I'd either pass on buying the car outright, or count the cost of replacing the window as part of the purchase price and see if it's still worth it to me.
has run into political problems getting corporate, school, and public library IT departments to permit installation of applications
Yes, if you're aiming your software for specialized environments then you have to adapt to what the environment requires.
most end users have shown themselves unwilling to download C++ source code and learn how to compile it
If you're requiring users to compile the code themselves, you're doing it wrong. The least you can do is actually produce a build for the operating systems you support.
Sure, if I need some software and literally the only thing available sucks, then I'll use it anyway.
But, in practice, it's extremely rare that you can't find a natively compiled version of what you need.
But none of that changes the fact that applications built with frameworks tend to suck, and the effort required to make them not suck negates much of the advantage of using frameworks.
Do you not consider it a waste that the state of software these days means you need a 21st century computer to perform the same things that you used to be able to do with a 20th century computer?
Just imagine what could be done if software were actually efficient.
Exactly. You're making an argument based on development costs. That's what frameworks are intended to address. But regardless, the tradeoff is going to be that your software isn't going to be as good as it could be otherwise.
Did you read the court decision? The ACLU page linked to it. It supports my assertion. The court did not rule that bakeries, or anybody, had to server everyone who walked in the door.
The court ruled that you can't turn people away for being a member of a protected class. So you can't refuse to serve people because they're a particular gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
You can certainly turn them away for anything that's not on the short list, including "I just didn't like them."
My approach so far is to avoid buying cars that include communications. Eventually, though, even older used cars will have this crap.
At that point, I'll have to disable the comms. Right now, that appears to be easy to do in almost every car (just locate and remove the antenna). Hopefully, that will get me through the rest of my car-driving years.
Cross-platform frameworks are intended for one thing and one thing only: to reduce development costs. And they all do it at the cost of software quality.
But if that's the case, no framework in the world will save him. At best, the framework will do what frameworks tend to excel at: allow you to easily produce substandard, but essentially functional, programs.
Note, I'm not saying that you can't produce great programs with a framework. I am saying that using a framework doesn't actually make doing so any easier, and usually makes it harder.
I know he got pissy about being called a nazi...Welcome to the Internet Matt.
There's a pretty huge difference between someone calling you a "Nazi" as an epithet and neo-Nazis themselves pointing at you and saying "they're one of us!"
The former is easy to shake off, since nobody takes that sort of thing seriously. The latter is actually slanderous.
One method of interpersonal censorship is public shaming of particular viewpoints to the point where a person being censored simply decides to shut up.
You do realize that you just said that free speech == censorship, right?
And to think that some people were taking me to task a few days ago for stating that no rights can be absolute because every right can be exercised in a way that infringes on other rights.
Or is this only valid for services on the Internet?
You're ignoring that race and gender are protected classes. If you want political extremism to become a protected class, too, then start actually convincing people why and try to make it happen.
Fair enough. You can have any standard of proof you want in terms of what convinces you that something is or isn't true.
I just hope that you're at least equally skeptical of everything that comes out of the mouths of the "alt-right", the likes of Fox news, and especially of Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
(Or, now that I think of it -- the antenna has to make the jump from the window to the circuit board somewhere. Probably with a wire. Snip, snip.)
I'd either pass on buying the car outright, or count the cost of replacing the window as part of the purchase price and see if it's still worth it to me.
has run into political problems getting corporate, school, and public library IT departments to permit installation of applications
Yes, if you're aiming your software for specialized environments then you have to adapt to what the environment requires.
most end users have shown themselves unwilling to download C++ source code and learn how to compile it
If you're requiring users to compile the code themselves, you're doing it wrong. The least you can do is actually produce a build for the operating systems you support.
Sure, if I need some software and literally the only thing available sucks, then I'll use it anyway.
But, in practice, it's extremely rare that you can't find a natively compiled version of what you need.
But none of that changes the fact that applications built with frameworks tend to suck, and the effort required to make them not suck negates much of the advantage of using frameworks.
Do you not consider it a waste that the state of software these days means you need a 21st century computer to perform the same things that you used to be able to do with a 20th century computer?
Just imagine what could be done if software were actually efficient.
The sim is not usually removable, and the electronics may be integrated into critical circuit boards you don't want to mess up.
The antenna, however, is always easy to access (it needs to be somewhere unshielded).
Because they're less likely to be awful.
Exactly. You're making an argument based on development costs. That's what frameworks are intended to address. But regardless, the tradeoff is going to be that your software isn't going to be as good as it could be otherwise.
Did you read the court decision? The ACLU page linked to it. It supports my assertion. The court did not rule that bakeries, or anybody, had to server everyone who walked in the door.
The court ruled that you can't turn people away for being a member of a protected class. So you can't refuse to serve people because they're a particular gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
You can certainly turn them away for anything that's not on the short list, including "I just didn't like them."
Ah, I stand corrected. This isn't so bad, then.
I will continue to avoid buying cars that have wireless communications facilities, though.
if you are a political target, get an older car without an electric throttle body and electric power steering bullshit.
Why only if you're a political target? This seems like wise advice for everybody.
This exploit can be done remotely. Physical access is not required.
I'm one of those. No scripting for me.
I do make an exception for Eclipse, though, but only because -- despite its flaws (and there are many) -- I can't find another IDE that is any better.
Maybe what you're missing is that it shouldn't be possible for an attacker to induce this state in the first place.
My approach so far is to avoid buying cars that include communications. Eventually, though, even older used cars will have this crap.
At that point, I'll have to disable the comms. Right now, that appears to be easy to do in almost every car (just locate and remove the antenna). Hopefully, that will get me through the rest of my car-driving years.
Electron lost me a "Javascript".
Cross-platform frameworks are intended for one thing and one thing only: to reduce development costs. And they all do it at the cost of software quality.
I wouldn't say "don't repeat yourself" is a sacred tenet. There are situations where repeating yourself is exactly the right thing to do.
It is, however, generally a "best practice".
But if that's the case, no framework in the world will save him. At best, the framework will do what frameworks tend to excel at: allow you to easily produce substandard, but essentially functional, programs.
Note, I'm not saying that you can't produce great programs with a framework. I am saying that using a framework doesn't actually make doing so any easier, and usually makes it harder.
I know he got pissy about being called a nazi...Welcome to the Internet Matt.
There's a pretty huge difference between someone calling you a "Nazi" as an epithet and neo-Nazis themselves pointing at you and saying "they're one of us!"
The former is easy to shake off, since nobody takes that sort of thing seriously. The latter is actually slanderous.
One method of interpersonal censorship is public shaming of particular viewpoints to the point where a person being censored simply decides to shut up.
You do realize that you just said that free speech == censorship, right?
And to think that some people were taking me to task a few days ago for stating that no rights can be absolute because every right can be exercised in a way that infringes on other rights.
Cloudflare cancelled their service because they slandered Cloudflare.
Are you saying that everyone should be forced to provide services to people who are actively harming them?
Or is this only valid for services on the Internet?
You're ignoring that race and gender are protected classes. If you want political extremism to become a protected class, too, then start actually convincing people why and try to make it happen.
Explain, then, how bakers must make cakes for whomever walks through the door - under threat of penalty by the Government,
That's easy. They aren't, in fact, required to make cakes for anyone who walks through the door.
Fair enough. You can have any standard of proof you want in terms of what convinces you that something is or isn't true.
I just hope that you're at least equally skeptical of everything that comes out of the mouths of the "alt-right", the likes of Fox news, and especially of Trump.
It's wrong to censor communications even really terrible communications like this.
The Daily Stormer was slandering Cloudflare by claiming that Cloudflare was secretly on their side.
Do you really think that one entity should be forced to support another entity who is actively harming them?