nuclear is safer than coal. there is more energy in the radioactivity of coal ash than was gotten by burning the coal...
nuclear. modern reactors could burn the current "waste" from which only 10% of the energy has been extracted.
the lighter radioactive products of alternate designs besides the one from the navy currently used are shorter lived and useful in medicine and other applications.
currency is actually backed by the fact that you HAVE TO PAY TAXES WITH IT. That's what gives national currencies their value... you know you can pay your standing "liability" to the government with it.
Greenwald and his collaborators (at various papers around the world) have been releasing it slowly. There is some controversy about this... clearly Greenwald is ordering the information in such a way as to maximize and extend the impact. Personally I approve.
fascinating news... I had no idea AOL was still in business. I worked at spinner.com (which streamed music and was not a blog) when AOL bought us and Winamp... I left almost immediately, somewhat as a result.
it's not practical to expect change and give into that kind of thing. He's already done more than the world's press has managed with decades to work at it.
if I take a C program and make it C++ compliant (like no variable called "new") you are saying it will run slower compiled by g++ as C++? There is no excuse or valid reason for that. I have to agree that would be a bug in g++ if true.
actually, it's because if you know what you are doing you can make it run as fast as C, and access the hardware as easily as free, and also, if you know what you're doing you can make higher level and more flexible abstractions.
people seem to have an objection to the "know what you are doing" requirement, and seem to think that in C, you don't have to know and the code manifests well. If there is any truth to that... that C code is all nicely organized now, and naturally safe, then it's only because the C programmers have internalized certain idioms and avoided other possible ones... which is what you have to do in C++ as well to use it well.
the idea of a language which works well without knowing what you are doing is laughable to me. The illusion comes, for example, from languages where you can build a robust web server in five lines (or whatever)... yes, because it has a webserver built in! if you are going to do something besides say "run this program which was already written", then you need to understand logic and machines. There is no way around that.
C++ can be made as fast as C, don't deny it because I can write a C++ program that IS C. So it's a truism. That means you only need any feature that imposes any performance hit if it saves you some other way, like protecting memory or allowing one to save time in what is actually the most precious resource, developer time.
It was never at all meant to be perfect, it was meant to be useful.
I'm surprised at all the whining about C++, especially the idea that C is somehow a more readable or organized language. Perhaps after all the general purpose programmers went elsewhere, the COMMUNITY of c programmers started writing cleaner code... ok, but the language... promoting that?
C++ aimed for complete-as-possible compatibility with C, especially static linking which helped ensure that C++ can follow C anywhere, a useful thing.
blaming C++ for the stupid things purists might like it odd, since purists have never been fond of C++ afaik, and if so, why are they in a multiparadigmed language that allows you to break most of it's rules at will (using C syntax).
It's like blaming Country Music Lyrics on English.
I learned C++ around 1993-94 I guess after having been a C programmer from about 84-85. This is the way to use it. The fact that you can have class hierarchies with structures is itself useful. I have converted C code to C++ simply by making a structure able to initialize itself, a safe fix for code which would have been a nightmare to fix some other way (go to every malloc of the structure and do it there, all throughout the code?)
But evidently such use of C++ provides too much temptation for some. That's too bad.
Also, as a C programmer at that time we all became aware of how the C compiled, what instructions you were really looking at, and in C++ at that time, my colleagues and I at least (in the game industry then) continued to view C++ this way. If I learned a new feature of C++, I studied how it would look in memory, how it would look if it was a C structure (or set of such), making it quite easy to avoid certain problems.
As a C programmer I expected myself to do this. Also, this revealed where the performance hits were, and what to avoid. C++ is multiparadigmed (or unparadigmed, or, a crazy toolbox)... so? man up and learn the tools including which ones you don't want.
As far as the problem of what OTHER programmers do with C++... if people have not seen crazy things done with C... confusing bad things... I cannot explain that. How can that be? Some historical accident because the language does not prohibit it, it's up to the programmer.
Then again, as long as it's not proprietary, I couldn't care less what languages other programmers like.
no, "better" does not mean "easier"... it's a worse situation over all to have homogenius OS deployment (and highly unlikely, if you just configure something like linux to go on all devices, those version of linux for phones are not going to be just like the workstation install anyway, and you still play OS compatibility games per device)... but my point is it's a worse situation to have a homogenius OS world than it is to do the hard work of making platform independant software.
Further... it's very easy to program in C on any machine, and indeed C++... but the GUI libraries are not standard, and so all the nice ANSI compatibility falls to hell... so add that final layer to the standard C++ universe and you're all set.
Slashdot Mirror
fuuuuuuck theeem!
he's going to be punished for publishing intentional falsehood? even though he did it to prove he could fool his peers?
if you use liquid fuels and the thorium cycle... the wastes only last ~300 years and also, many of them are useful.
in fact, you can burn what is currently considered waste.
nuclear is safer than coal. there is more energy in the radioactivity of coal ash than was gotten by burning the coal...
nuclear. modern reactors could burn the current "waste" from which only 10% of the energy has been extracted.
the lighter radioactive products of alternate designs besides the one from the navy currently used are shorter lived and useful in medicine and other applications.
nuclear.
wrong, nationally backed currencies have a value in that you can PAY taxes or any other fee to the government with it.
currency is actually backed by the fact that you HAVE TO PAY TAXES WITH IT. That's what gives national currencies their value... you know you can pay your standing "liability" to the government with it.
-craig
...
Greenwald and his collaborators (at various papers around the world) have been releasing it slowly. There is some controversy about this... clearly Greenwald is ordering the information in such a way as to maximize and extend the impact. Personally I approve.
fascinating news... I had no idea AOL was still in business. I worked at spinner.com (which streamed music and was not a blog) when AOL bought us and Winamp... I left almost immediately, somewhat as a result.
what? no. the saints go on the fire first.
it's not practical to expect change and give into that kind of thing. He's already done more than the world's press has managed with decades to work at it.
if I take a C program and make it C++ compliant (like no variable called "new") you are saying it will run slower compiled by g++ as C++? There is no excuse or valid reason for that. I have to agree that would be a bug in g++ if true.
actually, it's because if you know what you are doing you can make it run as fast as C, and access the hardware as easily as free, and also, if you know what you're doing you can make higher level and more flexible abstractions.
people seem to have an objection to the "know what you are doing" requirement, and seem to think that in C, you don't have to know and the code manifests well. If there is any truth to that... that C code is all nicely organized now, and naturally safe, then it's only because the C programmers have internalized certain idioms and avoided other possible ones... which is what you have to do in C++ as well to use it well.
the idea of a language which works well without knowing what you are doing is laughable to me. The illusion comes, for example, from languages where you can build a robust web server in five lines (or whatever)... yes, because it has a webserver built in! if you are going to do something besides say "run this program which was already written", then you need to understand logic and machines. There is no way around that.
C++ can be made as fast as C, don't deny it because I can write a C++ program that IS C. So it's a truism. That means you only need any feature that imposes any performance hit if it saves you some other way, like protecting memory or allowing one to save time in what is actually the most precious resource, developer time.
never
no offense, but that's like striving to integrate your hammer and screw driver.
anyone that believes in perfection is an idiot.
It was never at all meant to be perfect, it was meant to be useful.
I'm surprised at all the whining about C++, especially the idea that C is somehow a more readable or organized language. Perhaps after all the general purpose programmers went elsewhere, the COMMUNITY of c programmers started writing cleaner code... ok, but the language... promoting that?
C++ aimed for complete-as-possible compatibility with C, especially static linking which helped ensure that C++ can follow C anywhere, a useful thing.
blaming C++ for the stupid things purists might like it odd, since purists have never been fond of C++ afaik, and if so, why are they in a multiparadigmed language that allows you to break most of it's rules at will (using C syntax).
It's like blaming Country Music Lyrics on English.
I learned C++ around 1993-94 I guess after having been a C programmer from about 84-85. This is the way to use it. The fact that you can have class hierarchies with structures is itself useful. I have converted C code to C++ simply by making a structure able to initialize itself, a safe fix for code which would have been a nightmare to fix some other way (go to every malloc of the structure and do it there, all throughout the code?)
But evidently such use of C++ provides too much temptation for some. That's too bad.
Also, as a C programmer at that time we all became aware of how the C compiled, what instructions you were really looking at, and in C++ at that time, my colleagues and I at least (in the game industry then) continued to view C++ this way. If I learned a new feature of C++, I studied how it would look in memory, how it would look if it was a C structure (or set of such), making it quite easy to avoid certain problems.
As a C programmer I expected myself to do this. Also, this revealed where the performance hits were, and what to avoid. C++ is multiparadigmed (or unparadigmed, or, a crazy toolbox)... so? man up and learn the tools including which ones you don't want.
As far as the problem of what OTHER programmers do with C++... if people have not seen crazy things done with C... confusing bad things... I cannot explain that. How can that be? Some historical accident because the language does not prohibit it, it's up to the programmer.
Then again, as long as it's not proprietary, I couldn't care less what languages other programmers like.
what the hell difference would that make?
larry ellison is still alive?
what idiot goes to a locksmith to copy a key? Cause I know the hardware store will copy those keys.
and I remembered my password?? hell yeah.
what would be funny is if you can't copy documents about weaponry... and then canon can't copy it's own documentation.
well ok that wouldn't be funny. but I did remember my fuckign psasdrowd!
is a quantum computers..?
but I want pythonic beauty, what Plato would have invented if he wasn't so fucking repressed.
there is just one OS and it runs similarly on every device... and the company owning it doesn't try to screw the world.
Interoperable standards are MUCH MORE LIKELY.
Take screws. Standard thread weights, standard heads... take all contracting, take commodoties.
Humans know how to interoperate, but they don't know how to be good little children when they hold choke points.
no, "better" does not mean "easier"... it's a worse situation over all to have homogenius OS deployment (and highly unlikely, if you just configure something like linux to go on all devices, those version of linux for phones are not going to be just like the workstation install anyway, and you still play OS compatibility games per device)... but my point is it's a worse situation to have a homogenius OS world than it is to do the hard work of making platform independant software.
Further... it's very easy to program in C on any machine, and indeed C++... but the GUI libraries are not standard, and so all the nice ANSI compatibility falls to hell... so add that final layer to the standard C++ universe and you're all set.
I'm not so sure he's the reasonable and logical one. No I am not.
unfortunately I'd have to read the article to know for sure.
yes, lets give MS a little more time to see what they're really like.