- I have been using 3/4 different browsers on a daily basis since quite long time ago. I use each of them to visit different sites where I store my credentials/not. Usually, I rely on the most updated versions and, until some months ago, I rarely had problems to access relevant enough sites with any of them. But lately, I am having lots of troubles in quite a few sites every time I use any browser different than Chrome. The problems are mostly related to videos, mainly streaming them (from relatively big TV networks, not a single issue in crappy sites!); but I also see other problems like (JavaScript) functionalities not working properly. Have people completely forgotten about cross-compatibility or what? Now!! When all the browsers behave almost identically!
- After having been using Windows as my primary OS for quite long, I have recently moved my main machine to Linux; I use various distros, but mainly Ubuntu 16.04. During the last few weeks, I have been observing a curious issue in Chrome: the upper minimise-maximise-close buttons have been moved (not 100% sure if they were there all the time) from the Linux-typical LHS to the Windows-typical RHS! Why?! It is kind of weird to find those buttons in the same place when using any other other browser, folders or whatever, but not in Chrome! Any more-experienced-than-me Linux user care to comment about this issue?
See, the thing is, you could simply have acknowledged that your denial was in error, a mere mistake, but instead you chose to declaim further upon me, and present what seems a quite arrogant defense... etc.
Thanks to you and the other idiot below for reminding me, once again, that trying to be civil and understanding with "people" like you is impossible. All your posts since the very first moment have shown your clear lack of understanding and your fanaticism. You seem to believe that using many (in your head) difficult to understand words and repeating the same mantra over and over makes you look intelligent or being in control of the situation, but it proves right the contrary. It only proves that you are a very insecure person who sees manipulation and imposition as a right way through (ironically, your behaviour belongs to what I defined as violence-prone personalities; although you rely on different means than physical violence to impose your views). Nobody with even half brain cell will ever take you or your whole made up world of saying-nothing, empty nonsense seriously. You didn't understand why I said that there is something off with you?! You wanted me to be more specific, OK here I go: you are in complete and absolute denial, you are unable to understand even the simplest idea and to be part of virtually any kind of conversation. You are a fanatic in the strictest sense of the world. You come to me (or to anyone else) with a couple of ill-formed ideas by seriously thinking that you can impose them via systematic repetition (= cult technique). You don't listen. You don't understand. You don't provide anything other than pity (to those feeling it/expecting something from people like you, certainly not me). You just bother or are ignored/not being taking seriously.
I will make one last attempt at helping you understand. I will not reply to/read any other of your sad samples of in-denial nonsense. And just in case you don't get it (which you will most likely not get it), this is not a conversation (it never was, you were talking mostly to yourself and to the crazy misinterpretations you have been coming up with. BTW, a new advice: try to read whole sentences/paragraphs/posts and get the intention/context, rather than isolated words/expressions whose actual meaning is zero), this is a person having a lot (= myself) sharing a bit with someone having a very little (= you); enjoy my generosity or not, I don't care. Anyway... The summary is that my whole point from the start was that violence/aggressions are always an output of the same kind of personalities: insecure people wanting to arbitrarily impose their positions into others (e.g., what you tried to do here). They might do it out of need (committing a crime to get some food), but the most common reason, at least in rich countries, is ignorance, unhealthy expectations, low-self-esteem, unfairness/arbitrariness/egoism/nepotism (certain people expect a special treatment just for being them?!). Unfortunately, some of these movements have got some support (as Brexit or Trump or similar did, pretty much for the same reasons) and have provoked the appearance of quite a few misconceptions and bad expectations. When I see people extremely wrong, provoking problems to themselves and others voluntarily, getting locked inside non-existent jails made by their short-sightedness and prejudices, etc., I feel sorry for them and try to help. Not because of thinking that anything of this really affects me, but out of generosity and contributing towards making the world a better place. Not sure if unfortunately or luckily for me, I have fully confirmed that helping some people is completely impossible; no matter how easily they might stop having their problems (e.g., "all what you need to do is to listen"), they aren't able/willing to solve them. I am not sure about the reason for that (I am an extremely practical guy, always ready to change/improve/understand), I guess that it has to do with the fact that they don't want to accept the r
You're not going to get far if you're just proclaiming that "Nothing of this bothers me." while demonstrating how you are bothered.
I am seriously not trying to offend you but I cannot imagine how else could I transmit these ideas. Since your very first comment I saw something off with you, at least, with respect to me, what I was saying and what I consider acceptable. That's why I said that better cutting the chat there. This last comment of yours has fully confirmed that initial assumption. I am expressly telling you what I think and you decide to not believe me (= calling me liar or person in denial) because of whatever misinterpretation you have made of my words, my personality or even the world we live again?! You consider that your random assumptions about what I think are more valid than what I say?!
Again without trying to offend you, it looks like you have problems of the worst kind: the self-inflicted ones, the ones that are there only because you want them to be there! I will stop it here by giving you just a quick little advice: go a bit outside whatever sub-world you are in and you will be surprised about how many alternatives, people having lots of (serious) problems and giving a crap about all what you care you can find out there. You don't even need to physically go anywhere, just use internet by trying to see, listen and learn, rather than thinking that you can "convince" anyone about your truths; or that your blind certainty about how you think that everything should be has an absolute value, at lease for me. Bye.
more clearly identify your focus on whatever is really bothering you
Nothing of this bothers me. I was plainly trying to help from my honestly distant and pretty comfortable position. I am not violent and don't like violent people. If I am ever involved in a violent situation, I would deal with it accordingly and accept the consequences. I don't need to come up with a generic set of ideas or a proceeding to eventually account for future improbable outcomes. I don't like generalisations/prejudices and will never tolerate them affecting me in any way. I was plainly trying to share some thoughts which some people, different than me and with other expectations, might eventually find useful.
I usually agree with any approach on the lines of better trying to solve the global problem by focusing on specific cases. But, as I see it, some people have stopped understanding violent and imposing behaviours as a whole and started looking for specific justifications, what has provoked a misunderstanding of the underlying reality. It is OK to focus on specific types of violence, but without forgetting that all of them are intrinsically identical and are outputted by basically the same kind of people: violent, imposing, arbitrary people whose behaviours are being systematically validated on quite a few fronts; in many cases, by the victims of this or other type of violence (who might not even know how to interact with others in a non-violent way). Anyway, from your post, it is clear that our positions are very different and I will better not continue with this discussion.
Good samples of preventive measurements. And both of them applicable to a huge number of scenarios involving different people, attackers and aggressions. There is no need to be more specific.
There have been countless accusations of sexual assault by Uber drivers, not so much other types of violence.
Fair point. In any case, my comment wasn't just meant for this specific situation, but also in general. There seems to be an increasing number of people and policies considering specific types of violence and victims intrinsically different what, IMHO, is wrong and doesn't help to solve the problem. Violence-prone people are pretty much the same everywhere and in every context. Being understanding with certain kinds of violence means to somehow validate other types. The sad reality is that people who are regularly/systematically involved in violent situations are very likely to be violent themselves or to somehow support this or other forms of violence.
Yes, they are. See, sexual assault is a kind of assault, and by reducing its occurrence, you can reduce the numbers of all assaults. See how that works?
I think that the difference between the whole and a part of said whole should be quite evident for almost everyone. My point was to mostly focus on the whole thing (any kind of assault and violence against everyone) rather than just on a specific subset (sexual assault and violence against a specific group of people), by seeing it as a the same problem (violence-prone personalities) rather than specific sub-problems (sexual-assaulting-prone people). Additionally, by focusing on a subset you are expressly or implicitly considering other kinds of violence less bad or protection worthy. Hopefully, my point is crystal clear now.
It would also be nice if they could work towards preventing violence and assaults of any kind regardless of their characteristics. Considering a specific type of violence or victims more protection-worthy is discriminatory, short-sighted and, if you wish, violent with respect to other people/situations.
People considering acceptable any form of violence because of whatever reason and even actively supporting those behaviours are the problem. It doesn't matter their gender, race, ideas or whether they are alone or part of a group (well... the second alternative seems much more coward and censurable). The only thing that matters is the distorted perception of those who think that can unilaterally impose their will into others, either physically or in any other way, without consequences. Violence and arbitrary impositions are usually the resources of egoist, fearful and insecure people, who don't respect others and expect their positions to prevail no matter what, and you can find people like this everywhere.
All the people interested in technical papers and willing to rely on a let's say not official source like this do already know about Sci-Hub. The site does have its own search functionality and, in principle, there is no need to rely on search engines or in any other external resource to browse through their own information.
On the other hand, that blockade might affect Sci-Hub in case they didn't develop their own search and relied on an existing search-engine, what is a surprisingly common approach. Bear in mind that most of websites including a relevant number of contents use databases which, basically, are search engines. Even if you want to make things really cheap, simple and quick, you could build a simple form directly communicating with the in-built search engine of the given database (don't forget about SQL injection!!!).
Renouncing to (or, at least, blindly trusting for-profit companies, whose businesses aren't precisely objectivity and technical correctness, to make the right decisions) privacy, reliability or similar and getting something on exchange might be justifiable. Performing these actions by default and getting even worse results seems quite stupid. No idea what Sci-Hub has done on this front, but there are quite a few sites performing such nonsensical actions; and I am not just talking about small websites where searching is a secondary concern. It is almost scary how much power certain companies/data sources have got mostly through laziness and undeserved blind trust.
You are spot on and I am saying that despite taking the let's-develop-it-from-scratch path quite easily myself. New versions affecting so basic functionalities indicates past (old code not flexible enough) or present (too invasive modifications) incompetence. Additionally, these bugs are usually more difficult to be found because most of the testing will be focused on the new features by assuming that all the old parts continue working fine.
Weird! That previous post isn't being displayed in my profile, unlikely the other one which I wrote a while later. Note that when trying to firstly post it, I got a "lameness filter" warning which disappeared after converting some of the "troll"s into "t-r-o-l-l"s. I guess that those first posting attempts provoked it to be somehow demoted anyway. What a pity!
BTW and even despite you have proven numerous lacks on the common sense front, I cannot refrain myself from asking you something: why trolling? As I understand it, there are two main meanings for that expression: either bothering others (mostly in a childish and quite random way; although it might also be used to censor previous behaviours) or relying on a somehow dishonest attitude to get some kind of gain. Do you think that any of this is even slightly applicable to this situation? You know, have you put all the pieces together to determine whether your attitude, impressions and outputs make actually any sense? Or, in other words, do you know what you are doing/what is happening here? What is your position (victim or aggressor), your knowledge and the real applicability of your words?.
I am a logged-in user with an account clearly linked to myself/my business/my knowledge/my attitude and am replying to someone who anonymously posted a kind-of-off-topic comment about two programming languages which I personally don't even use too much (I have been working quite a lot on C during the last months though). What could I gain with all that? How would I get any kind of advantage from C or C++ being used more/less or people thinking that using a different language is an acceptable way to fix a bug? Can you see in my profile here or in my website any reference to me being paid by the (non-existent) owners of any of those two languages? Do you think that I earn money or get a better reputation as a programmer, even as a person, by using my company's account for just bothering random anonymous people? If you do a quick research about me, you would see that there are quite a few express references to principles like honesty, fairness, objectivity, etc.; what do you think about all this? It is just a cover for my real activity, right? My only goal on life and my sole income source was, is and will always be to randomly and dishonestly attack anonymous people in internet talking about so irrelevant issues like advantages C/C++, right? Every time, I said something against what you think, I am lying and I only want to attack you, random anonymous coward, don't you think? Every time I click on the "post" button, I get $1000 because the world is a magical place where random words make sense and things just happen, right? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
?! So, someone using his own account, the only undoubtedly linked to himself and his online-based business precisely focused on programming (on doing things properly always objectively and honestly without being part of any group/trend or unfairly favouring/criticising anyone and always trying to learn and to improve, etc.), the person whose starting comment and all the remaining ones have the sole purpose of critically discussing rather than blindly applying absolute truths. That person, myself, is the troll here?!
Let me do a quick recap: the original comment was absolutely criticising one of the most used programming languages ever, C, and supporting another one which introduced some improvements on it, C++. Both these languages can be safely considered old, as far as there are many newer languages compensating virtually all their limitations. I personally don't have any strong preference for any of them, but would use them if required. Saying that a language fixes the bugs of other one is very close to pure arbitrariness and, if you want to go down that path, I would recommend you to focus on newer alternatives than C++. This fact, together with trying to force critical thinking rather than blind repetition, was the whole point of my posts. So, in summary you are calling me t-r-o-l-l (apparently, you cannot write that word too many times here) for personally (rather than anonymously) promoting an open, practical and reasonable discussion as opposed to blind-repetition/fanaticism. Why? Because I promote common sense and anonymous, group-think and attacking-anyone-saying-otherwise benefits you? OK. I guess that I am fine with that label: t-r-o-l-l of the coward fanatics supporting what is bad for the most.
Go ahead and reply to yourself a few more times,
This isn't trolling either, right? Or a personal attack. The way in which I write or post here bothers you because isn't like yours or what you consider common and, even though I am not hurting anyone with my behaviour, you consider that (anonymously) censoring it is acceptable. Because everyone knows that people explaining too much, providing lots of over-information and doing so voluntarily at their own expense/time are the worst, right? Firstly, it comes Hitler, the mass murderers and, in the third position, people explaining too much, providing lots of over-information and being always ready to explain/reason. LOL. Although you deserve to be insulted (better: defined as what you really are), I will not do it because think that this description of your behaviour will do a much better job.
If you can't see the bug where it clearly says "/* bug; should have been VF_VIRUS; note: implicit (ViolationFlags)(int)VC_VIRUS == VF_TOS */"
So, you detect bugs by looking at comments?! When solving a problem, you mostly look for the label clearly stating "problem here, please solve", aren't you? That makes (again) lots of sense! LOL. Anyway, I don't think that this comment goes against what I have been explaining here. In that specific scenario, the original C code would be buggy, but the C++ version wouldn't be the logical solution either (creating the proper algorithm in C would have been). In any other scenario involving that same code or any other one taking random inputs, exactly the same story: enum boundaries would have to be checked/not depending upon the conditions/language. No need to bring C++ (or any other language) into picture to "correct a bug" provoked in C (or any other language). Logically, I mean all this when dealing with commonly-supported and generic conditions as highlighted in one of the previous comments to myself (really meant to help people like you who usually require a lot of over-explanations to understand anything properly).
Perhaps the input source is also returning nulls or random strings and, in that case, both codes would be wrong:)
And I mean that without even knowing the exact C++ behaviour (I have some experience in C, a lot in quite a few modern C-based languages, but not too much in C++), even if it could deal gracefully with almost any scenario (what I don't think that is the case), the difference among number valid enum, number invalid enum and not number would be ignored. What I want to highlight with this comment is that my whole intention since the start was to support proper, reasonable and flexible programming attitudes, rather than blind trust in abstract solutions or in something else (the language, the inputs or the next programmer) to take care of whatever for you. I replied about a week ago to another poster saying that concatenating SQL connection strings was absolutely wrong, pretty much the same thing than here.
(Sorry about the delay in replying. In fact, I have seen your comment by pure accident. You should learn to post as a logged-in user such that people get warnings about your replies)
Please go educate yourself [cppreference.com] about C++11 scoped enumerations.
Can you please tell me the exact part of my posts where I said or even insinuated otherwise?
Basically C-style enums allow implicit conversion to and from integers
As highlighted in my original comment, enums are basically integers so all the languages allow more or less easy transitions between both realities. Again, not sure where have you got that this point wasn't clear either in my first comment, which I kept quite generic without focusing on C++/C or in this specific implementation.
That's what fixes the bug in the grandparent post
No. For two reasons: one there is no bug (you don't know anything about the potential inputs/outputs; it might be a perfectly controlled situation); secondly and as explained in my original comment, having the input conditions controlled isn't language-dependent but programmer-dependent. If you are relying on a structure which performs whatever checks are required (your example with enums and C++), you can avoid caring about it. On the other hand, if such a thing isn't in place (your example with the C enum), you would have to do the checks yourself. There is nothing wrong with any of the languages, just with a bad programmer with an I-will-throw-it-there-without-checking-anything-and-hope-that-everything-turns-out-ok attitude (quite bad for life in general too, if you ask my opinion).
tl;dr: Unlike old-style enums, C++11 scoped enumerations are more than just window dressing for integers.
tl;dr: I never said or implied otherwise. As per the provided information, we don't even know whether this code can crash/is wrong. If it is wrong, the solution would be building a proper algorithm by maximising the means provided by the given language (don't check enums if you are using C++ or make sure that the inputs meet the expected boundaries in C). Even a further example to help you understand my point: why are you assuming that a number is being read? Perhaps the input source is also returning nulls or random strings and, in that case, both codes would be wrong:)
No banks, government, infrastructure, etc. can hire him.
He has already a job. And jobs being too picky with background checks are usually for a few; without forgetting the fact that software development and infosec have lots of demand mainly in his area. A programmer living in Silicon Valley! Another issue offering lots of alternatives. Are you implying that a young guy, with a proper university degree, relevant expertise in the field, a job and living in one of the richest areas and with more job opportunities for him in the whole planet has any problem at all? A person who will most likely never commit another crime again and for whom the probation period will not have any kind of consequence!
See, I don't like talking too much without knowing and have just read the summary here. I also don't wish anything bad to anyone and prefer people being happy and having favourable conditions. But what I see is a kind-of-privileged guy who didn't make the best decisions in the past and who now is getting a treatment which many other people will never get under equivalent circumstances. And I insist in that jail time would be too much, but not even losing some money seems like a win-win for him. He might have got quite scared and kind of learned the lesson. But the fact that his actions have no relevant consequences/losses seems quite unfair, a bad precedent and not the best solution for someone who has proven to not have a particularly strong personality.
He's been let off way too easy. 2 years probation?
I am not too familiar with the US penal system (neither with the one in my country as far as I haven't ever been in that situation), but this sounds as a very small punishment for someone being charge with prison time. Correct me if I am wrong, but this will not limit his activity at all and, as far as he seems to already have a solid career, is very unlikely to have a negative impact on his job/client search. This seems almost just publicity and you know what they say about publicity and businesses.
So after 2 years he can freely start stealing computer resources again?
For me, it is more a matter of bothering, stealing/dealing with personal information and, basically, getting an income from kind-of-damaging others; to not mention the tiny issue of going against the law. Additionally, I think that this is particularly censurable in a field like software development and a country like the US where you have lots of very lucrative, not-bothering-anyone and legal alternatives. If you perform some not too good activity because of need, it might be kind of understandable; but in this case, it was clearly a voluntary and fully conscious decision. Do you want to take the easy/dangerous way? OK, but don't complain later about the consequences.
How about docking all his pay until he's paid for his tuition...
I don't think that the whole last part of your post has anything to do with the evident intention in mine: all up for second chances + reasonable punishment.
He voluntarily chooses the easiest path by provoking a damage to others, out of the huge amount of other possibilities. He spends all the money egoistically although in something which a priori seems not that bad. As a result of all that, he gets a career, an education and even some fame within the field. The rest of the society gets spam (at least), further promotion of crap(py attitudes, knowledge, outputs, etc.) within the software development industry, the impression that you can get away with things like that and even somehow demotivating people always doing what is right. This doesn't sound fair to me.
Sending him to jail would have perhaps been a bit too excessive; but an important payment or some kind of punishment in the form of restricting his activity might have been quite fair. I am all for second chances and supporting people wanting to improve, but everyone should be responsible for any action damaging others. Nothing even close to an eye for an eye, just some reasonable compensation.
My "there aren’t many absolute benefits associated with using a specific programming language" should be understood within the proper context of using the right tool for the job. A language like C cannot be used (at least, not autonomously or without provoking an unreasonable increase of complexity) in quite a few scenarios. Also the quality of the in-built or even just available resources of some languages might make their usage recommendable under certain conditions. Anyway, my previous comment was mostly meant for algorithmic/common-to-all-the-languages situations like managing input files or creating proper algorithms.
C++11 enum class fixes this by adding strong typing:
Why do you consider the first sample wrong and the second one fixing it? The line VirusCheckerResult result = virus_checker.scan(file); introduces an uncontrolled uncertainty and any even slightly sensible programmer should deal with it properly by relying on whatever means are available. Enums are basically integers and, when taking random external inputs (e.g., the aforementioned file reading), you have to make sure that the given value yields within the expected range.
Any code taking random inputs without confirming that they meet the expected format is wrong regardless of the language. Note that I regularly rely on a relevant number of different programming languages with different levels of “programmer's helps” (e.g., strong typing) and my code is always perfectly adapted to the given conditions. Other than in very specific cases (e.g., a language like C performing notably better than virtually any other one) and/or when being used by unexperienced-in-that-language-or-in-general/bad programmers, there aren’t many absolute benefits associated with using a specific programming language. Or, in other words, the one to blame for any problem is always the developer/tester/manager/etc.
When seeing pictures like these in a random profile somewhere, the first idea coming to my mind is that they are fake. Even by ignoring some weird bits (some of them are surprisingly similar to various celebrities), the main issue is the lack of realism. A different story is being able to tell whether the fake picture was created by a quite-bad-at-faking person or a computer.
Oh my god! I hate working with coders like you! Everytime someone talks to you, it's like you spit out this massive text wall as if you're trying to defend your doctoral thesis with every comment you post.
?! Words and concepts confuse you a lot, right? You are the kind of person who mostly "communicates" through emojis, aren't you? When you don't understand something or it requires too much effort you get frustrated and attack everyone? Are you the kind of PR/HR/CEO coming up with expressions like "bug" to explain what is being described in this article? LOL. I don't think that you and I (and perhaps the coders you refer) even belong to the same world. The only reason why we are in the same working dimension is because of stupidity: lots of money, lots of possibilities and tons of extremely bad decisions.
Also, guys like that tend to write shitty code and try to defend it with bizarre dissertations that never actually solve the original problem.
Thanks again for proving my point. See? There are people so blind, so ignorant and so arbitrary that can easily come up with such generic and prejudicious nonsense from virtually anything and provoke problems everywhere. BTW, my work speaks for itself, I don't need to justify anything: it works exactly as intended, reliability and under a huge variety of conditions, not like the jokes you can find nowadays virtually everywhere. Do you know the funniest bit? That I can beat you even at having random prejudices, as proven in the paragraphs below:) (with the smiley everything gets clearer to you, eh? I am giver! LOL).
Your problem isn't not knowing, but not accepting that fact and making stupid decisions affecting many others. You expect everyone to listen to your incoherent expectations and, of course, someone else to bear the blame when everything goes wrong because you don't know what you are talking about. You have tons of prejudices (this is what idiots do to compensate their lack of knowledge and acceptation of such a reality), but are also probably calling others racist or misogynists or narcissistic on a regular basis and for no good reason. You don't create/solve/improve anything; you don't innovate; you don't even treat others fairly and respectfully (just apply whatever rules the current trend says); all what you do is trying to justify and perpetuate your position in the system, mostly via nepotism, unfairness and impositions. You are the leech which isn't happy just with getting blood from the host, but which also wants it to do whatever and gets angry when it dies precisely because of doing such a thing.
You and all what you represent are the cancer of software development; and, hopefully, it will come the day when all you will leave. And you will take with you all your emojies, abstract words, trends, fears, arbitrariness, incompetence, etc. and go to become party promoters or politicians or bankers or mobsters or whatever other field will accept your random impositions and talking-a-lot-without-knowing; or you might even move to a more logical position within software development: do you want to earn money from my work, but you know nothing about it? OK. Shut up! Don't bother me! Don't think that we have anything to do with each other; I don't like you, but you provide what I need! Let me do my work and enjoy the results! If that day ever comes, software development would become a serious technical field with professional people mostly caring about technical aspects, rather than about whatever stupidity the in-house clowns decide to come up with
Slashdot Mirror
- I have been using 3/4 different browsers on a daily basis since quite long time ago. I use each of them to visit different sites where I store my credentials/not. Usually, I rely on the most updated versions and, until some months ago, I rarely had problems to access relevant enough sites with any of them. But lately, I am having lots of troubles in quite a few sites every time I use any browser different than Chrome. The problems are mostly related to videos, mainly streaming them (from relatively big TV networks, not a single issue in crappy sites!); but I also see other problems like (JavaScript) functionalities not working properly. Have people completely forgotten about cross-compatibility or what? Now!! When all the browsers behave almost identically!
- After having been using Windows as my primary OS for quite long, I have recently moved my main machine to Linux; I use various distros, but mainly Ubuntu 16.04. During the last few weeks, I have been observing a curious issue in Chrome: the upper minimise-maximise-close buttons have been moved (not 100% sure if they were there all the time) from the Linux-typical LHS to the Windows-typical RHS! Why?! It is kind of weird to find those buttons in the same place when using any other other browser, folders or whatever, but not in Chrome! Any more-experienced-than-me Linux user care to comment about this issue?
I'll take a pound of quarks please.
Here you have a 1-pound stone full of high-quality quarks. It is $1 for the stone and $1 trillion for the quarks. LOL.
See, the thing is, you could simply have acknowledged that your denial was in error, a mere mistake, but instead you chose to declaim further upon me, and present what seems a quite arrogant defense... etc.
Thanks to you and the other idiot below for reminding me, once again, that trying to be civil and understanding with "people" like you is impossible. All your posts since the very first moment have shown your clear lack of understanding and your fanaticism. You seem to believe that using many (in your head) difficult to understand words and repeating the same mantra over and over makes you look intelligent or being in control of the situation, but it proves right the contrary. It only proves that you are a very insecure person who sees manipulation and imposition as a right way through (ironically, your behaviour belongs to what I defined as violence-prone personalities; although you rely on different means than physical violence to impose your views). Nobody with even half brain cell will ever take you or your whole made up world of saying-nothing, empty nonsense seriously. You didn't understand why I said that there is something off with you?! You wanted me to be more specific, OK here I go: you are in complete and absolute denial, you are unable to understand even the simplest idea and to be part of virtually any kind of conversation. You are a fanatic in the strictest sense of the world. You come to me (or to anyone else) with a couple of ill-formed ideas by seriously thinking that you can impose them via systematic repetition (= cult technique). You don't listen. You don't understand. You don't provide anything other than pity (to those feeling it/expecting something from people like you, certainly not me). You just bother or are ignored/not being taking seriously.
I will make one last attempt at helping you understand. I will not reply to/read any other of your sad samples of in-denial nonsense. And just in case you don't get it (which you will most likely not get it), this is not a conversation (it never was, you were talking mostly to yourself and to the crazy misinterpretations you have been coming up with. BTW, a new advice: try to read whole sentences/paragraphs/posts and get the intention/context, rather than isolated words/expressions whose actual meaning is zero), this is a person having a lot (= myself) sharing a bit with someone having a very little (= you); enjoy my generosity or not, I don't care. Anyway... The summary is that my whole point from the start was that violence/aggressions are always an output of the same kind of personalities: insecure people wanting to arbitrarily impose their positions into others (e.g., what you tried to do here). They might do it out of need (committing a crime to get some food), but the most common reason, at least in rich countries, is ignorance, unhealthy expectations, low-self-esteem, unfairness/arbitrariness/egoism/nepotism (certain people expect a special treatment just for being them?!). Unfortunately, some of these movements have got some support (as Brexit or Trump or similar did, pretty much for the same reasons) and have provoked the appearance of quite a few misconceptions and bad expectations. When I see people extremely wrong, provoking problems to themselves and others voluntarily, getting locked inside non-existent jails made by their short-sightedness and prejudices, etc., I feel sorry for them and try to help. Not because of thinking that anything of this really affects me, but out of generosity and contributing towards making the world a better place. Not sure if unfortunately or luckily for me, I have fully confirmed that helping some people is completely impossible; no matter how easily they might stop having their problems (e.g., "all what you need to do is to listen"), they aren't able/willing to solve them. I am not sure about the reason for that (I am an extremely practical guy, always ready to change/improve/understand), I guess that it has to do with the fact that they don't want to accept the r
You're not going to get far if you're just proclaiming that "Nothing of this bothers me." while demonstrating how you are bothered.
I am seriously not trying to offend you but I cannot imagine how else could I transmit these ideas. Since your very first comment I saw something off with you, at least, with respect to me, what I was saying and what I consider acceptable. That's why I said that better cutting the chat there. This last comment of yours has fully confirmed that initial assumption. I am expressly telling you what I think and you decide to not believe me (= calling me liar or person in denial) because of whatever misinterpretation you have made of my words, my personality or even the world we live again?! You consider that your random assumptions about what I think are more valid than what I say?!
Again without trying to offend you, it looks like you have problems of the worst kind: the self-inflicted ones, the ones that are there only because you want them to be there! I will stop it here by giving you just a quick little advice: go a bit outside whatever sub-world you are in and you will be surprised about how many alternatives, people having lots of (serious) problems and giving a crap about all what you care you can find out there. You don't even need to physically go anywhere, just use internet by trying to see, listen and learn, rather than thinking that you can "convince" anyone about your truths; or that your blind certainty about how you think that everything should be has an absolute value, at lease for me. Bye.
more clearly identify your focus on whatever is really bothering you
Nothing of this bothers me. I was plainly trying to help from my honestly distant and pretty comfortable position. I am not violent and don't like violent people. If I am ever involved in a violent situation, I would deal with it accordingly and accept the consequences. I don't need to come up with a generic set of ideas or a proceeding to eventually account for future improbable outcomes. I don't like generalisations/prejudices and will never tolerate them affecting me in any way. I was plainly trying to share some thoughts which some people, different than me and with other expectations, might eventually find useful.
I usually agree with any approach on the lines of better trying to solve the global problem by focusing on specific cases. But, as I see it, some people have stopped understanding violent and imposing behaviours as a whole and started looking for specific justifications, what has provoked a misunderstanding of the underlying reality. It is OK to focus on specific types of violence, but without forgetting that all of them are intrinsically identical and are outputted by basically the same kind of people: violent, imposing, arbitrary people whose behaviours are being systematically validated on quite a few fronts; in many cases, by the victims of this or other type of violence (who might not even know how to interact with others in a non-violent way). Anyway, from your post, it is clear that our positions are very different and I will better not continue with this discussion.
Good samples of preventive measurements. And both of them applicable to a huge number of scenarios involving different people, attackers and aggressions. There is no need to be more specific.
There have been countless accusations of sexual assault by Uber drivers, not so much other types of violence.
Fair point. In any case, my comment wasn't just meant for this specific situation, but also in general. There seems to be an increasing number of people and policies considering specific types of violence and victims intrinsically different what, IMHO, is wrong and doesn't help to solve the problem. Violence-prone people are pretty much the same everywhere and in every context. Being understanding with certain kinds of violence means to somehow validate other types. The sad reality is that people who are regularly/systematically involved in violent situations are very likely to be violent themselves or to somehow support this or other forms of violence.
Yes, they are. See, sexual assault is a kind of assault, and by reducing its occurrence, you can reduce the numbers of all assaults. See how that works?
I think that the difference between the whole and a part of said whole should be quite evident for almost everyone. My point was to mostly focus on the whole thing (any kind of assault and violence against everyone) rather than just on a specific subset (sexual assault and violence against a specific group of people), by seeing it as a the same problem (violence-prone personalities) rather than specific sub-problems (sexual-assaulting-prone people). Additionally, by focusing on a subset you are expressly or implicitly considering other kinds of violence less bad or protection worthy. Hopefully, my point is crystal clear now.
It would also be nice if they could work towards preventing violence and assaults of any kind regardless of their characteristics. Considering a specific type of violence or victims more protection-worthy is discriminatory, short-sighted and, if you wish, violent with respect to other people/situations.
People considering acceptable any form of violence because of whatever reason and even actively supporting those behaviours are the problem. It doesn't matter their gender, race, ideas or whether they are alone or part of a group (well... the second alternative seems much more coward and censurable). The only thing that matters is the distorted perception of those who think that can unilaterally impose their will into others, either physically or in any other way, without consequences. Violence and arbitrary impositions are usually the resources of egoist, fearful and insecure people, who don't respect others and expect their positions to prevail no matter what, and you can find people like this everywhere.
All the people interested in technical papers and willing to rely on a let's say not official source like this do already know about Sci-Hub. The site does have its own search functionality and, in principle, there is no need to rely on search engines or in any other external resource to browse through their own information.
On the other hand, that blockade might affect Sci-Hub in case they didn't develop their own search and relied on an existing search-engine, what is a surprisingly common approach. Bear in mind that most of websites including a relevant number of contents use databases which, basically, are search engines. Even if you want to make things really cheap, simple and quick, you could build a simple form directly communicating with the in-built search engine of the given database (don't forget about SQL injection!!!).
Renouncing to (or, at least, blindly trusting for-profit companies, whose businesses aren't precisely objectivity and technical correctness, to make the right decisions) privacy, reliability or similar and getting something on exchange might be justifiable. Performing these actions by default and getting even worse results seems quite stupid. No idea what Sci-Hub has done on this front, but there are quite a few sites performing such nonsensical actions; and I am not just talking about small websites where searching is a secondary concern. It is almost scary how much power certain companies/data sources have got mostly through laziness and undeserved blind trust.
You are spot on and I am saying that despite taking the let's-develop-it-from-scratch path quite easily myself. New versions affecting so basic functionalities indicates past (old code not flexible enough) or present (too invasive modifications) incompetence. Additionally, these bugs are usually more difficult to be found because most of the testing will be focused on the new features by assuming that all the old parts continue working fine.
Weird! That previous post isn't being displayed in my profile, unlikely the other one which I wrote a while later. Note that when trying to firstly post it, I got a "lameness filter" warning which disappeared after converting some of the "troll"s into "t-r-o-l-l"s. I guess that those first posting attempts provoked it to be somehow demoted anyway. What a pity!
BTW and even despite you have proven numerous lacks on the common sense front, I cannot refrain myself from asking you something: why trolling? As I understand it, there are two main meanings for that expression: either bothering others (mostly in a childish and quite random way; although it might also be used to censor previous behaviours) or relying on a somehow dishonest attitude to get some kind of gain. Do you think that any of this is even slightly applicable to this situation? You know, have you put all the pieces together to determine whether your attitude, impressions and outputs make actually any sense? Or, in other words, do you know what you are doing/what is happening here? What is your position (victim or aggressor), your knowledge and the real applicability of your words?.
I am a logged-in user with an account clearly linked to myself/my business/my knowledge/my attitude and am replying to someone who anonymously posted a kind-of-off-topic comment about two programming languages which I personally don't even use too much (I have been working quite a lot on C during the last months though). What could I gain with all that? How would I get any kind of advantage from C or C++ being used more/less or people thinking that using a different language is an acceptable way to fix a bug? Can you see in my profile here or in my website any reference to me being paid by the (non-existent) owners of any of those two languages? Do you think that I earn money or get a better reputation as a programmer, even as a person, by using my company's account for just bothering random anonymous people? If you do a quick research about me, you would see that there are quite a few express references to principles like honesty, fairness, objectivity, etc.; what do you think about all this? It is just a cover for my real activity, right? My only goal on life and my sole income source was, is and will always be to randomly and dishonestly attack anonymous people in internet talking about so irrelevant issues like advantages C/C++, right? Every time, I said something against what you think, I am lying and I only want to attack you, random anonymous coward, don't you think? Every time I click on the "post" button, I get $1000 because the world is a magical place where random words make sense and things just happen, right? LOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
Trolley McTrollface.
?! So, someone using his own account, the only undoubtedly linked to himself and his online-based business precisely focused on programming (on doing things properly always objectively and honestly without being part of any group/trend or unfairly favouring/criticising anyone and always trying to learn and to improve, etc.), the person whose starting comment and all the remaining ones have the sole purpose of critically discussing rather than blindly applying absolute truths. That person, myself, is the troll here?!
Let me do a quick recap: the original comment was absolutely criticising one of the most used programming languages ever, C, and supporting another one which introduced some improvements on it, C++. Both these languages can be safely considered old, as far as there are many newer languages compensating virtually all their limitations. I personally don't have any strong preference for any of them, but would use them if required. Saying that a language fixes the bugs of other one is very close to pure arbitrariness and, if you want to go down that path, I would recommend you to focus on newer alternatives than C++. This fact, together with trying to force critical thinking rather than blind repetition, was the whole point of my posts. So, in summary you are calling me t-r-o-l-l (apparently, you cannot write that word too many times here) for personally (rather than anonymously) promoting an open, practical and reasonable discussion as opposed to blind-repetition/fanaticism. Why? Because I promote common sense and anonymous, group-think and attacking-anyone-saying-otherwise benefits you? OK. I guess that I am fine with that label: t-r-o-l-l of the coward fanatics supporting what is bad for the most.
Go ahead and reply to yourself a few more times,
This isn't trolling either, right? Or a personal attack. The way in which I write or post here bothers you because isn't like yours or what you consider common and, even though I am not hurting anyone with my behaviour, you consider that (anonymously) censoring it is acceptable. Because everyone knows that people explaining too much, providing lots of over-information and doing so voluntarily at their own expense/time are the worst, right? Firstly, it comes Hitler, the mass murderers and, in the third position, people explaining too much, providing lots of over-information and being always ready to explain/reason. LOL. Although you deserve to be insulted (better: defined as what you really are), I will not do it because think that this description of your behaviour will do a much better job.
If you can't see the bug where it clearly says "/* bug; should have been VF_VIRUS; note: implicit (ViolationFlags)(int)VC_VIRUS == VF_TOS */"
So, you detect bugs by looking at comments?! When solving a problem, you mostly look for the label clearly stating "problem here, please solve", aren't you? That makes (again) lots of sense! LOL. Anyway, I don't think that this comment goes against what I have been explaining here. In that specific scenario, the original C code would be buggy, but the C++ version wouldn't be the logical solution either (creating the proper algorithm in C would have been). In any other scenario involving that same code or any other one taking random inputs, exactly the same story: enum boundaries would have to be checked/not depending upon the conditions/language. No need to bring C++ (or any other language) into picture to "correct a bug" provoked in C (or any other language). Logically, I mean all this when dealing with commonly-supported and generic conditions as highlighted in one of the previous comments to myself (really meant to help people like you who usually require a lot of over-explanations to understand anything properly).
Perhaps the input source is also returning nulls or random strings and, in that case, both codes would be wrong :)
And I mean that without even knowing the exact C++ behaviour (I have some experience in C, a lot in quite a few modern C-based languages, but not too much in C++), even if it could deal gracefully with almost any scenario (what I don't think that is the case), the difference among number valid enum, number invalid enum and not number would be ignored. What I want to highlight with this comment is that my whole intention since the start was to support proper, reasonable and flexible programming attitudes, rather than blind trust in abstract solutions or in something else (the language, the inputs or the next programmer) to take care of whatever for you. I replied about a week ago to another poster saying that concatenating SQL connection strings was absolutely wrong, pretty much the same thing than here.
Please go educate yourself [cppreference.com] about C++11 scoped enumerations.
Can you please tell me the exact part of my posts where I said or even insinuated otherwise?
Basically C-style enums allow implicit conversion to and from integers
As highlighted in my original comment, enums are basically integers so all the languages allow more or less easy transitions between both realities. Again, not sure where have you got that this point wasn't clear either in my first comment, which I kept quite generic without focusing on C++/C or in this specific implementation.
That's what fixes the bug in the grandparent post
No. For two reasons: one there is no bug (you don't know anything about the potential inputs/outputs; it might be a perfectly controlled situation); secondly and as explained in my original comment, having the input conditions controlled isn't language-dependent but programmer-dependent. If you are relying on a structure which performs whatever checks are required (your example with enums and C++), you can avoid caring about it. On the other hand, if such a thing isn't in place (your example with the C enum), you would have to do the checks yourself. There is nothing wrong with any of the languages, just with a bad programmer with an I-will-throw-it-there-without-checking-anything-and-hope-that-everything-turns-out-ok attitude (quite bad for life in general too, if you ask my opinion).
tl;dr: Unlike old-style enums, C++11 scoped enumerations are more than just window dressing for integers.
tl;dr: I never said or implied otherwise. As per the provided information, we don't even know whether this code can crash/is wrong. If it is wrong, the solution would be building a proper algorithm by maximising the means provided by the given language (don't check enums if you are using C++ or make sure that the inputs meet the expected boundaries in C). Even a further example to help you understand my point: why are you assuming that a number is being read? Perhaps the input source is also returning nulls or random strings and, in that case, both codes would be wrong :)
No banks, government, infrastructure, etc. can hire him.
He has already a job. And jobs being too picky with background checks are usually for a few; without forgetting the fact that software development and infosec have lots of demand mainly in his area. A programmer living in Silicon Valley! Another issue offering lots of alternatives. Are you implying that a young guy, with a proper university degree, relevant expertise in the field, a job and living in one of the richest areas and with more job opportunities for him in the whole planet has any problem at all? A person who will most likely never commit another crime again and for whom the probation period will not have any kind of consequence!
See, I don't like talking too much without knowing and have just read the summary here. I also don't wish anything bad to anyone and prefer people being happy and having favourable conditions. But what I see is a kind-of-privileged guy who didn't make the best decisions in the past and who now is getting a treatment which many other people will never get under equivalent circumstances. And I insist in that jail time would be too much, but not even losing some money seems like a win-win for him. He might have got quite scared and kind of learned the lesson. But the fact that his actions have no relevant consequences/losses seems quite unfair, a bad precedent and not the best solution for someone who has proven to not have a particularly strong personality.
He's been let off way too easy. 2 years probation?
I am not too familiar with the US penal system (neither with the one in my country as far as I haven't ever been in that situation), but this sounds as a very small punishment for someone being charge with prison time. Correct me if I am wrong, but this will not limit his activity at all and, as far as he seems to already have a solid career, is very unlikely to have a negative impact on his job/client search. This seems almost just publicity and you know what they say about publicity and businesses.
So after 2 years he can freely start stealing computer resources again?
For me, it is more a matter of bothering, stealing/dealing with personal information and, basically, getting an income from kind-of-damaging others; to not mention the tiny issue of going against the law. Additionally, I think that this is particularly censurable in a field like software development and a country like the US where you have lots of very lucrative, not-bothering-anyone and legal alternatives. If you perform some not too good activity because of need, it might be kind of understandable; but in this case, it was clearly a voluntary and fully conscious decision. Do you want to take the easy/dangerous way? OK, but don't complain later about the consequences.
How about docking all his pay until he's paid for his tuition...
I don't think that the whole last part of your post has anything to do with the evident intention in mine: all up for second chances + reasonable punishment.
He voluntarily chooses the easiest path by provoking a damage to others, out of the huge amount of other possibilities. He spends all the money egoistically although in something which a priori seems not that bad. As a result of all that, he gets a career, an education and even some fame within the field. The rest of the society gets spam (at least), further promotion of crap(py attitudes, knowledge, outputs, etc.) within the software development industry, the impression that you can get away with things like that and even somehow demotivating people always doing what is right. This doesn't sound fair to me.
Sending him to jail would have perhaps been a bit too excessive; but an important payment or some kind of punishment in the form of restricting his activity might have been quite fair. I am all for second chances and supporting people wanting to improve, but everyone should be responsible for any action damaging others. Nothing even close to an eye for an eye, just some reasonable compensation.
My "there aren’t many absolute benefits associated with using a specific programming language" should be understood within the proper context of using the right tool for the job. A language like C cannot be used (at least, not autonomously or without provoking an unreasonable increase of complexity) in quite a few scenarios. Also the quality of the in-built or even just available resources of some languages might make their usage recommendable under certain conditions. Anyway, my previous comment was mostly meant for algorithmic/common-to-all-the-languages situations like managing input files or creating proper algorithms.
C++11 enum class fixes this by adding strong typing:
Why do you consider the first sample wrong and the second one fixing it? The line VirusCheckerResult result = virus_checker.scan(file); introduces an uncontrolled uncertainty and any even slightly sensible programmer should deal with it properly by relying on whatever means are available. Enums are basically integers and, when taking random external inputs (e.g., the aforementioned file reading), you have to make sure that the given value yields within the expected range.
Any code taking random inputs without confirming that they meet the expected format is wrong regardless of the language. Note that I regularly rely on a relevant number of different programming languages with different levels of “programmer's helps” (e.g., strong typing) and my code is always perfectly adapted to the given conditions. Other than in very specific cases (e.g., a language like C performing notably better than virtually any other one) and/or when being used by unexperienced-in-that-language-or-in-general/bad programmers, there aren’t many absolute benefits associated with using a specific programming language. Or, in other words, the one to blame for any problem is always the developer/tester/manager/etc.
Good aphorism!
When seeing pictures like these in a random profile somewhere, the first idea coming to my mind is that they are fake. Even by ignoring some weird bits (some of them are surprisingly similar to various celebrities), the main issue is the lack of realism. A different story is being able to tell whether the fake picture was created by a quite-bad-at-faking person or a computer.
Oh my god! I hate working with coders like you! Everytime someone talks to you, it's like you spit out this massive text wall as if you're trying to defend your doctoral thesis with every comment you post.
?! Words and concepts confuse you a lot, right? You are the kind of person who mostly "communicates" through emojis, aren't you? When you don't understand something or it requires too much effort you get frustrated and attack everyone? Are you the kind of PR/HR/CEO coming up with expressions like "bug" to explain what is being described in this article? LOL. I don't think that you and I (and perhaps the coders you refer) even belong to the same world. The only reason why we are in the same working dimension is because of stupidity: lots of money, lots of possibilities and tons of extremely bad decisions.
Also, guys like that tend to write shitty code and try to defend it with bizarre dissertations that never actually solve the original problem.
Thanks again for proving my point. See? There are people so blind, so ignorant and so arbitrary that can easily come up with such generic and prejudicious nonsense from virtually anything and provoke problems everywhere. BTW, my work speaks for itself, I don't need to justify anything: it works exactly as intended, reliability and under a huge variety of conditions, not like the jokes you can find nowadays virtually everywhere. Do you know the funniest bit? That I can beat you even at having random prejudices, as proven in the paragraphs below :) (with the smiley everything gets clearer to you, eh? I am giver! LOL).
Your problem isn't not knowing, but not accepting that fact and making stupid decisions affecting many others. You expect everyone to listen to your incoherent expectations and, of course, someone else to bear the blame when everything goes wrong because you don't know what you are talking about. You have tons of prejudices (this is what idiots do to compensate their lack of knowledge and acceptation of such a reality), but are also probably calling others racist or misogynists or narcissistic on a regular basis and for no good reason. You don't create/solve/improve anything; you don't innovate; you don't even treat others fairly and respectfully (just apply whatever rules the current trend says); all what you do is trying to justify and perpetuate your position in the system, mostly via nepotism, unfairness and impositions. You are the leech which isn't happy just with getting blood from the host, but which also wants it to do whatever and gets angry when it dies precisely because of doing such a thing.
You and all what you represent are the cancer of software development; and, hopefully, it will come the day when all you will leave. And you will take with you all your emojies, abstract words, trends, fears, arbitrariness, incompetence, etc. and go to become party promoters or politicians or bankers or mobsters or whatever other field will accept your random impositions and talking-a-lot-without-knowing; or you might even move to a more logical position within software development: do you want to earn money from my work, but you know nothing about it? OK. Shut up! Don't bother me! Don't think that we have anything to do with each other; I don't like you, but you provide what I need! Let me do my work and enjoy the results! If that day ever comes, software development would become a serious technical field with professional people mostly caring about technical aspects, rather than about whatever stupidity the in-house clowns decide to come up with