carport. But I believe that more than half of the cars are parked on the street. (For that matter, in San Francisco there are already more cars than places to park them most of the time. So it only works at all because there's always some cars prowling for a parking place.)
When I was growing up in Sunnyvale most of the cars were parked beside the houses. When I went back recently, in the same neighborhood with minimal new construction more than half of the cars appeared to be parked on the streed. And Sunnyvale counts as a suburb. (Well, I *think* it still counts as a suburb.)
I believe you are thinking of the suburbs. But I believe that most people live in cities. And many residential carports have no way to charge the car. I've certainly visited some that don't.
Even in the suburbs an increasing number of cars are parked at the curb. I've noticed the percentage increasing over the decades since I moved away from my parents home.
Your description of the particular technique used by the LLVM doesn't mean that this is the only approach. And in my opinion the garbage collector, of whatever nature, including reference counting, should run in a separate thread. Whether it's reasonable for a battery powered device I don't know. Clearly it means extra processing, but it also can mean less disk activity. I suspect that Apple has put much more thought into this than I ever would, but I also suspect that they were considering making things ROMable, and using the same code in both conditions would be an obvious win.
That said, I *do* think that it's quite reasonable to have a garbage collector be either or both of a program switch (changeable at run time) or a compiler switch, allowing optimization with garbage collector removed. I haven't, however, seen a language that supports this well. Many enable temporary disabling of the garbage collector, but few (if any) allow the compiler level switch. This is because, e.g., it does bad things to the handling of variable arrays. (C++ has proved you can do it anyway, of course. But my belief is that they are using refrence counted garbage collection, in this case probably "smart pointers". Which I count as garbage collection.)
But being bad for systems programming is not the same as being bad in a systems programming language. I will readily grant that there are applications in which it is desireable to avoid garbage collection. This just means that the language must be able to run well without it. And really, is easily casting integers to pointers and back important? That's the main they the language needs to avoid to make garbage collection reasonable. And switches, either program or compiler, to disable it are also fairly easy.
So I went to http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre... but nothing on the visible page displayed (AFAICT) a link to the raw data. It did say "Note: Javascript is disabled or is not supported by your browser. For this reason, some items on this page will be unavailable. For more information about this message, please visit this page: About CDC.gov." which may explain that. But I don't think I'm going to enable JavaScript.
I was actually hoping for a link, but perhaps they don't have the data in a form accessible without JavaScript.
Some people have a garage to store their car, and they have an obvious way to charge the car. Most people don't. Is everyone going to drive to Fry's every day to charge their car? Free charging won't last long if the cars become popular.
This is why the Prius is a better model than the Volt. (Well, if I properly understand the Chevy Volt.) The Prius can charge it's own batteries (off a low powered gas engine).
Snobol, Rascal, Mortran, Lisp, Fortran, Cobol,... there's lots more. Some will succeed. Some will find niche applications. Some will disappear. (But Cobol is still around...though fading.)
You're just noticing the tip of the iceberg of current languages. There are more now than ever before because communication has gotten a lot easier, and because there are more programmers. But your current favorite language will someday be forgotten.
I was counting automatic reference counting as a form of garbage collection. And it does have some tradeoffs, but, IIUC, the loops of links problem is subject ot automatic handling. What you *can't* allow is casting between pointers and non-pointers. To me this seems like a minor limitation, and one that should probably be implemented anyway. (With, of course, some escape hole around the prohibition for those that really need to and really, really, know what they're doing.)
OTOH, be aware that Python used to use reference counting and finally decided that it was an inferior approach. It's a different target group of programs and programmers, but still...best to understand WHY they decided it was an inferior approach.
FWIW, having *some* form of garbage collection helps termendously when manipulating variable length strings and arrays.
The proper way to handle that is to allow garbage collection to: 1) run in a separate thread, and 2) be disabled in sections of the program where timing is critical.
If your application needs to, you can disable garbage collection right after the beginning, and never re-enable it. Then the compiler/linker can be smart enough to just remove it as unused code.
Garbage collection allows many techniques to be handled with non-deterministic freeing of memory. This can be especially important when programs are running on multiple independent threads/processes. (Sorry about threads/processes, but different languages use the terms differently. I mean code that can be running on separate cores and whigh has only limited sharing of information between the routines. In Python this would by MultiProcessor code, not multi-threaded, but it's not the same as separate system processes, quite. I'm not sure how Java would term it, but it's my understanding that in Java separate threads have common access to the same memory, and this isn't what I mean. I'm thinking more of D's std.concurrency or Ada's Tasking. [Ada has ways around the lack of garbage collection, but that's a part of what makes Ada difficult to use, as storage pools don't really handle things well dynamically. OTOH, I sometimes wish D's garbage collection was more deterministic. There's trade-offs everywhere.])
Well, unicode handling is a *bit* easier in Rust. Unfortunately the general character class seems to be available only as an experimental feature, and the library B+Tree doesn't persist to a file. So it's clearly got some drawbacks. (OTOH, C++'s handling of unicode is pathetic. Vala is better, but it seems dependent on the Gnome libraries, which means it's probably untrustworthy.)
That said, handling variable length strings and heap allocation in Ada is really painful. (Yes, I know about unbounded-etc. But all literal strings are a different type.) And Ada's memory management is only slightly better than C++'s. You *can* do it in either, but in both it begs for an error to occur (though Ada will often catch the error). This is too bad, because I really like much of the Ada type system.
Most of the comments seem to me to be arguments about whether it *is* legal, not about whether it should be. (I'll grant that generally people seem to feel that the current laws justify the belief of the poster.)
The best post, to my mind, was the one implying that it should be the job of the state governments. Or the one saying that only in California would it be illegal. (I think that last is probably wrong, but then I live in California, so my view of the current laws may be biased. But I believe that unless one is a "public figure" one owns the right to reporductions of ones image. However this could be only California law, even though I believe that it's generally true. [IANAL, in case that wasn't obvious.] And if I am correct then publishing the image of someone without their signed permission is a copyright violation.)
I doubt that the point was a point of legality. I suspect that the actual majority of rapes are comitted by men. And probably the majority of the victims are women.
If your point about the statistics collected by the federal legal system is correct, that is an interesting addendum, and a note of a rather strange kind of prejudice, but I doubt that it's statistically important. (OTOH, clearly "other" tends to hide matters.)
I find it quite difficult to accept your assertion that "If you look at the actual data itself the number of men made-to-penetrate and the number of women penetrated in each year of data released so far has been virtually equal." and would like to know what data this asserion is based on. Do you have a citation?
Well, we do have various "violence against people" acts called things like assault, battery, etc. But I'll agree that it should be equally wrong to comit violence against all people. So that act should be restated. And there should be exceptions for cases where there is mutual agreement.
OTOH, women are typically smaller and weaker than men, so typically women need more protection. But there are clearly cases where that's not true.
In the first place I don't recall any mention of "executive orders" in the constitution, but in the second place, even were such to exist it wouldn't justify using them in a manner beyond the powers granted by the constitution. As they frequently are. And doing so should be an impeachment offense...and not just impeachement, also conviction. Unfortunately, that means politics, and most legislators will stand by their party. (Also most legislators believe in "the divine right of government".)
To me it looked like he was asking that the agency not look the other way, and to find existing laws that applied to cases. It's not as if the FBI always enforces the law. Often they decide the benefit is not worth the effort. And it's quite difficult to execute revenge porn without breaking SOME law. As someone else suggested copyright infringement. (I really doubt that posters generally have a signed permission to publish the image.)
Why are you assuming that the women didn't build the companies? I definitely know that some companies were built by women. I'll agree that most companies were built by men, but not all, and often both men and women had a part in the building of the companies. Additionally more companies have been destroyed by men than by women. Additionally, often the men who built the companies aren't the one's currently running them, so claiming that those men currently running the company have "skin in the game" purely because they are men is unjust and, basically, stupid.
I feel that asinine is to mild a derogoratory term. Malicious would seem more apt. Or sadistic. Or bullying (though that's also a bit mild in the normal case).
Probably the correct description, however, is egocentricly.... and again I'm at a loss for the proper word. It would mean vicarious appreciation of another's suffering because in some way they aren't similar to the speaker. And I count it as a major form of evil that humanity suffers from.
I didn't exactly miss the point. There are reasons why I only speculate about what would be a good thing to invest in, and I'm well aware of them, but diamonds was such a spectacularly bad choice.....
FWIW, what I really think these commodities should be is the basis for a monetary system. I really dislike the floating dollar, even though I understand why the gold and silver standards were bad. Monocrystalline Silicon is something that can be manufactured as needed with sufficient effort, and which has intrinsic value (currently). The problem, of course, is that it's value could disappear if there were some technological advance that obsoleted the use if silicon wafers in computers. A few decades ago that looked quite unlikely. Now....well, not so much so. But wheat doesn't store well, etc. But I agree that they aren't practical for individuals.
Sorry, but resources are not identical to jobs, and there is not constant relation between them. If all you do is use robots to mine the ore and ship it to China, yes, a FEW jobs will be involved, not many.
When Lenovo bought IBM ThinkPad division, do you think that the people who worked there continued to work there? Well, they did for awhile, during the transition. They don't anymore. If they're lucky they work for IBM. But that's a very big if.
I'll agree this much. Part of what makes a company is the people. In particular the people hold much of the knowlege. But often the right to use that knowlege is held by the company itself, not by the people. This is certainly true in the case of patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. So when the company is sold, the people working ther have a "duty" to share the knowlege with the new owners. They may also continue to have jobs, but often this will mean relocating. Sometimes it means training someone else to do the job you currently hold.
You seem to be sincere, but to have a radically oversimplified idea of how economics, companies, etc. work.
Not diamonds. Diamond prices are whatever deBeers says they are.... Synthetic diamonds, now, possibly. But their prices are lower. If you want comodities, then iron is fairly good, but storage prices are high. (Notice I didn't say comodity futures?) A few decades ago I thought that monocrystalline silicon would be a good commodity to invest in, but I'm not sure that would still be a good long-term choice.
Why use the dollars to support foreign (to them) jobs, when they can just use them to purchase resources, companies, etc. True some minimal number of jobs will be involved in that, but any labor intensive processes can be shipped back home.
So its not just "jobs in the far future" it's "strip mine the country when convenient".
Sorry, but the "right" it issue "fake" certificates is pretty much what a CA is about. You are trusting them not to abuse that right. Google has said that they don't trust one particular CA, which happens to be in China. Many others also shouldn't be trusted, but still are. I have a real question as to which CAs actually *do* validate that the folk they issue certificates represent those with an actual right to the name...and my suspicion is that none of them do. If they did you wouldn't get so many "off by one letter" phishes.
The US Constitution has some of it's roots in Greek philosophy, but many of them are more directly derived from British Common Law and "The Rights of Englishmen". If you want to understand the purpose behind the Constitution, read Locke. (The Federalist Papers are too focused on the politics of the time to give you a good perspective.)
OTOH, there were disagreements among the "founding fathers", and I think the branch lead by Alexander Hamilton would agree with you. I have scant sympathy for that view however, preferring the branch lead by Thomas Jefferson (in his polemics, if not always in his actions).
Slashdot Mirror
Some are ignorant fools. Others realize that they have a choice of two bad actors and a few real nuts when it comes time to vote. And only the bad actors have a serious chance to win. For some reason voting keeps falling off.
And this is the kind of free charging that I expect will be going away as the number of electric cars increases. Currently it's a novelty that attracts even some people who don't have an electric car, just to see them. But unless the electricity prices drop this "free charge" is going to disapear. And charging your car at home depends on having a garage, or at least a special carport. But I believe that more than half of the cars are parked on the street. (For that matter, in San Francisco there are already more cars than places to park them most of the time. So it only works at all because there's always some cars prowling for a parking place.)
When I was growing up in Sunnyvale most of the cars were parked beside the houses. When I went back recently, in the same neighborhood with minimal new construction more than half of the cars appeared to be parked on the streed. And Sunnyvale counts as a suburb. (Well, I *think* it still counts as a suburb.)
Ahh. I had misunderstood. I thought it was an electric rather than a hybrid.
I believe you are thinking of the suburbs. But I believe that most people live in cities. And many residential carports have no way to charge the car. I've certainly visited some that don't.
Even in the suburbs an increasing number of cars are parked at the curb. I've noticed the percentage increasing over the decades since I moved away from my parents home.
Your description of the particular technique used by the LLVM doesn't mean that this is the only approach. And in my opinion the garbage collector, of whatever nature, including reference counting, should run in a separate thread. Whether it's reasonable for a battery powered device I don't know. Clearly it means extra processing, but it also can mean less disk activity. I suspect that Apple has put much more thought into this than I ever would, but I also suspect that they were considering making things ROMable, and using the same code in both conditions would be an obvious win.
That said, I *do* think that it's quite reasonable to have a garbage collector be either or both of a program switch (changeable at run time) or a compiler switch, allowing optimization with garbage collector removed. I haven't, however, seen a language that supports this well. Many enable temporary disabling of the garbage collector, but few (if any) allow the compiler level switch. This is because, e.g., it does bad things to the handling of variable arrays. (C++ has proved you can do it anyway, of course. But my belief is that they are using refrence counted garbage collection, in this case probably "smart pointers". Which I count as garbage collection.)
But being bad for systems programming is not the same as being bad in a systems programming language. I will readily grant that there are applications in which it is desireable to avoid garbage collection. This just means that the language must be able to run well without it. And really, is easily casting integers to pointers and back important? That's the main they the language needs to avoid to make garbage collection reasonable. And switches, either program or compiler, to disable it are also fairly easy.
So I went to http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre... but nothing on the visible page displayed (AFAICT) a link to the raw data. It did say
"Note: Javascript is disabled or is not supported by your browser. For this reason, some items on this page will be unavailable. For more information about this message, please visit this page: About CDC.gov."
which may explain that. But I don't think I'm going to enable JavaScript.
I was actually hoping for a link, but perhaps they don't have the data in a form accessible without JavaScript.
Some people have a garage to store their car, and they have an obvious way to charge the car. Most people don't. Is everyone going to drive to Fry's every day to charge their car? Free charging won't last long if the cars become popular.
This is why the Prius is a better model than the Volt. (Well, if I properly understand the Chevy Volt.) The Prius can charge it's own batteries (off a low powered gas engine).
Snobol, Rascal, Mortran, Lisp, Fortran, Cobol, ... there's lots more. Some will succeed. Some will find niche applications. Some will disappear. (But Cobol is still around...though fading.)
You're just noticing the tip of the iceberg of current languages. There are more now than ever before because communication has gotten a lot easier, and because there are more programmers. But your current favorite language will someday be forgotten.
MIX, Icon, Icebol....
I was counting automatic reference counting as a form of garbage collection. And it does have some tradeoffs, but, IIUC, the loops of links problem is subject ot automatic handling. What you *can't* allow is casting between pointers and non-pointers. To me this seems like a minor limitation, and one that should probably be implemented anyway. (With, of course, some escape hole around the prohibition for those that really need to and really, really, know what they're doing.)
OTOH, be aware that Python used to use reference counting and finally decided that it was an inferior approach. It's a different target group of programs and programmers, but still...best to understand WHY they decided it was an inferior approach.
FWIW, having *some* form of garbage collection helps termendously when manipulating variable length strings and arrays.
The proper way to handle that is to allow garbage collection to:
1) run in a separate thread, and
2) be disabled in sections of the program where timing is critical.
If your application needs to, you can disable garbage collection right after the beginning, and never re-enable it. Then the compiler/linker can be smart enough to just remove it as unused code.
Garbage collection allows many techniques to be handled with non-deterministic freeing of memory. This can be especially important when programs are running on multiple independent threads/processes. (Sorry about threads/processes, but different languages use the terms differently. I mean code that can be running on separate cores and whigh has only limited sharing of information between the routines. In Python this would by MultiProcessor code, not multi-threaded, but it's not the same as separate system processes, quite. I'm not sure how Java would term it, but it's my understanding that in Java separate threads have common access to the same memory, and this isn't what I mean. I'm thinking more of D's std.concurrency or Ada's Tasking. [Ada has ways around the lack of garbage collection, but that's a part of what makes Ada difficult to use, as storage pools don't really handle things well dynamically. OTOH, I sometimes wish D's garbage collection was more deterministic. There's trade-offs everywhere.])
Well, unicode handling is a *bit* easier in Rust. Unfortunately the general character class seems to be available only as an experimental feature, and the library B+Tree doesn't persist to a file. So it's clearly got some drawbacks. (OTOH, C++'s handling of unicode is pathetic. Vala is better, but it seems dependent on the Gnome libraries, which means it's probably untrustworthy.)
That said, handling variable length strings and heap allocation in Ada is really painful. (Yes, I know about unbounded-etc. But all literal strings are a different type.) And Ada's memory management is only slightly better than C++'s. You *can* do it in either, but in both it begs for an error to occur (though Ada will often catch the error).
This is too bad, because I really like much of the Ada type system.
Most of the comments seem to me to be arguments about whether it *is* legal, not about whether it should be. (I'll grant that generally people seem to feel that the current laws justify the belief of the poster.)
The best post, to my mind, was the one implying that it should be the job of the state governments. Or the one saying that only in California would it be illegal. (I think that last is probably wrong, but then I live in California, so my view of the current laws may be biased. But I believe that unless one is a "public figure" one owns the right to reporductions of ones image. However this could be only California law, even though I believe that it's generally true. [IANAL, in case that wasn't obvious.] And if I am correct then publishing the image of someone without their signed permission is a copyright violation.)
I doubt that the point was a point of legality. I suspect that the actual majority of rapes are comitted by men. And probably the majority of the victims are women.
If your point about the statistics collected by the federal legal system is correct, that is an interesting addendum, and a note of a rather strange kind of prejudice, but I doubt that it's statistically important. (OTOH, clearly "other" tends to hide matters.)
I find it quite difficult to accept your assertion that "If you look at the actual data itself the number of men made-to-penetrate and the number of women penetrated in each year of data released so far has been virtually equal." and would like to know what data this asserion is based on. Do you have a citation?
Well, we do have various "violence against people" acts called things like assault, battery, etc. But I'll agree that it should be equally wrong to comit violence against all people. So that act should be restated. And there should be exceptions for cases where there is mutual agreement.
OTOH, women are typically smaller and weaker than men, so typically women need more protection. But there are clearly cases where that's not true.
In the first place I don't recall any mention of "executive orders" in the constitution, but in the second place, even were such to exist it wouldn't justify using them in a manner beyond the powers granted by the constitution. As they frequently are. And doing so should be an impeachment offense...and not just impeachement, also conviction. Unfortunately, that means politics, and most legislators will stand by their party. (Also most legislators believe in "the divine right of government".)
To me it looked like he was asking that the agency not look the other way, and to find existing laws that applied to cases. It's not as if the FBI always enforces the law. Often they decide the benefit is not worth the effort. And it's quite difficult to execute revenge porn without breaking SOME law. As someone else suggested copyright infringement. (I really doubt that posters generally have a signed permission to publish the image.)
Why are you assuming that the women didn't build the companies? I definitely know that some companies were built by women. I'll agree that most companies were built by men, but not all, and often both men and women had a part in the building of the companies. Additionally more companies have been destroyed by men than by women. Additionally, often the men who built the companies aren't the one's currently running them, so claiming that those men currently running the company have "skin in the game" purely because they are men is unjust and, basically, stupid.
I feel that asinine is to mild a derogoratory term. Malicious would seem more apt. Or sadistic. Or bullying (though that's also a bit mild in the normal case).
Probably the correct description, however, is egocentricly .... and again I'm at a loss for the proper word. It would mean vicarious appreciation of another's suffering because in some way they aren't similar to the speaker. And I count it as a major form of evil that humanity suffers from.
I didn't exactly miss the point. There are reasons why I only speculate about what would be a good thing to invest in, and I'm well aware of them, but diamonds was such a spectacularly bad choice.....
FWIW, what I really think these commodities should be is the basis for a monetary system. I really dislike the floating dollar, even though I understand why the gold and silver standards were bad. Monocrystalline Silicon is something that can be manufactured as needed with sufficient effort, and which has intrinsic value (currently). The problem, of course, is that it's value could disappear if there were some technological advance that obsoleted the use if silicon wafers in computers. A few decades ago that looked quite unlikely. Now....well, not so much so. But wheat doesn't store well, etc. But I agree that they aren't practical for individuals.
Sorry, but resources are not identical to jobs, and there is not constant relation between them. If all you do is use robots to mine the ore and ship it to China, yes, a FEW jobs will be involved, not many.
When Lenovo bought IBM ThinkPad division, do you think that the people who worked there continued to work there? Well, they did for awhile, during the transition. They don't anymore. If they're lucky they work for IBM. But that's a very big if.
I'll agree this much. Part of what makes a company is the people. In particular the people hold much of the knowlege. But often the right to use that knowlege is held by the company itself, not by the people. This is certainly true in the case of patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. So when the company is sold, the people working ther have a "duty" to share the knowlege with the new owners. They may also continue to have jobs, but often this will mean relocating. Sometimes it means training someone else to do the job you currently hold.
You seem to be sincere, but to have a radically oversimplified idea of how economics, companies, etc. work.
Not diamonds. Diamond prices are whatever deBeers says they are. ... Synthetic diamonds, now, possibly. But their prices are lower. If you want comodities, then iron is fairly good, but storage prices are high. (Notice I didn't say comodity futures?) A few decades ago I thought that monocrystalline silicon would be a good commodity to invest in, but I'm not sure that would still be a good long-term choice.
Why use the dollars to support foreign (to them) jobs, when they can just use them to purchase resources, companies, etc. True some minimal number of jobs will be involved in that, but any labor intensive processes can be shipped back home.
So its not just "jobs in the far future" it's "strip mine the country when convenient".
Sorry, but the "right" it issue "fake" certificates is pretty much what a CA is about. You are trusting them not to abuse that right. Google has said that they don't trust one particular CA, which happens to be in China. Many others also shouldn't be trusted, but still are. I have a real question as to which CAs actually *do* validate that the folk they issue certificates represent those with an actual right to the name...and my suspicion is that none of them do. If they did you wouldn't get so many "off by one letter" phishes.
Heraclitus might agree with you, but I do not.
The US Constitution has some of it's roots in Greek philosophy, but many of them are more directly derived from British Common Law and "The Rights of Englishmen". If you want to understand the purpose behind the Constitution, read Locke. (The Federalist Papers are too focused on the politics of the time to give you a good perspective.)
OTOH, there were disagreements among the "founding fathers", and I think the branch lead by Alexander Hamilton would agree with you. I have scant sympathy for that view however, preferring the branch lead by Thomas Jefferson (in his polemics, if not always in his actions).