I'm not sure what you mean by "it." Just because some compiler vendors may have supported non-standard extensions that allowed recursion does not mean you can claim the language supported it in general
Almost all C programs in existence depend on implementation-define features, so by that measure, there exist almost no C programs at all.
For better or for worse (mostly the latter) Fortran has been very slow to adopt new paradigms throughout its history.
How? The first C standard ever came out in 1989, the first Fortran standard with recursion in 1990, one year later. The first C++ standard came out in 1998, the first Fortran standard with OOP came out in 2003. And, of course, C++ still lacks many of the numerical features, parallel programming features, and multidimensional arrays found in Fortran.
Perhaps what you are referring to by "adopting new paradigms" is the fact that C++ standards often wrote stuff into the standard that then took many years to implement correctly for compiler writers; I don't see that as an advantage.
That has condemned it to a niche existence in scientific computing.
That "niche" is its purpose in life. C++, unfortunately, has found no niche at all; C++ seems to be a waystation for people moving up from C before they then abandon C++ for greener pastures.
Pure freedom for one person often leads to less freedom for another.
No, not really.
At your own admission people are harmed by the pollution and free to strike a balance between their freedom to breathe clean air and the tourist's freedom to explore their cities using an air polluting mode of transportation:
Your error there is in formulating "breathing clean air" as a freedom; it's not. The level of pollutants people are willing to live with is an individual choice, and freedom means the freedom to make that choice. That includes the freedom to make the choice to breathe polluted air in order to gain economic benefits.
The problem is that, right now, people are prohibited from making that choice. That is, some people prefer really clean air, other people are willing to tolerate polluted air in order to gain economic benefits. But air quality regulations are determined through the political process and (in the case of the US), often imposed nationally. As a result, they don't reflect a tradeoff between different preferences and needs, but are instead primarily determined by special interest groups and lobbying.
Why use the phrase "not part of my freedom", if you actually meant "it is part of your freedom but you should not do it"?
I didn't use that phrase; I quoted you, and in full, you said:
Part of our much-vaunted freedom is not having to rely solely on the power of the almighty buck. Free speech is also important. And the freedom of legislatures to set rules for doing business in a locality, too.
I pointed out that you seem to be confused about "our much-vaunted freedoms". The freedoms that set the US apart are rooted in a limited government, a government of enumerated powers. The ability of local and state legislatures "to set rules for doing business in a locality" is not a freedom, it is a limit on freedom, and since it is universal throughout the world, I don't see who would "vaunt" it. To the degree that there is anything unusual about business regulations in the US, it is that they are explicitly constitutionally limited by the 5th Amendment.
Are you saying that, in principle, you think a person should be able to buy anything they please and no law should ever be passed to restrict a purchase? The rape of your mother? A slave? A hydrogen bomb? A pharmaceutical that may be unsafe or ineffective?
Far from limiting them, the hydrogen bomb and slavery were creations of governments and legislatures. Neither would have been possible in a private market.
As for "rapes", if you mean the literal sense of forcible copulation, that is physical violence and hence proscribed; a contract selling such an action is automatically unenforceable; there is no need for additional laws. Likewise, drug sales involve a contractual relationship that both sides need to honor; if the pharmaceutical company warrants that the drug is safe, then it is liable, and if it doesn't (e.g., for experimental or recreational drugs), then it shouldn't be liable. Again, what additional "laws" do you need?
What do you think legislatures should be able to do, if not pass laws that provide the government with powers or restrict the freedom of others?
To answer that, you first need to look at the proper role of government. Government should intervene when people aggress against each other; that means, it should provide military defense, a court system, enforcement of contracts, and police. The role of legislatures is to pass the rules by which that happens. None of that involves "restricting" anybody's freedoms. That is, government should only be able to interfere in your life once you actually commit physical violence against someone else's person or property (including contractual violations). Furthermore, it is a historical holdover that government has such a large role in those functions; that was necessary in earlier times, but modern technology and society makes government less and less important.
I can see why someone who struggles with clarity of thought and language as [I] do might have a lot of anger [I] need to work out
You're evidently talking about yourself and issues you are struggling with.
But it is not reasonable -- more than that, it's counter-factual -- to argue that people are *not allowed* to persuade legislatures to pass laws restricting
Nowhere did I say that you are not "allowed" to spew your bullshit. I simply pointed out that you are, in fact, not advocating for freedom.
if you attempted to argue that people actually *ought to be forbidden* from persuading legislatures in this manner
No, I simply believe that legislatures should not have the power to do these things in the first place.
In addition, I am allowed to call you what you are, which is an anti-freedom hypocrite.
Creating an economic system that provides a fair distribution of the wealth and provides reasonable encouragement of individual contribution has been a problem that has defied effective optimal solutions.
You get paid what you're worth to other people, and what you're worth to other people is what they are willing to pay you. And the "reasonable encouragement" is that if you don't provide value to your fellow human beings, you don't eat. It's simple, fair, and straightforward. Your problem is that you don't accept this. You think that other people owe you something merely because you exist, regardless of your choices or behavior. You and people like you use that as an excuse to go out and create laws to make unearned money come their way at gunpoint.
No, I'm pretty sure the question is "what happens to even the people who have fairly advanced skills, when automation and AI can do their work so cheaply and so well that giving the job to a human is merely an act of charity?"
And the answer is pretty simple: prices for goods and services fall and everybody benefits.
That's provided government doesn't interfere. For example, if you set a minimum wage at $15/h, falling prices means that more and more people will be out of work, but the problem there is the minimum wage, not the falling prices. Similarly, if you keep increasing housing and car standards because "it doesn't increase the cost of new cars significantly", the effect will be that automation driving down the cost of these items won't actually benefit people because you keep their prices artificially high.
What about congressional gridlock inspired by special interests vs voters?
You just said "politicians were useless" and "overlapping with business executives". Now you turn around and want to give them the power to pass laws? Do you actually ever think about what you're saying?
Part of our much-vaunted freedom is not having to rely solely on the power of the almighty buck.
No, actually, that's not part of "our much-vaunted freedom". To the contrary, trying to use legislatures to prevent other people from spending their money as they see fit is the antithesis of freedom.
The other languages were compiled, completely procedural, and at least Fortran didn’t even support recursion until the 90’s.
I'm not sure what you mean by "were". Fortran is widely used in scientific computing. It has supported recursion since the 1970's, although it only was standardized in 1990. Fortran 200x is object oriented, supports operator overloading, and has excellent support for array and parallel computing.
Southampton isn't the open sea, which is probably why they're glad to see it go, which was the main gist of the article. Here in Hong Kong we have 2 cruise ships in and out daily, the occasional quantum-class cruise ship visiting
And you are free to exclude these cruise ships entirely from your harbor if you don't like the air pollution. Amazing, isn't it, what you can do in a free market?
One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance
That's bullshit. This ship burns up to 1377 gallons for a top speed of 26 mph; that's about the same as 1500 regular passenger cars. But those cars are transporting 8500 people and enormous amounts of freight while also supplying all electricity and heating. So gas mileage is actually excellent.
The engine no doubt emits lots of particulates, NOx, and sulfur. But that isn't a problem on the open sea. Those emissions are not particularly harmful per se, they only happen to be tightly regulated for cars because they cause problems in cities. That's also why they are not regulated for a lot of other vehicle types.
use heavy fuel that on land would have to be disposed of as hazardous waste.
Lots of product we use day to day have to be "disposed of as hazardous waste". That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with those products.
For something like thermostats, fire alarms, and cameras, some off-site access is an essential part of their functionality. For others (switches, etc.), it's a convenience. There are plenty of high-end for business use that don't use the cloud, but they are going to cost you: dedicated data lines, secure off-site facility, off-site server hardware, maintenance staff, backup, etc. Cloud integration is just something that turns an expensive high-end product into a cheap mass market product. But if you're willing to spend the money, or the time to roll your own, you can get the hardware and have a setup that's completely under your control. For rolling your own, you can get home control software that runs on Windows, and open source libraries for Linux, for the major commercial systems.
None of the consumer grade wireless stuff really works all that reliably yet anyway. Some of the WiFi stuff works reasonably well (cameras, thermostats) and is useful. X10, ZWave, and Zigbee are nice enough for turning on a few lights, but I wouldn't trust them with anything more. WeMo is just crap.
That article seems to describe the use of fMRI as a familiarity detector, not a lie detector. Furthermore, the fact that an Indian court accepts something as evidence doesn't mean it's scientifically valid. As the SciAm article points out, there are charlatans trying to sell fMRI for all sorts of legal and business purposes, and that is a bad thing.
Using an fMRI as evidence in court out to require very large scale studies and very high statistical confidence. That kind of proof simply doesn't exist for any fMRI studies, let alone lie detection by fMRI.
France doesn't have jurisdiction over Google in the US; all they have jurisdiction over is Google's French subsidiary.
So, in effect, France is trying to fine Google France for actions committed by the owner of Google France outside of France. If France wants to set that precedent, they are welcome to it; I suspect it will strongly discourage future investment in France and French companies.
Draconian copyright laws didn't originate in the US, they originated in Europe, with the Berne convention. The US resisted those laws for decades. Finally, in the 1970's, it gave in and implemented it. And US fair use provisions and copyrights are still more lenient than in most other places.
Google scoops up data from people who have never been through their T&Cs.
Google index public information from sites that give it permission to do so, and then publishes a link to that site in response to searches. Your problem with publishing links to published information is... what?
If Alphabet wins.. they are saying that "information" taken from one nation and stored in another deserves no protection once outside it's boarders.
The protection information receives outside its borders is determined by jurisdiction and international agreements. There are agreements on copyrights and extradition. There is no general law or principle about "protection of information". Furthermore, Google search results don't "take information", they merely link to a source in whatever country the information resides in.
Assange couldn't be prosecuted if this prevails (yes, I know that it's only a secret grand jury at the moment) because https://wikileaks.com/ is physically outside of the US
Assange can be prosecuted in the US if he violated a US law, and if his offense is an extraditable offense under a treaty with a nation that he happens to reside in, then that nation would extradite him.
Actually it does. Any business handling personal data has to abide by data protection rules.
Which tells you that the information covered by the "right to be forgotten" is, in fact, not personal data, because otherwise the original site would have to safeguard it.
If owning another person's personal information without their permission was a crime
Google doesn't claim "ownership" over information about you; they simply provide a link to information that is already on the web. The search results will disappear as soon as the original pages disappear. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up with the people who put the information on the web in the first place, not Google.
Secondly, the information that is at issue in "right to be forgotten" cases usually isn't "personal" information, it's public information: legal judgments against you, articles others have written about you, etc. You don't own that information and you shouldn't be able to control it, even according to the EU and proponents of the "right to be forgotten", because they don't force the original publishers of that information to take it down.
The issue isn't about the set of vaccinations currently required for school attendance in many places, where we agree that they are safe and effective, it's your conception of society:
You want to live in our borders, protected by our military, using our infrastructure, functioning in our economy? You want all of the benefits society has to offer? Then you have to pay by behaving the way society says you should.
That's a general political principle you stated, and it defines your political ideology. Conceptualizing people as a "society" that tells people how to behave and reasoning in terms of "we/our" vs "others" are the essence of fascism. That's not an ad hominem, it's a simple, factual observation. Don't complain when people apply the correct label to your political ideology. Either embrace the correct label for your beliefs or change your beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I simply corrected some nonsense that you and Theovon were saying.
Mostly, I think that you just don't have anything interesting to say.
Almost all C programs in existence depend on implementation-define features, so by that measure, there exist almost no C programs at all.
How? The first C standard ever came out in 1989, the first Fortran standard with recursion in 1990, one year later. The first C++ standard came out in 1998, the first Fortran standard with OOP came out in 2003. And, of course, C++ still lacks many of the numerical features, parallel programming features, and multidimensional arrays found in Fortran.
Perhaps what you are referring to by "adopting new paradigms" is the fact that C++ standards often wrote stuff into the standard that then took many years to implement correctly for compiler writers; I don't see that as an advantage.
That "niche" is its purpose in life. C++, unfortunately, has found no niche at all; C++ seems to be a waystation for people moving up from C before they then abandon C++ for greener pastures.
No, not really.
Your error there is in formulating "breathing clean air" as a freedom; it's not. The level of pollutants people are willing to live with is an individual choice, and freedom means the freedom to make that choice. That includes the freedom to make the choice to breathe polluted air in order to gain economic benefits.
The problem is that, right now, people are prohibited from making that choice. That is, some people prefer really clean air, other people are willing to tolerate polluted air in order to gain economic benefits. But air quality regulations are determined through the political process and (in the case of the US), often imposed nationally. As a result, they don't reflect a tradeoff between different preferences and needs, but are instead primarily determined by special interest groups and lobbying.
I didn't use that phrase; I quoted you, and in full, you said:
I pointed out that you seem to be confused about "our much-vaunted freedoms". The freedoms that set the US apart are rooted in a limited government, a government of enumerated powers. The ability of local and state legislatures "to set rules for doing business in a locality" is not a freedom, it is a limit on freedom, and since it is universal throughout the world, I don't see who would "vaunt" it. To the degree that there is anything unusual about business regulations in the US, it is that they are explicitly constitutionally limited by the 5th Amendment.
Far from limiting them, the hydrogen bomb and slavery were creations of governments and legislatures. Neither would have been possible in a private market.
As for "rapes", if you mean the literal sense of forcible copulation, that is physical violence and hence proscribed; a contract selling such an action is automatically unenforceable; there is no need for additional laws. Likewise, drug sales involve a contractual relationship that both sides need to honor; if the pharmaceutical company warrants that the drug is safe, then it is liable, and if it doesn't (e.g., for experimental or recreational drugs), then it shouldn't be liable. Again, what additional "laws" do you need?
To answer that, you first need to look at the proper role of government. Government should intervene when people aggress against each other; that means, it should provide military defense, a court system, enforcement of contracts, and police. The role of legislatures is to pass the rules by which that happens. None of that involves "restricting" anybody's freedoms. That is, government should only be able to interfere in your life once you actually commit physical violence against someone else's person or property (including contractual violations). Furthermore, it is a historical holdover that government has such a large role in those functions; that was necessary in earlier times, but modern technology and society makes government less and less important.
You're evidently talking about yourself and issues you are struggling with.
Nowhere did I say that you are not "allowed" to spew your bullshit. I simply pointed out that you are, in fact, not advocating for freedom.
No, I simply believe that legislatures should not have the power to do these things in the first place.
In addition, I am allowed to call you what you are, which is an anti-freedom hypocrite.
You get paid what you're worth to other people, and what you're worth to other people is what they are willing to pay you. And the "reasonable encouragement" is that if you don't provide value to your fellow human beings, you don't eat. It's simple, fair, and straightforward. Your problem is that you don't accept this. You think that other people owe you something merely because you exist, regardless of your choices or behavior. You and people like you use that as an excuse to go out and create laws to make unearned money come their way at gunpoint.
And the answer is pretty simple: prices for goods and services fall and everybody benefits.
That's provided government doesn't interfere. For example, if you set a minimum wage at $15/h, falling prices means that more and more people will be out of work, but the problem there is the minimum wage, not the falling prices. Similarly, if you keep increasing housing and car standards because "it doesn't increase the cost of new cars significantly", the effect will be that automation driving down the cost of these items won't actually benefit people because you keep their prices artificially high.
You just said "politicians were useless" and "overlapping with business executives". Now you turn around and want to give them the power to pass laws? Do you actually ever think about what you're saying?
The "useless class of humans" perhaps includes "historians" like Yuval Noah Harari, who seem to spend most of their time speculating.
No, actually, that's not part of "our much-vaunted freedom". To the contrary, trying to use legislatures to prevent other people from spending their money as they see fit is the antithesis of freedom.
I'm not sure what you mean by "were". Fortran is widely used in scientific computing. It has supported recursion since the 1970's, although it only was standardized in 1990. Fortran 200x is object oriented, supports operator overloading, and has excellent support for array and parallel computing.
And you are free to exclude these cruise ships entirely from your harbor if you don't like the air pollution. Amazing, isn't it, what you can do in a free market?
You're right. Even at three times the fuel consumption, the point still stands: the article is bullshit.
That's bullshit. This ship burns up to 1377 gallons for a top speed of 26 mph; that's about the same as 1500 regular passenger cars. But those cars are transporting 8500 people and enormous amounts of freight while also supplying all electricity and heating. So gas mileage is actually excellent.
The engine no doubt emits lots of particulates, NOx, and sulfur. But that isn't a problem on the open sea. Those emissions are not particularly harmful per se, they only happen to be tightly regulated for cars because they cause problems in cities. That's also why they are not regulated for a lot of other vehicle types.
Lots of product we use day to day have to be "disposed of as hazardous waste". That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with those products.
That sort of belief in autarky used to be somewhat menacing when France was still a world power; these days, it's merely comical and pathetic.
Not all that different from the US: "buy local", "consumer protection regulations", etc. It's, of course, all for the "protection of the people".
For something like thermostats, fire alarms, and cameras, some off-site access is an essential part of their functionality. For others (switches, etc.), it's a convenience. There are plenty of high-end for business use that don't use the cloud, but they are going to cost you: dedicated data lines, secure off-site facility, off-site server hardware, maintenance staff, backup, etc. Cloud integration is just something that turns an expensive high-end product into a cheap mass market product. But if you're willing to spend the money, or the time to roll your own, you can get the hardware and have a setup that's completely under your control. For rolling your own, you can get home control software that runs on Windows, and open source libraries for Linux, for the major commercial systems.
None of the consumer grade wireless stuff really works all that reliably yet anyway. Some of the WiFi stuff works reasonably well (cameras, thermostats) and is useful. X10, ZWave, and Zigbee are nice enough for turning on a few lights, but I wouldn't trust them with anything more. WeMo is just crap.
That article seems to describe the use of fMRI as a familiarity detector, not a lie detector. Furthermore, the fact that an Indian court accepts something as evidence doesn't mean it's scientifically valid. As the SciAm article points out, there are charlatans trying to sell fMRI for all sorts of legal and business purposes, and that is a bad thing.
Using an fMRI as evidence in court out to require very large scale studies and very high statistical confidence. That kind of proof simply doesn't exist for any fMRI studies, let alone lie detection by fMRI.
France doesn't have jurisdiction over Google in the US; all they have jurisdiction over is Google's French subsidiary.
So, in effect, France is trying to fine Google France for actions committed by the owner of Google France outside of France. If France wants to set that precedent, they are welcome to it; I suspect it will strongly discourage future investment in France and French companies.
Draconian copyright laws didn't originate in the US, they originated in Europe, with the Berne convention. The US resisted those laws for decades. Finally, in the 1970's, it gave in and implemented it. And US fair use provisions and copyrights are still more lenient than in most other places.
Google index public information from sites that give it permission to do so, and then publishes a link to that site in response to searches. Your problem with publishing links to published information is... what?
The protection information receives outside its borders is determined by jurisdiction and international agreements. There are agreements on copyrights and extradition. There is no general law or principle about "protection of information". Furthermore, Google search results don't "take information", they merely link to a source in whatever country the information resides in.
Assange can be prosecuted in the US if he violated a US law, and if his offense is an extraditable offense under a treaty with a nation that he happens to reside in, then that nation would extradite him.
Which tells you that the information covered by the "right to be forgotten" is, in fact, not personal data, because otherwise the original site would have to safeguard it.
Yes, you are.
Google doesn't claim "ownership" over information about you; they simply provide a link to information that is already on the web. The search results will disappear as soon as the original pages disappear. If you have a problem with that, you need to take it up with the people who put the information on the web in the first place, not Google.
Secondly, the information that is at issue in "right to be forgotten" cases usually isn't "personal" information, it's public information: legal judgments against you, articles others have written about you, etc. You don't own that information and you shouldn't be able to control it, even according to the EU and proponents of the "right to be forgotten", because they don't force the original publishers of that information to take it down.
The issue isn't about the set of vaccinations currently required for school attendance in many places, where we agree that they are safe and effective, it's your conception of society:
That's a general political principle you stated, and it defines your political ideology. Conceptualizing people as a "society" that tells people how to behave and reasoning in terms of "we/our" vs "others" are the essence of fascism. That's not an ad hominem, it's a simple, factual observation. Don't complain when people apply the correct label to your political ideology. Either embrace the correct label for your beliefs or change your beliefs.