No, but it'll have less overhead. I wonder if they were concerned about performance when they designed this?
Congratulations, you're arguing against a point I never made. I never once claimed that switching to a safer language didn't have it's tradeoffs (all such choices do). But that choice *does* bring additional safety, contrary to what the GP would have you believe.
It's not as if Java never [securityfocus.com] had [sun.com] any [securitytracker.com] buffer [uni-stuttgart.de] overflows [gnu.org].
The difference is, once they're fixed in Java, they're fixed for everyone. Meanwhile, any moron with a C++ compiler can create an app with a buffer overflow.
That's not to say safe languages are an all-purpose panacea (obviously there are tradeoffs to any language choice), but I think even you must realize that your argument is a weak one. The Java VM is a classic example of code reuse. With it, you build on software that has millions of hours of time in production, vast amounts of testing and QA, and a single codebase that you can vet for security issues. And anything you build on top of that is only as vulnerable as that substrate. How you can argue that isn't *clearly* a win from a security standpoint, I have no idea... well, other than blind prejudice.
Do you think it makes your point (or lack thereof) stronger?
It can. In fact, that's the whole point of profanity: to create a strong emotional impact, in order to better convey the feelings of the speaker. Of course, one must be sensitive to context, but it's certainly not out of place on Slashdot.
Got masculinity issues?
Stereotype much? Some women I know swear like sailors... are you saying they, too, long to be more masculine?
Wow, way to completely miss the point. So, let me explain: if I go and build an application using a "safe" language on top of a VM, I'm building on a codebase that's had millions upon millions of hours of real-world testing. Moreover, that VM, being one single piece of code, can easily be audited for security issues, buffer overflows, etc. None of this can be said of an application I build from scratch on top of an "unsafe" language.
Try taking a paddle to Junior in some states... it's an instant trip to jail for Dad
And thank god for that. Physical punishment in a unequal power relationship is wrong and immoral. Period. There are a *myriad* number of ways to punish a child that don't involve beating the shit out of them. Why corporal punishment is considered a magical panacea for child discipline (in an era of record-low youth crime), I'll never know.
You would be surprised at how much a "decent" surround sound system can make up for a small screen size.
Up to a point, maybe. But there's no way I'd build a home theatre with anything less than 50-60 inches of diagonal, and that ain't cheap, particularly at HD resolutions. Anything less isn't a home theatre... it's a TV with a nice stereo attached.
Somehow, I really don't think so. You could spend that much on a decent hi-def projector. And that's all assuming you don't have to renovate a space to make it work.
Sorry, but home theatre really is out of the range of your average joe. Doubly so in the current economic environment. As such, I don't think theatres really have much to worry about (yet, anyway).
No, I'm referring to people who intentionally drink to excess.
That's still not sufficient to fit the AMA definition. Did you even read the excerpts I provided??
Assuming you did, I guess you're saying you're just smarter than the AMA, now? Alright, if that's what you think... but I think I've made my point. Your definition of "alcoholic" is clearly completely ridiculous, and at odds with the rest of the educated world.
And no, I don't care if you disagree with me.
Umm... the American Medical Associate does, too. But I'm betting you don't care about that, either.
I already know I have more experience than you in this matter
And the rest of the medical establishment? Wow, arrogant *and* ignorant!
The fact that you keep replying to me is more evidence of you denial than anything.
Actually, that's just evidence that I like arguing...
I can only assume you meant "recreational"... and yes... believe it or not, sometimes, they do. Your continually stating this as fact doesn't make it true.
Those people are called drunks.
No, drinking to excess is *not* sufficient to define an alcoholic. Necessary, yes. Sufficient, no. And the AMA, and so the rest of clinical psychology, agrees with me.
Go ask your own HR department if they would hire someone who drinks to impairment on purpose.
Umm... my company has a yearly party where many drink to excess. On the company dime. So no, they don't care about someone who drinks to impairment, on purpose, occasionally. And thank god for that, because I could never work for an organization as prudish and close-minded as the one you evidently work for.
That said, they do care if you have a drinking habit that interferes with your work or life. But guess what... *that* is part of the definition of an alcoholic, as is reflected in the AMA definition which you so conveniently just ignored.
Having said all that, you REALLY need to learn to read.
Funny, I'd suggest the same to you. Or did you conveniently ignore all the definitions? For example:
"Preoccupation in association with alcohol use indicates excessive, focused attention given to the drug alcohol, its effects, and/or its use. The relative value thus assigned to alcohol by the individual often leads to a diversion of energies away from important life concerns."
See how that *doesn't* apply to people who only drink to excess occasionally? Hey, why not continue, this is fun:
"Adverse consequences are alcohol-related problems or impairments in such areas as: physical health (e.g., alcohol withdrawal syndromes, liver disease, gastritis, anemia, neurological disorders); psychological functioning (e.g., impairments in cognition, changes in mood and behavior); interpersonal functioning (e.g., marital problems and child abuse, impaired social relationships); occupational functioning (e.g., scholastic or job problems); and legal, financial, or spiritual problems."
Another one that doesn't apply! Look at that! Want another?
"Impaired control means the inability to limit alcohol use or to consistently limit on any drinking occasion the duration of the episode, the quantity consumed, and/or the behavioral consequences of drinking."
Note the world inability? As in, incapable of *not* drinking to excess? As opposed to normal, recreational drinkers who make the choice on occasion, but otherwise can happily have a single beer with a meal?
Shall I go on? Or do I need to explain why the rest of the definition, you know, all those parts you didn't actually read, doesn't apply to recreational, as opposed to habitual, drinkers?
Then again, why bother... it's clear you're either trolling or so wrapped up in your own superiority that you can't see why you are, in fact, deeply misguided on the topic of alcohol use.
So, what is that ideal picture? Personally, I've met programmers and math types that are all over the map, personality-wise. And, frankly, I would consider avoiding the overly bookish, socially inept types, given that one's job as a programmer is, above all things, to communicate with others and to, you know, socially interact with them.
No, they're not. I'm not sure what your definition is, but occasionally drinking too much on a weekend is not the definition of alcoholic. This is.
Now, assuming you have, say, the reading comprehension of a high-school student (doubtful given the military service, but...), you might note that one who occasionally has a few too many drinks on the weekend does not, in fact, fit the definition. Perhaps in your own, distorted, prudish mind it does. But to the world of clinical psychology, it doesn't.
quick you cite a website that supports your position and I'll cite one that supports mine.
The difference is, mine provides real evidence from cited sources produced by scientists. It also provides a balanced view, as you already discovered. As for the rest of your points, frankly, I don't even know what you're saying, so there seems little point in commenting.
As for the rest, I couldn't agree more. Sustainable energy is a good idea for many, many reasons. But make no mistake, AGW *is* happening, and it should be one of those reasons.
What is AGW? I have no idea what you talking about because I don't know what AGW means.
Anthropogenic Global Warming. The theory that Global Warming is happening and that man is the primary cause, as a consequence of excessive CO2 emissions. And you don't believe in that, as is evidenced from your post, so I'm certainly not mischaracterizing your position.
The major contributor? Water!
Please, do some more reading, clearly you need to further educate yourself. I'd start here. For example, here's is their article on the role of water vapour in GW. Yeah, the page is a bit heavy on the science and numbers... but if you want to have a reasonable, educated discussion on the topic, believe it or not, you need to understand both of those things.
Do you know for how many successive months 2.2 kernels were released? What about times when 2.2 releases were still being made alongside releases of later kernel versions like 2.4?
Sure, but the problem with any other scheme is the implication that the numbers have any meaning regarding the magnitude of change from version to version. Linus' position is essentially that, given the new kernel development process, no, they can have no such meaning, as you can no longer compare 2.6.25 to 2.6.23, and understand how different they are. As such, dates are no worse... either way, the numbering scheme tells you nothing about the nature of the code, aside from when it was released relative to previous versions.
In fact, dates are a bit *more* informative, in this case. Traditionally, the kernel hasn't been on a tight, regular release schedule (though I've heard that might be changing, if it hasn't already?), and so you had no idea how long it took to get from 2.6.23 -> 2.6.25 (BTW, those are contrived numbers), meaning there was literally nothing in the number that would imply the magnitude of change going on. If, however, they switched to something date-based, at least you could see that there was six months of work (again, contrived) between those versions.
Of course, as another poster pointed out, dates do have the problem that you can no longer represent code branches. But, of course, in that case, you'd just prefix or suffix the date with a branch name, much like they already do with developer branches. And as for mainline, the intent is that you'd *never* maintain anything but the trunk codebase, and so there's no need for branch maintenance, as there was in the old, bygone days of 2.4/2.5.
Because people vote for politicians based on their positions. If politicians can change their minds, then I should be able to change my vote.
Bullshit. You live in a representative democracy. In that world, you vote for people, not their platform. The people you vote for are then entrusted to run the system. They are not meant to be robots that vote 100% the way their constituency demands, nor should they be.
In short, if someone votes for Obama, they should do so *because* he's the kind of man that would change his mind if he saw reason to do so. The idea is that you vote for him because you trust his judgment and ability to adapt to new information and circumstances, not because you believe he'll follow is election platform to the letter with precisely zero deviation.
Well, to be fair, change from the neocon leadership of the last 8 years still qualifies as change, even if it seems to you that he's basically parroting Democratic talking points.
there a lot of people in this country that agree with Republican principles (smaller Government, less taxes, more personal responsibility)
Wait... what planet do you live on that those are the principles of the Republican party? It's certainly conservative, but it sure as hell ain't Republican (or have you not been paying attention to the cut-taxes-and-spend party of the past 7 years?)
We don't have a liberal media or a conservative media, we have a sensationalist media that caters to the lowest common denominator by trying to place the candidates into a pre-defined mold that has existed for the better part of three decades.
Actually, I think it's simpler than that. You have a media that needs something to report on, and so they want this election to be a horse race. Problem is, prior to the recent FISA vote, Obama was basically wiping the floor with McCain (since then, my understanding is that the polling has narrowed, though I don't believe there's enough data to say if it's the FISA vote, specifically, that has caused the change). So of course the media attack Obama and give McCain a pass... unless they do that, the election will be decidedly boring, and that makes for an uninteresting news cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but it'll have less overhead. I wonder if they were concerned about performance when they designed this?
Congratulations, you're arguing against a point I never made. I never once claimed that switching to a safer language didn't have it's tradeoffs (all such choices do). But that choice *does* bring additional safety, contrary to what the GP would have you believe.
It's not as if Java never [securityfocus.com] had [sun.com] any [securitytracker.com] buffer [uni-stuttgart.de] overflows [gnu.org].
The difference is, once they're fixed in Java, they're fixed for everyone. Meanwhile, any moron with a C++ compiler can create an app with a buffer overflow.
That's not to say safe languages are an all-purpose panacea (obviously there are tradeoffs to any language choice), but I think even you must realize that your argument is a weak one. The Java VM is a classic example of code reuse. With it, you build on software that has millions of hours of time in production, vast amounts of testing and QA, and a single codebase that you can vet for security issues. And anything you build on top of that is only as vulnerable as that substrate. How you can argue that isn't *clearly* a win from a security standpoint, I have no idea... well, other than blind prejudice.
Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?
Sure do!
Do you think it makes your point (or lack thereof) stronger?
It can. In fact, that's the whole point of profanity: to create a strong emotional impact, in order to better convey the feelings of the speaker. Of course, one must be sensitive to context, but it's certainly not out of place on Slashdot.
Got masculinity issues?
Stereotype much? Some women I know swear like sailors... are you saying they, too, long to be more masculine?
Wow, way to completely miss the point. So, let me explain: if I go and build an application using a "safe" language on top of a VM, I'm building on a codebase that's had millions upon millions of hours of real-world testing. Moreover, that VM, being one single piece of code, can easily be audited for security issues, buffer overflows, etc. None of this can be said of an application I build from scratch on top of an "unsafe" language.
Try taking a paddle to Junior in some states... it's an instant trip to jail for Dad
And thank god for that. Physical punishment in a unequal power relationship is wrong and immoral. Period. There are a *myriad* number of ways to punish a child that don't involve beating the shit out of them. Why corporal punishment is considered a magical panacea for child discipline (in an era of record-low youth crime), I'll never know.
You would be surprised at how much a "decent" surround sound system can make up for a small screen size.
Up to a point, maybe. But there's no way I'd build a home theatre with anything less than 50-60 inches of diagonal, and that ain't cheap, particularly at HD resolutions. Anything less isn't a home theatre... it's a TV with a nice stereo attached.
Somehow, I really don't think so. You could spend that much on a decent hi-def projector. And that's all assuming you don't have to renovate a space to make it work.
Sorry, but home theatre really is out of the range of your average joe. Doubly so in the current economic environment. As such, I don't think theatres really have much to worry about (yet, anyway).
And by "relatively cheap", you must mean... what... a $10k rig?
No, I'm referring to people who intentionally drink to excess.
That's still not sufficient to fit the AMA definition. Did you even read the excerpts I provided??
Assuming you did, I guess you're saying you're just smarter than the AMA, now? Alright, if that's what you think... but I think I've made my point. Your definition of "alcoholic" is clearly completely ridiculous, and at odds with the rest of the educated world.
And no, I don't care if you disagree with me.
Umm... the American Medical Associate does, too. But I'm betting you don't care about that, either.
I already know I have more experience than you in this matter
And the rest of the medical establishment? Wow, arrogant *and* ignorant!
The fact that you keep replying to me is more evidence of you denial than anything.
Actually, that's just evidence that I like arguing...
Habitual drinkers do NOT get sloshed.
I can only assume you meant "recreational"... and yes... believe it or not, sometimes, they do. Your continually stating this as fact doesn't make it true.
Those people are called drunks.
No, drinking to excess is *not* sufficient to define an alcoholic. Necessary, yes. Sufficient, no. And the AMA, and so the rest of clinical psychology, agrees with me.
Go ask your own HR department if they would hire someone who drinks to impairment on purpose.
Umm... my company has a yearly party where many drink to excess. On the company dime. So no, they don't care about someone who drinks to impairment, on purpose, occasionally. And thank god for that, because I could never work for an organization as prudish and close-minded as the one you evidently work for.
That said, they do care if you have a drinking habit that interferes with your work or life. But guess what... *that* is part of the definition of an alcoholic, as is reflected in the AMA definition which you so conveniently just ignored.
Having said all that, you REALLY need to learn to read.
Funny, I'd suggest the same to you. Or did you conveniently ignore all the definitions? For example:
"Preoccupation in association with alcohol use indicates excessive, focused attention given to the drug alcohol, its effects, and/or its use. The relative value thus assigned to alcohol by the individual often leads to a diversion of energies away from important life concerns."
See how that *doesn't* apply to people who only drink to excess occasionally? Hey, why not continue, this is fun:
"Adverse consequences are alcohol-related problems or impairments in such areas as: physical health (e.g., alcohol withdrawal syndromes, liver disease, gastritis, anemia, neurological disorders); psychological functioning (e.g., impairments in cognition, changes in mood and behavior); interpersonal functioning (e.g., marital problems and child abuse, impaired social relationships); occupational functioning (e.g., scholastic or job problems); and legal, financial, or spiritual problems."
Another one that doesn't apply! Look at that! Want another?
"Impaired control means the inability to limit alcohol use or to consistently limit on any drinking occasion the duration of the episode, the quantity consumed, and/or the behavioral consequences of drinking."
Note the world inability? As in, incapable of *not* drinking to excess? As opposed to normal, recreational drinkers who make the choice on occasion, but otherwise can happily have a single beer with a meal?
Shall I go on? Or do I need to explain why the rest of the definition, you know, all those parts you didn't actually read, doesn't apply to recreational, as opposed to habitual, drinkers?
Then again, why bother... it's clear you're either trolling or so wrapped up in your own superiority that you can't see why you are, in fact, deeply misguided on the topic of alcohol use.
So, what is that ideal picture? Personally, I've met programmers and math types that are all over the map, personality-wise. And, frankly, I would consider avoiding the overly bookish, socially inept types, given that one's job as a programmer is, above all things, to communicate with others and to, you know, socially interact with them.
No, they're not. I'm not sure what your definition is, but occasionally drinking too much on a weekend is not the definition of alcoholic. This is.
Now, assuming you have, say, the reading comprehension of a high-school student (doubtful given the military service, but...), you might note that one who occasionally has a few too many drinks on the weekend does not, in fact, fit the definition. Perhaps in your own, distorted, prudish mind it does. But to the world of clinical psychology, it doesn't.
quick you cite a website that supports your position and I'll cite one that supports mine.
The difference is, mine provides real evidence from cited sources produced by scientists. It also provides a balanced view, as you already discovered. As for the rest of your points, frankly, I don't even know what you're saying, so there seems little point in commenting.
As for the rest, I couldn't agree more. Sustainable energy is a good idea for many, many reasons. But make no mistake, AGW *is* happening, and it should be one of those reasons.
Good thing, too. For her. Sounds like she has a sense of humour, while you don't.
I know you're joking, but that's an interesting point. It hadn't occurred to me, but he may just be a reformed drunk turned militant teetotaler...
Sorry to wake you up to the real world, but yes, only drunks with a real problem get sloshed.
Buh? I know plenty of people who like to party on the weekends, and that often involves getting drunk. None of them is an alcoholic.
I maintain, you're either a prude, or incredibly boring...
Meh, that's what reference checks are for. If the person has a history of good work, who cares what they do in their off time?
Did it occur to you that getting "sloshed" doesn't necessarily indicate someone is a drunk?
Or are you one of those prudish types who thinks that having a beer on a hot day qualifies one as an alcoholic?
What is AGW? I have no idea what you talking about because I don't know what AGW means.
Anthropogenic Global Warming. The theory that Global Warming is happening and that man is the primary cause, as a consequence of excessive CO2 emissions. And you don't believe in that, as is evidenced from your post, so I'm certainly not mischaracterizing your position.
The major contributor? Water!
Please, do some more reading, clearly you need to further educate yourself. I'd start here. For example, here's is their article on the role of water vapour in GW. Yeah, the page is a bit heavy on the science and numbers... but if you want to have a reasonable, educated discussion on the topic, believe it or not, you need to understand both of those things.
Do you know for how many successive months 2.2 kernels were released? What about times when 2.2 releases were still being made alongside releases of later kernel versions like 2.4?
Sure, but the problem with any other scheme is the implication that the numbers have any meaning regarding the magnitude of change from version to version. Linus' position is essentially that, given the new kernel development process, no, they can have no such meaning, as you can no longer compare 2.6.25 to 2.6.23, and understand how different they are. As such, dates are no worse... either way, the numbering scheme tells you nothing about the nature of the code, aside from when it was released relative to previous versions.
In fact, dates are a bit *more* informative, in this case. Traditionally, the kernel hasn't been on a tight, regular release schedule (though I've heard that might be changing, if it hasn't already?), and so you had no idea how long it took to get from 2.6.23 -> 2.6.25 (BTW, those are contrived numbers), meaning there was literally nothing in the number that would imply the magnitude of change going on. If, however, they switched to something date-based, at least you could see that there was six months of work (again, contrived) between those versions.
Of course, as another poster pointed out, dates do have the problem that you can no longer represent code branches. But, of course, in that case, you'd just prefix or suffix the date with a branch name, much like they already do with developer branches. And as for mainline, the intent is that you'd *never* maintain anything but the trunk codebase, and so there's no need for branch maintenance, as there was in the old, bygone days of 2.4/2.5.
Because people vote for politicians based on their positions. If politicians can change their minds, then I should be able to change my vote.
Bullshit. You live in a representative democracy. In that world, you vote for people, not their platform. The people you vote for are then entrusted to run the system. They are not meant to be robots that vote 100% the way their constituency demands, nor should they be.
In short, if someone votes for Obama, they should do so *because* he's the kind of man that would change his mind if he saw reason to do so. The idea is that you vote for him because you trust his judgment and ability to adapt to new information and circumstances, not because you believe he'll follow is election platform to the letter with precisely zero deviation.
Well, to be fair, change from the neocon leadership of the last 8 years still qualifies as change, even if it seems to you that he's basically parroting Democratic talking points.
there a lot of people in this country that agree with Republican principles (smaller Government, less taxes, more personal responsibility)
Wait... what planet do you live on that those are the principles of the Republican party? It's certainly conservative, but it sure as hell ain't Republican (or have you not been paying attention to the cut-taxes-and-spend party of the past 7 years?)
We don't have a liberal media or a conservative media, we have a sensationalist media that caters to the lowest common denominator by trying to place the candidates into a pre-defined mold that has existed for the better part of three decades.
Actually, I think it's simpler than that. You have a media that needs something to report on, and so they want this election to be a horse race. Problem is, prior to the recent FISA vote, Obama was basically wiping the floor with McCain (since then, my understanding is that the polling has narrowed, though I don't believe there's enough data to say if it's the FISA vote, specifically, that has caused the change). So of course the media attack Obama and give McCain a pass... unless they do that, the election will be decidedly boring, and that makes for an uninteresting news cycle.