... its tongue in cheek? Because it scares you that the 'enemies of America' (A-rabs) may actually be on to something, in their objections over super-technology facilities like this being created by people who obviously can't keep them under control and who have a distorted, banal, base value for life on this planet?
Just for the record, I don't agree with redneck "A-rab" assessments. I was, in fact, trying to be 'tongue-in-cheek', though I understand this may have been a little too complicated a nuance for some Reality TV types... oops, there I go again... okay I'll stop now...
A statement like that kind of destroys all credibility of the author.
Yeah? Why is that? Because its possible that some of the objections that the Arab community have about America may in fact be true? That they may be applicable? That they may have a point?
The fact that America's enemies may actually have a point may have escaped some of you, I know... but just think about it. What exactly is the reason for having such devastating facilities?
"Protection of the American Homeland".
Great. Thanks. The rest of the world, dying of new strains of Tuberculosis cooked up in your ivory towers, will be very happy to know that America is protected from its 'enemies'...
... of how fundamentally irresponsible we have become as a species, and ignorant we all are of just how a few people, with their endless justifications for 'research' endanger us all.
oh, i'm sure this 'bio-lab' has its legitimate uses. do we really need more weapons-grade anthrax, though, really? asian bird flu really needs human helping hands to become the higher species?
i dunno. shit like this makes me start to think, maybe... just maybe... some of those dirty A-Rabs might just have a point about the U.S....
You can improve power and ease of use and it won't be even, in the slightest bit, innovative. Power/Ease of Use and Innovation have nothing to do with each other. Completely separate.
Congratulations on completely ballsing up the definition of innovation.
Before anyone starts getting into a debate about whether or not we should fight [dubspeak]The Terrorists[/dubspeak], maybe we should just define a few terms, first...
Americans have been gipped. Fact is, You All Lost The War On Terror, Already.
Save your anti-American rhetoric for when America actually does something wrong.
AT THAT POINT IT WOULDN'T BE RHETORIC WOULD IT!?!!!
Oh wait, because you don't like it when people face you with the crimes of your State, its rhetoric... oh, and I guess GWB's wonderful little show and pony parade before the UN prior to bombing the shit out of Iraq and killing 10's of thousands of innocents wasn't rhetorical either, eh?
As far as these "terrorists" are concerned, America and the UK are evil operatives in some primitive religious war. And when I say "evil", I mean it literally, in the basic religous working-for-the-wrong-team sense of the word.
Their viewpoint isn't remotely oriented to a concept like terrorism.
It is so, so easy for fat Americans to sit around on their asses and label someone "evil", and "primitive religious fanatics" in order to justify American Imperialism.
Here's a clue, American: Freedom fighters in Afghanistan are fighting for their freedom as THEY DEFINE IT, not some MTV-fed generation of good ol' white boys on the continental US choose to define it. Freedom means *FREE TO CHOSE YOUR OWN WAY TO LIVE YOUR LIFE*.
America was founded by Terrorists. The same endless, eternal justifications for American Agression were given by the Brits when the U.S. was just a 'colony'...
As victims of terrorism, our initial basic preference is simply that the whole problem be laid to rest. On the other hand, their initial preference is that we die.
It is super, super dangerous to be so ignorant. Al Qaeda doesn't want Americans to die, Al Qaeda wants American Imperialism to stop.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
You think they want to kill you, because your media has made you believe this, but have you actually looked into it yourself? Do you know for -sure- that Al Qaeda only wants the slaughtering of Americans to occur, or have you only gone as far as your own govt's hubris on this issue, I wonder...
Ermm... I know tons of Mac OSX apps that are written in just pure C too, so just get off your smart box, or bandwagon, or whatever it is...
C is still in active, professional, hard-core, targetted and mass-market use and will probably stay that way for a long while yet. C is still a very, very, very useful programming language and the only reasons to get rid of it are purely political and/or utter bullshit.
its as simple as that. 'cool software' is now so ubiquitous and widespread, that simply, the only really interesting area to innovate in these days, and add value, is in the hardware.
so, make the hardware nobody else has thought of yet...
right now we've got a 90's-style ol' skool web interface for distributing our media, teamed up with ol' skool ftp/http mirrors distributing things around the globe.
but, we'll definitely use an rss-fronted bittorrent network, if and when it can actually be smoothly integrated with our existing setup.
ampfea stands for 'a meeting place for electronic artists' and its a community-supported media hosting/community service for a bunch of muso's... we are prime users for free, open, public, easy-to-use media sharing technologies, and if the big-guns aren't using it, we share are happy to!
C may not be the Windows development language de jour, but I even find it hard to conceive that someone could think that 'nobody writes C Windows apps any more'. in my business (audio software) there are still plenty of very avid, very professional, just-as-good-as-'easier'-language-projects apps being built...
if you can't use C to write a desktop app, something is very, very wrong with:
a) your attitude about development b) your installed operating system c) your methodology
look, it doesn't matter. use whatever floats your boat. but just don't go around parrot'ing some absolute line about nobody using C any more, for 'desktop' apps, because it simply isn't true.
i can do everything in C that any moron with their 'whiz-bang-language-of-the-month' can do, and someone cooking half-baked rules about their observations won't change that.
No. C has its place for sure, but for writing desktop apps it's the wrong tool for the job.
RUBBISH. There are plenty of desktop apps written in C which work just fine. Great, in fact.
So, how is it that if "C" is the wrong tool for the job, in fact the job has been accomplished so many countless hundreds of times already?
There is no single solid good reason for modern C programmers to still be running into malloc or thread problems. There are -excellent- solutions to these tired old problems already available, freely and widely on the C-programming market.
Anyone who thinks we need -another- language for programming is suffering from that cancerous "NIH" syndrome that afflicts too many technology people.
C is good for the job. It does the job. Why is it then not a good tool?
Obsessive-compulsive technology invention/re-invention is cancer.
This is a tragic mis-statement. What it has done is extended the power of complex, standard behaviors and routines to other programmers, allowed for centralised bug fixing as well as system wide improvments and feature enhancements. Code reuse has allowed us to build complex software in short time periods to meet ever diminishing deadlines.
No, programmers are lazy. It makes no sense to have so much shit in/usr/lib... for which, on my scarcely used box, the count is over 1gig...
Okay. Laziness on one side and "NIH" syndrome on the other.
Re:Sedna, Sedna, Sedna ...
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
oh.
i thought you were talking about my aunt.
Sedna, Sedna, Sedna ...
on
Melting Europa
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
... what is it, 'lets all talk about Sedna' week in America, or something?
Slashdot Mirror
... its tongue in cheek? Because it scares you that the 'enemies of America' (A-rabs) may actually be on to something, in their objections over super-technology facilities like this being created by people who obviously can't keep them under control and who have a distorted, banal, base value for life on this planet?
Just for the record, I don't agree with redneck "A-rab" assessments. I was, in fact, trying to be 'tongue-in-cheek', though I understand this may have been a little too complicated a nuance for some Reality TV types ... oops, there I go again ... okay I'll stop now ...
A statement like that kind of destroys all credibility of the author.
... but just think about it. What exactly is the reason for having such devastating facilities?
...
Yeah? Why is that? Because its possible that some of the objections that the Arab community have about America may in fact be true? That they may be applicable? That they may have a point?
The fact that America's enemies may actually have a point may have escaped some of you, I know
"Protection of the American Homeland".
Great. Thanks. The rest of the world, dying of new strains of Tuberculosis cooked up in your ivory towers, will be very happy to know that America is protected from its 'enemies'
... of how fundamentally irresponsible we have become as a species, and ignorant we all are of just how a few people, with their endless justifications for 'research' endanger us all.
... just maybe ... some of those dirty A-Rabs might just have a point about the U.S. ...
oh, i'm sure this 'bio-lab' has its legitimate uses. do we really need more weapons-grade anthrax, though, really? asian bird flu really needs human helping hands to become the higher species?
i dunno. shit like this makes me start to think, maybe
You can improve power and ease of use and it won't be even, in the slightest bit, innovative. Power/Ease of Use and Innovation have nothing to do with each other. Completely separate.
Congratulations on completely ballsing up the definition of innovation.
Before anyone starts getting into a debate about whether or not we should fight [dubspeak]The Terrorists[/dubspeak], maybe we should just define a few terms, first ...
Americans have been gipped. Fact is, You All Lost The War On Terror, Already.
Holy shit, what ignorance:
... oh, and I guess GWB's wonderful little show and pony parade before the UN prior to bombing the shit out of Iraq and killing 10's of thousands of innocents wasn't rhetorical either, eh?
Save your anti-American rhetoric for when America actually does something wrong.
AT THAT POINT IT WOULDN'T BE RHETORIC WOULD IT!?!!!
Oh wait, because you don't like it when people face you with the crimes of your State, its rhetoric
You stupid, stupid, ignorant idiot.
As far as these "terrorists" are concerned, America and the UK are evil operatives in some primitive religious war. And when I say "evil", I mean it literally, in the basic religous working-for-the-wrong-team sense of the word.
...
...
Their viewpoint isn't remotely oriented to a concept like terrorism.
It is so, so easy for fat Americans to sit around on their asses and label someone "evil", and "primitive religious fanatics" in order to justify American Imperialism.
Here's a clue, American: Freedom fighters in Afghanistan are fighting for their freedom as THEY DEFINE IT, not some MTV-fed generation of good ol' white boys on the continental US choose to define it. Freedom means *FREE TO CHOSE YOUR OWN WAY TO LIVE YOUR LIFE*.
America was founded by Terrorists. The same endless, eternal justifications for American Agression were given by the Brits when the U.S. was just a 'colony'
As victims of terrorism, our initial basic preference is simply that the whole problem be laid to rest. On the other hand, their initial preference is that we die.
It is super, super dangerous to be so ignorant. Al Qaeda doesn't want Americans to die, Al Qaeda wants American Imperialism to stop.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
You think they want to kill you, because your media has made you believe this, but have you actually looked into it yourself? Do you know for -sure- that Al Qaeda only wants the slaughtering of Americans to occur, or have you only gone as far as your own govt's hubris on this issue, I wonder
Why does something always have to be different in order to be good?
Things can be equivalent, and still be quite good.
Innovation, obsessively pursued for the sake of innovation, is cancer!
More important than 'new technology' is 'working technology'.
Yes to all of the above!
Okay, I get it now. You're just a totally crap C programmer.
I can do that in C. No need to recompile, no need to stop the application, nada.
Next.
Jobs come and go. A chance to jam, enjoy yourself, and meet new people ... this happens only when you make it/allow it to happen.
Go, do it! Have fun! Find a new job at the end of the road, if you need to!
Ermm... I know tons of Mac OSX apps that are written in just pure C too, so just get off your smart box, or bandwagon, or whatever it is
C is still in active, professional, hard-core, targetted and mass-market use and will probably stay that way for a long while yet. C is still a very, very, very useful programming language and the only reasons to get rid of it are purely political and/or utter bullshit.
good lord man, why on earth would i want to introspectively inspect my source code in a running, professional, working application?
... i don't want to know the reasons. sounds crap to me!
no, never mind
(hey, i can do (void *)(void *); good enough!)
its as simple as that. 'cool software' is now so ubiquitous and widespread, that simply, the only really interesting area to innovate in these days, and add value, is in the hardware.
so, make the hardware nobody else has thought of yet...
right now we've got a 90's-style ol' skool web interface for distributing our media, teamed up with ol' skool ftp/http mirrors distributing things around the globe.
... we are prime users for free, open, public, easy-to-use media sharing technologies, and if the big-guns aren't using it, we share are happy to!
but, we'll definitely use an rss-fronted bittorrent network, if and when it can actually be smoothly integrated with our existing setup.
ampfea stands for 'a meeting place for electronic artists' and its a community-supported media hosting/community service for a bunch of muso's
check out some of our files sometime. its all home-made music...
C may not be the Windows development language de jour, but I even find it hard to conceive that someone could think that 'nobody writes C Windows apps any more'. in my business (audio software) there are still plenty of very avid, very professional, just-as-good-as-'easier'-language-projects apps being built ...
if you can't use C to write a desktop app, something is very, very wrong with:
a) your attitude about development
b) your installed operating system
c) your methodology
look, it doesn't matter. use whatever floats your boat. but just don't go around parrot'ing some absolute line about nobody using C any more, for 'desktop' apps, because it simply isn't true.
this is such garbage.
i can do everything in C that any moron with their 'whiz-bang-language-of-the-month' can do, and someone cooking half-baked rules about their observations won't change that.
wtf are you talking about? "nobody writes desktop apps in C"?!!
this is rubbish! C is -still- an industry-wide, adopted, in-use, tool. everywhere i go, i see C projects. more C than anything else, in fact!
No. C has its place for sure, but for writing desktop apps it's the wrong tool for the job.
RUBBISH. There are plenty of desktop apps written in C which work just fine. Great, in fact.
So, how is it that if "C" is the wrong tool for the job, in fact the job has been accomplished so many countless hundreds of times already?
There is no single solid good reason for modern C programmers to still be running into malloc or thread problems. There are -excellent- solutions to these tired old problems already available, freely and widely on the C-programming market.
Anyone who thinks we need -another- language for programming is suffering from that cancerous "NIH" syndrome that afflicts too many technology people.
C is good for the job. It does the job. Why is it then not a good tool?
Obsessive-compulsive technology invention/re-invention is cancer.
Now there's someone who sounds like they ought to have a Tardis ... and know how to use it (mostly) ...
This is a tragic mis-statement. What it has done is extended the power of complex, standard behaviors and routines to other programmers, allowed for centralised bug fixing as well as system wide improvments and feature enhancements. Code reuse has allowed us to build complex software in short time periods to meet ever diminishing deadlines.
/usr/lib ... for which, on my scarcely used box, the count is over 1gig ...
No, programmers are lazy. It makes no sense to have so much shit in
Okay. Laziness on one side and "NIH" syndrome on the other.
oh.
i thought you were talking about my aunt.
... what is it, 'lets all talk about Sedna' week in America, or something?