Chez scheme is awesome, AFAIK it's the fastest full-fledged scheme implementation, and I really hope that Matthew Flatt rewires Racket to use it as a backend implementation (if I understood his announcement correctly).
I admire Python for its toolchain and libraries but it's just way too slow. Even Racket is faster and it's probably still too slow for my current needs. ( I use it for making a prototype first.) By 'slow' I refer to lack of snappiness and long startup times, these bottlenecks cannot be eliminated by writing support libraries in C. The actual algorithms I use don't need much speed, but the user interface and support functions like searching, directory scanning etc. need to be fast. You can fake speed by using a lot of threading in the user interface, but that's complicated, error-prone, and the end result still feels somewhat sluggish.
It's obvious you didn't watch the testimony. He clearly stated that the notes he published contained no classified information, and you can be 100% sure that the head of the FBI when he prepares notes for publication will check them for classified information first. No prosecutor would even start prosecuting in this case.
As for classified notes, he was the head of the FBI. Of course he made classified notes. Again, if you'd watched the testimony, you'd know that after one of the meetings with Trump, he did make classified notes on a specially secured laptop. That's what he stated under oath. You must be a complete moron if you think that the head of the FBI published the classified content of these notes, though. Again, watch his testimony.
Seriously, I don't care about US politics much and watch senate hearing just for entertainment, but these attempts of character smearing a person who is clearly and obviously of highest integrity are disgusting. You can think about the FBI whatever you want for whatever political reasons, but you should at least actually watch his testimony under oath before you criticize Comey as a person. The amount of spin on this/. headline is about as stupid and demented as John McCain's retarded insinuations for which he should apologize. (I held McCain in much higher regard before that incident, but maybe he was really just very confused, since he also talked about "President Comey", etc.)
He will not be impeached for that, because the case for obstruction of justice is too unclear to convince enough Republicans to impeach him. Trump deliberately dismissed other witnesses and used careful wordings like "I hope you can...", as Comey made 100% clear in his testimony. It's one of those borderline cases in which the evil intention is obvious but the behavior is technically still legal or in a gray zone.
No, I didn't say that and don't endorse the original theory. I merely stated that you didn't say anything to refute the original claim. Your post was void of non-trivial content, so to say.
Why? He's right, there are plenty of putinbots here and also plenty of alt-right types who openly admire autocrats like Putin. There are plenty of examples to support both claims in this thread alone, so how does that make him bat shit crazy?
You've got some good points there and I wasn't claiming that I believe what I've said with absolute certainty - call it a hunch, if you will, based on the sudden changes of certain forum landscapes. Be they just self-proclaimed patriots or paid shills, the Russian trolls are kind of annoying. It's not as if someone who speaks out against Putin and his oligarch friends and their actions couldn't be pro-Russia...
WTF are you smoking? There are massive amounts of Russian troops on Ukrainian territory as we speak, not even Russia denies that, because the evidence is overwhelming, so there is absolutely no doubt at all whether Russia invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. They did, according to existing and ratified international law. Whether the government of Ukraine was legitimate or not at the time the crisis started is a completely different question. Maybe that's what you mean? That Russia's intervention was somehow legitimate? Again, that's a totally different question.
Maybe you're wrong about this. I'm on the Internet since the mid 90s and joined/. for the first time in 1998, I believe. Putting that petty topic aside, my accusations are not based on hard evidence but that hardly makes them "baseless", as you claim. There is no doubt that there are also some real US Trump supporters who absolutely love Russia here or there, and that there is also a whole bunch of real Trump supporters who happen to love Russia and like to troll forums at the same time. But this alone does not explain the (measurable) posting anomalies and the extreme spikes in posting frequency here and on many other forums. If you're looking for a more obvious examples, you should check out the comment sections of the German news site tagesschau.de. There were even posts like "I like Putin, because he's a strong leader" in the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, before they realized that this may be too obvious for German readers. As I've said, it started with the Ukraine crisis.
I'm also not talking about people who have a differing opinions, there are plenty of people with differing political opinion who are not trolling at all. Besides, that Russia employs paid trolls is also hardly a secret, in fact there are credible and well-researched documentaries about the infamous St Petersburg 'troll fabric' which even include interviews with former employees. No conspiracy needed when there are plenty of facts on the table.
Anybody who has read Slashdot for more than ten years knows very well that it has been taken over by Russian trolls. It's so obvious that it usually wouldn't even need to be mentioned, if it weren't for the trolls.
The same happened on a bunch of other forums I know, and it's easy to show by the number of pro-Kremlin posts, the stupidity of their content (in order to create division and debate where there normally would be none), and the fact that the same bias does not occur when somebody posts similar content in another thread. It started with the Ukraine invasion, which involved a massive disinformation campaign - especially the shooting down of the MH17 passenger plane. Then the trolls mover to supporting Trump, and any news about Russia triggers them.
And no, it's definitely not reasonable to assume that suddenly that many extremely pro-Russian Trump supporters have come out of the gutter. He's by a large margin the least popular president in the history of the US, and with obvious reasons for even those who generally support his policies.
There is some very, very elementary moral principle that you and apparently also many Trump supporters in this thread don't understand: Two evils don't make a good.
...or 190 other nations in the world who signed the Paris Agreement? Well, maybe you should start asking yourself whether any other nation will want to ally with the US in the future if your country continues to go down that path...
That's how I do it, too. On the net, I'm checking BBC, Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, Nytimes, local German news site tagesschau.de, and sometimes also obvious crap like CNN, Fox "News", and RT. Taken in combination, these provide a fairly good picture of what's going on. If I'm interested in a particular news story that seems fishy to me, I sometimes Google more information for my own fact checking, which involves encyclopedia articles, statistics from scientific sites and scientific articles but may also include blog posts and social media posts which ought not be taken too seriously.
Generally speaking, if you know how to read critically, choosing a news source is not a very important or difficult task, since 'news' refers to reporting of facts and not of opinion pieces. Whether the news source is politically biased or not plays almost no role. Newspapers get the bulk of their daily information from news organizations like Reuters, AP, etc. anyway, who really just compile quick articles about events in some area and sell photos, videos and sound material. I rarely read opinion pieces and even if I do, often disagree with them anyway. If you're interested in facts and are able to distinguish facts from opinion (which is easy), you can essentially get your news from any reputable newspaper that employs real journalists, to some extent even from Fox "News" even though I wouldn't call them reputable.
Final note: I'm talking about written information. If you're getting your news primarily from watching TV, then you're doomed to become a fearful little sheep.
I agree with you but your example is a bit unfortunate. The problem with this bill seems to me that the counter-attack will be completely illegal in almost every other country in the world. This creates all kinds of legal problems for US companies and also many practical problems for police forces, prosecutors and security companies in other countries. In any case developers of 'counter-attack' software ought not be surprised if they are arrested once they leave the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Practically all posts in this thread are offtopic so far, because of stupid assholes like you. Thanks for destroying /., moron!
The UK is leaving the EU, so that possible fate of the EU has luckily been prevented.
How do you say 'fake news' in Russian?
Prawda - now known as "Russia Today".
JIT-compiling these days [...] potentially run faster than static-compiled programs
Argh, not this phrase again... potentially but never really.
They should have call/cc if they can afford it. But that's not easy to implement and has perfomance implications.
Chez scheme is awesome, AFAIK it's the fastest full-fledged scheme implementation, and I really hope that Matthew Flatt rewires Racket to use it as a backend implementation (if I understood his announcement correctly).
I admire Python for its toolchain and libraries but it's just way too slow. Even Racket is faster and it's probably still too slow for my current needs. ( I use it for making a prototype first.) By 'slow' I refer to lack of snappiness and long startup times, these bottlenecks cannot be eliminated by writing support libraries in C. The actual algorithms I use don't need much speed, but the user interface and support functions like searching, directory scanning etc. need to be fast. You can fake speed by using a lot of threading in the user interface, but that's complicated, error-prone, and the end result still feels somewhat sluggish.
It's obvious you didn't watch the testimony. He clearly stated that the notes he published contained no classified information, and you can be 100% sure that the head of the FBI when he prepares notes for publication will check them for classified information first. No prosecutor would even start prosecuting in this case.
As for classified notes, he was the head of the FBI. Of course he made classified notes. Again, if you'd watched the testimony, you'd know that after one of the meetings with Trump, he did make classified notes on a specially secured laptop. That's what he stated under oath. You must be a complete moron if you think that the head of the FBI published the classified content of these notes, though. Again, watch his testimony.
Seriously, I don't care about US politics much and watch senate hearing just for entertainment, but these attempts of character smearing a person who is clearly and obviously of highest integrity are disgusting. You can think about the FBI whatever you want for whatever political reasons, but you should at least actually watch his testimony under oath before you criticize Comey as a person. The amount of spin on this /. headline is about as stupid and demented as John McCain's retarded insinuations for which he should apologize. (I held McCain in much higher regard before that incident, but maybe he was really just very confused, since he also talked about "President Comey", etc.)
Are you serious or joking? I honestly can't tell.
He will not be impeached for that, because the case for obstruction of justice is too unclear to convince enough Republicans to impeach him. Trump deliberately dismissed other witnesses and used careful wordings like "I hope you can...", as Comey made 100% clear in his testimony. It's one of those borderline cases in which the evil intention is obvious but the behavior is technically still legal or in a gray zone.
He did not make notes of any classified content of conversations. Did you watch his testimony under oath? I did, and it was pretty damning for Trump.
No, I didn't say that and don't endorse the original theory. I merely stated that you didn't say anything to refute the original claim. Your post was void of non-trivial content, so to say.
That's all consistent with being stupid, so the two explanations are not mutually exclusive.
Why? He's right, there are plenty of putinbots here and also plenty of alt-right types who openly admire autocrats like Putin. There are plenty of examples to support both claims in this thread alone, so how does that make him bat shit crazy?
You've got some good points there and I wasn't claiming that I believe what I've said with absolute certainty - call it a hunch, if you will, based on the sudden changes of certain forum landscapes. Be they just self-proclaimed patriots or paid shills, the Russian trolls are kind of annoying. It's not as if someone who speaks out against Putin and his oligarch friends and their actions couldn't be pro-Russia...
WTF are you smoking? There are massive amounts of Russian troops on Ukrainian territory as we speak, not even Russia denies that, because the evidence is overwhelming, so there is absolutely no doubt at all whether Russia invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. They did, according to existing and ratified international law. Whether the government of Ukraine was legitimate or not at the time the crisis started is a completely different question. Maybe that's what you mean? That Russia's intervention was somehow legitimate? Again, that's a totally different question.
- longer than you for sure
Maybe you're wrong about this. I'm on the Internet since the mid 90s and joined /. for the first time in 1998, I believe. Putting that petty topic aside, my accusations are not based on hard evidence but that hardly makes them "baseless", as you claim. There is no doubt that there are also some real US Trump supporters who absolutely love Russia here or there, and that there is also a whole bunch of real Trump supporters who happen to love Russia and like to troll forums at the same time. But this alone does not explain the (measurable) posting anomalies and the extreme spikes in posting frequency here and on many other forums. If you're looking for a more obvious examples, you should check out the comment sections of the German news site tagesschau.de. There were even posts like "I like Putin, because he's a strong leader" in the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, before they realized that this may be too obvious for German readers. As I've said, it started with the Ukraine crisis.
I'm also not talking about people who have a differing opinions, there are plenty of people with differing political opinion who are not trolling at all. Besides, that Russia employs paid trolls is also hardly a secret, in fact there are credible and well-researched documentaries about the infamous St Petersburg 'troll fabric' which even include interviews with former employees. No conspiracy needed when there are plenty of facts on the table.
Anybody who has read Slashdot for more than ten years knows very well that it has been taken over by Russian trolls. It's so obvious that it usually wouldn't even need to be mentioned, if it weren't for the trolls.
The same happened on a bunch of other forums I know, and it's easy to show by the number of pro-Kremlin posts, the stupidity of their content (in order to create division and debate where there normally would be none), and the fact that the same bias does not occur when somebody posts similar content in another thread. It started with the Ukraine invasion, which involved a massive disinformation campaign - especially the shooting down of the MH17 passenger plane. Then the trolls mover to supporting Trump, and any news about Russia triggers them.
And no, it's definitely not reasonable to assume that suddenly that many extremely pro-Russian Trump supporters have come out of the gutter. He's by a large margin the least popular president in the history of the US, and with obvious reasons for even those who generally support his policies.
There is some very, very elementary moral principle that you and apparently also many Trump supporters in this thread don't understand: Two evils don't make a good.
...and he's damn hard to cover up! Whenever his lackeys try, Trump twitters something that directly contradicts them.
Oh, that's easy to explain. I belong to the Illuminati. We don't give away our names easily.
...or 190 other nations in the world who signed the Paris Agreement? Well, maybe you should start asking yourself whether any other nation will want to ally with the US in the future if your country continues to go down that path...
Well, Syria and Nicaragua are on the side of the US in this matter, so technically the US has not yet alienated the whole rest of the world...
That's how I do it, too. On the net, I'm checking BBC, Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, Nytimes, local German news site tagesschau.de, and sometimes also obvious crap like CNN, Fox "News", and RT. Taken in combination, these provide a fairly good picture of what's going on. If I'm interested in a particular news story that seems fishy to me, I sometimes Google more information for my own fact checking, which involves encyclopedia articles, statistics from scientific sites and scientific articles but may also include blog posts and social media posts which ought not be taken too seriously.
Generally speaking, if you know how to read critically, choosing a news source is not a very important or difficult task, since 'news' refers to reporting of facts and not of opinion pieces. Whether the news source is politically biased or not plays almost no role. Newspapers get the bulk of their daily information from news organizations like Reuters, AP, etc. anyway, who really just compile quick articles about events in some area and sell photos, videos and sound material. I rarely read opinion pieces and even if I do, often disagree with them anyway. If you're interested in facts and are able to distinguish facts from opinion (which is easy), you can essentially get your news from any reputable newspaper that employs real journalists, to some extent even from Fox "News" even though I wouldn't call them reputable.
Final note: I'm talking about written information. If you're getting your news primarily from watching TV, then you're doomed to become a fearful little sheep.
I agree with you but your example is a bit unfortunate. The problem with this bill seems to me that the counter-attack will be completely illegal in almost every other country in the world. This creates all kinds of legal problems for US companies and also many practical problems for police forces, prosecutors and security companies in other countries. In any case developers of 'counter-attack' software ought not be surprised if they are arrested once they leave the US.