But seriously, am I the only one that thinks that circumventing C's lack of sophisticated memory management by using a hack involving surreptitiously using stack frame memory is BAD BAD BAD? Certainly not secure or easy?
How about the next howto:
"Shooting yourself in the foot, securely, efficiently and easily!"
Hey, if we increase fuel efficiency, people will just drive more! (actual argument heard somewhere)
Plus, we all know SUVs are SAFER than cars (by virtue of the fact that they are not cars which are crushed by SUVs - by this logic TANKS are SAFER than SUVs, and, uh, 5 tanks combined into a SUPERTANK is safer than a TANK!)
Re:You've yet to see station selling suitable fuel
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 2
This helped a bit:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/energyb ri efing.htm
No, it would be more like going to a restaurant, sitting down, eating the "free" bread and drinking the "free" water, and just leaving. Yeah, technically that stuff is probably free. But people will still think you're an asshole.
On the other hand, I block ads because I KNOW it will just be a waste of bandwidth for the site in the first place because I never intentionally buy products because I see them in ads.
"I'd probably bitch about the taxes if I won the lottery."
I would too. You pay tax on the income you use to pay for lottery tickets (and maybe even sales tax?). And then you pay again to support a government run racket. Man, I bet politicians love lotteries. It's just like free money.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Out of curiosity, how exactly is Liberaterianism (the party) different from anarchism? Or is it basically anarchism? Not that I have any particular bone to pick. Just wondering if you make this distinction at all?
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
"Marx has been disproven (he made statements to verify his theories, and on his terms he has failed.)"
Ok I'll try to remember this correctly. Besides a lot of stuff on psychology of classes, Marx made the economic statement that capitalism was unstable, and would tend to boom and bust. This is proven. It does this. They're called market cycles. The more ambitious claim, based on the former, was that capitalism would self destruct. I'm not sure we've had long enough to determine whether this will be true or not. Modern capitalist societies are fueled by two things Marx did not predict or factor in 1) the role of technology and sustainability of fabrication of consumer desires (he did factor in technology, but only for its practical purpose...not the gee-whiz-let-me-buy-the-new-$300-PDA-purpose) 2) cheap labor in the third world. I believe both of these things are heartily fueling western capitalism. Take these away and wait 50 years and then we will find if "capitalism self-destructs". Or, conversely, hand every third world nation a lump of money so they can compete on a level playing field and see if these competing capitalist nations succeed. So far capitalism seems to be doing marvelously (ignoring any social/cultural/moral ills), for the rich at least, and there isn't any newer better proven mechanism. But that's far from saying it's bullet proof. There are too many factors involved for anything to be proven/disproven globally in economics.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Let me just address the inevitable "invisible hand" that comes in to save the day:
The "invisible hand" is based on an aware and informed consumer (hell, the whole free market is based on an aware and informed consumer).
And where does the consumer get his information? Well, increasingly, conglomerated multinational corporations of course.
This is not to say there is anything intentionally evil in that. It is just that centralized media will naturally push its own values (witnessed by the incessent complaining of conservatives about the liberal media). I think centralization of media is one of the most important issues these days. I think we can give up the pretense that consumers are actually the customers of centralized media. They are not. The customers are advertisers, and the product is you.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes there are a lot of gratuitous lawsuits. If it makes you any happier, I don't particularly like the "nanny state" protecting us from cigarrettes or bad food either.
The problem is, most of the time lawsuits are NOT a disincentive. Yes, once in a while a bad company will get caught and will have to shell out some money to somebody to keep them quiet. Here are a couple of flaws of the "let the courts settle it" puritanism:
1) The damage is already done. Courts only settle things AFTER THE FACT. This does not disincentivize companies from acting badly as long as they think they can cover it up, and shut up the random person that is brave enough to mount a legal challenge. Do I really have to parade out the history of awful things corporations have done without upfront legel checks? Did you miss that whole Enron thing? 2) You are not the only owner of your property. Wow, did I really say that? I bet I am some evil demented socialist! "Property" exists *because* of the government, not despite it. There are things that we share in common as a *society*. Things like waterways, airways, natural wonders, the environment system in general. No, I don't want somebody, say, dumping tons of mercury in their backyard just because it is theirs. Strangely, pollution has a way of ignoring property titles and hurting *everybody*.
What you fail to realize is that while the government may be an evil monopoly, the same can be true of corporations in a free market. Out of the kettle into the frying pan. The answer is not to just restrict one, and ignore the other. The answer is to judiciously limit both. Surely as an erudite free marketist, you will admit that free markets, without any external controls tend to self destruct, i.e., conglomerate into mega-monopolies. Tell me how a monopoly of corporate conglomerates is different from this evil thing called "government". It could be argued that in this age of globalization, many international corporations have MORE power than nations. Is corporate sovereignty better than national sovereignty?
The compromise between individual and collective power is historic and unending. Right now, it is my opinion that power unbalanced and concentrated more in the "collectives" called corporations. Old school conservatives will admit this, but you cannot? In fact, I find it downright strange that self titled libertarians aren't more interested in being free from the influence of large corporations as well as government.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"Did you even read the article I linked to? I guess not."
Yes I did read the article. He quotes a few lines from the platform, but instead of providing facts that refute the legitimacy of those positions, he just hysterically rants about them.
"BTW- there are two Green Party US's out there, he's explicit about which platform he's reviewing, and the platform is still the same as it was in 2000"
As far as I know, the two have merged. The "Green Party" was actually first an activism group and a small official political party. They both came together before the 2000 election I believe, and some of the more radical positions of the activist wing were dropped, IIRC.
"But the greens want them ALL DESTROYED anyway!"
Yes you're right. The Green party wants to DESTROY all companies. Damn you! You found out! If only it wasn't for you meddling kids and Scooby Doo we would have gotten away with our plan! MUAHAHAHAHA. err...
"Something about making the proletariat own the means of production, and we all know how that works."
Wow, can I win an argument with such a juvenile invocation of history? Does the Green party want to burn people in ovens too? Step outside your cabin for a second, not everybody is a communist out to get you. Sheesh. Anyway, the USSR is one, BAD, failed example of communism (Stalinism really)...communism is not that great for at least 2 reasons 1) temporary dictatorships are never temporary 2) dictatorship by the proletariate is *still* dictatorship. You might want to take a look around the world to find where socialist aspects are actually working (without being explicitly called that), e.g. lots of Europe. You might also want to refer to the "socialist" Canadian health system. We all know how that works. Nicely.:)
You DON'T want SOAP. Have you ever SEEN a SOAP message? It's insane. What you want is a small, binary packet based protocol. The overhead of just PARSING SOAP would totally swamp latency. Yuck yuck yuck. I have developed seriously with CORBA, and while I am not enamored of it (the spec is just way too big, flexible, vague, byzantine and incomprehensible), SOAP is an even "wronger" answer. If anything, you need to go in the other direction - small, binary, application-specific protocol. CORBA is the next best thing, while gaining you portability and lots of existing support. (actually I wish somebody would just implement a native, simpler, RMI to replace CORBA - CORBA is overkill for a lot of things). Think KParts (or whatever custom protocol KDE came up with).
"They're not going to be doing any physics simulations on it."
Why the heck not? Any high-school level physics simulation can CERTAINLY be done on a 133 with CPU to spare. What, are your high school students simulating fluid dynamics or something? No, they're just dropping balls and pulling springs and stuff.
For a rich country like the U.S., environmentalism is a luxurious fad. When that same pollution is exported (either directly, or by fostering "dirty" industries to feed the west), it is a matter of life and death.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Not to mention libertarian socialists. No that is not an oxymoron.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'll bite...
Check out what the greens really believe in:
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Right, don't read their platform. No, don't do that! Instead listen to some libertarian loony who apparently likes to spend his free time trollingnon-smokersnewsgroups.
And remember, the BIGGEST polluter in the world is the US government, and the worst one in this country is the all the federal and state governments. Private and coroporate pollution is almost nil by comparison.
And the greens want MORE government, not less.
And thusly it follows that the Greens obviously want more pollution! Aha! Oh wait, except THEY DON'T.
A company wrongs you, you can sue them.
Yeah, we all know that always works! Let's just disregard the vast discrepency in the ability for an individual versus major polluting corporations in sustaining a legal battle.
When the government does it, you have no recourse.
Except, oh, this little thing called "democracy". Strangely this "no recourse" actually seems to be working somewhat (now at least it is politically "trendy" to be environmentally conscious).
Best solution for the environment is privatization of land and a rational court system to sue for damages. You pollute my drinking water, I sue you. EVen if you are the government.
Right. Let's not disincentivize people from doing this in the first place. Let's incentivize them to cover it up and then wage long inconclusive legal battles with individuals. Hey, it's not my problem! By the way, please tell me how you are going to rationally privatize and proprietize things like air and water quality. How about corporations that just *poof* go bankrupt or vanish, or whose pollution isn't discovered until years after they are around (buried waste, etc.). Yeah, let's just hope this system works.
And, while we're at it, how many jobs would exist if all the large and small companies in the country were destroyed? Where would the tax money come from?
Right, let's not put crooks in jail because that would hurt the economy! Seriously, if we have to "destroy" "all the large and small companies in the country", I think we are is seriously bad shape.
the rest of the post is just worse drivel not even worth responding to...just wanted to address the Green bashing
I know that viruses, through rare quirks of nature actually serve some purposes in some niches (besides the obvious limiting of growth through disease), but in general, being overrun with viruses would not be a GOOD THING, right?
And imperfect. And bounded by a LOT of parameters. I have a wild guess that will the benefit of intellect and the knowledge of evolution, we could easily create something that is NOT bounded by some resources.
Hey, here's another example of self-replicating assemblers: VIRUSES
Doesn't quite have the innocuous ring to it that "green" does...
Slashdot Mirror
Secure, Efficient and Easy C Programming
* Not possible. Stop using C for the love of god.
---
But seriously, am I the only one that thinks that circumventing C's lack of sophisticated memory management by using a hack involving surreptitiously using stack frame memory is BAD BAD BAD? Certainly not secure or easy?
How about the next howto:
"Shooting yourself in the foot, securely, efficiently and easily!"
"Can you hear me now?!"
/me hides in shame
"Look, technology was what enabled musicians to reproduce cheaply"
And now cloning is banned!
Uh, except that isn't Europe re-"federalizing" with the advent of the EU??
"Tintinitus."
Tintinitus? What is that? The sensation of little french dogs yipping in your ear all the time?
Hey, if we increase fuel efficiency, people will just drive more! (actual argument heard somewhere)
Plus, we all know SUVs are SAFER than cars (by virtue of the fact that they are not cars which are crushed by SUVs - by this logic TANKS are SAFER than SUVs, and, uh, 5 tanks combined into a SUPERTANK is safer than a TANK!)
This helped a bit:
b ri efing.htm
p ?I nd=E01&Cycle=2000&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorde r=U
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/energy
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.as
Wait...didn't that reefer madness video promise "loose women" though?...
No, it would be more like going to a restaurant, sitting down, eating the "free" bread and drinking the "free" water, and just leaving. Yeah, technically that stuff is probably free. But people will still think you're an asshole.
On the other hand, I block ads because I KNOW it will just be a waste of bandwidth for the site in the first place because I never intentionally buy products because I see them in ads.
"I'd probably bitch about the taxes if I won the lottery."
I would too. You pay tax on the income you use to pay for lottery tickets (and maybe even sales tax?). And then you pay again to support a government run racket. Man, I bet politicians love lotteries. It's just like free money.
...also enjoyed:
Will Ferrell Apple Switch Spoof shown at MacWorld
Out of curiosity, how exactly is Liberaterianism (the party) different from anarchism? Or is it basically anarchism? Not that I have any particular bone to pick. Just wondering if you make this distinction at all?
"Marx has been disproven (he made statements to verify his theories, and on his terms he has failed.)"
Ok I'll try to remember this correctly. Besides a lot of stuff on psychology of classes, Marx made the economic statement that capitalism was unstable, and would tend to boom and bust. This is proven. It does this. They're called market cycles. The more ambitious claim, based on the former, was that capitalism would self destruct. I'm not sure we've had long enough to determine whether this will be true or not. Modern capitalist societies are fueled by two things Marx did not predict or factor in 1) the role of technology and sustainability of fabrication of consumer desires (he did factor in technology, but only for its practical purpose...not the gee-whiz-let-me-buy-the-new-$300-PDA-purpose) 2) cheap labor in the third world. I believe both of these things are heartily fueling western capitalism. Take these away and wait 50 years and then we will find if "capitalism self-destructs". Or, conversely, hand every third world nation a lump of money so they can compete on a level playing field and see if these competing capitalist nations succeed. So far capitalism seems to be doing marvelously (ignoring any social/cultural/moral ills), for the rich at least, and there isn't any newer better proven mechanism. But that's far from saying it's bullet proof. There are too many factors involved for anything to be proven/disproven globally in economics.
Let me just address the inevitable "invisible hand" that comes in to save the day:
The "invisible hand" is based on an aware and informed consumer (hell, the whole free market is based on an aware and informed consumer).
And where does the consumer get his information? Well, increasingly, conglomerated multinational corporations of course.
This is not to say there is anything intentionally evil in that. It is just that centralized media will naturally push its own values (witnessed by the incessent complaining of conservatives about the liberal media). I think centralization of media is one of the most important issues these days. I think we can give up the pretense that consumers are actually the customers of centralized media. They are not. The customers are advertisers, and the product is you.
Yes there are a lot of gratuitous lawsuits. If it makes you any happier, I don't particularly like the "nanny state" protecting us from cigarrettes or bad food either.
The problem is, most of the time lawsuits are NOT a disincentive. Yes, once in a while a bad company will get caught and will have to shell out some money to somebody to keep them quiet. Here are a couple of flaws of the "let the courts settle it" puritanism:
1) The damage is already done. Courts only settle things AFTER THE FACT. This does not disincentivize companies from acting badly as long as they think they can cover it up, and shut up the random person that is brave enough to mount a legal challenge. Do I really have to parade out the history of awful things corporations have done without upfront legel checks? Did you miss that whole Enron thing?
2) You are not the only owner of your property. Wow, did I really say that? I bet I am some evil demented socialist! "Property" exists *because* of the government, not despite it. There are things that we share in common as a *society*. Things like waterways, airways, natural wonders, the environment system in general. No, I don't want somebody, say, dumping tons of mercury in their backyard just because it is theirs. Strangely, pollution has a way of ignoring property titles and hurting *everybody*.
What you fail to realize is that while the government may be an evil monopoly, the same can be true of corporations in a free market. Out of the kettle into the frying pan. The answer is not to just restrict one, and ignore the other. The answer is to judiciously limit both. Surely as an erudite free marketist, you will admit that free markets, without any external controls tend to self destruct, i.e., conglomerate into mega-monopolies. Tell me how a monopoly of corporate conglomerates is different from this evil thing called "government". It could be argued that in this age of globalization, many international corporations have MORE power than nations. Is corporate sovereignty better than national sovereignty?
The compromise between individual and collective power is historic and unending. Right now, it is my opinion that power unbalanced and concentrated more in the "collectives" called corporations. Old school conservatives will admit this, but you cannot? In fact, I find it downright strange that self titled libertarians aren't more interested in being free from the influence of large corporations as well as government.
"Did you even read the article I linked to? I guess not."
:)
Yes I did read the article. He quotes a few lines from the platform, but instead of providing facts that refute the legitimacy of those positions, he just hysterically rants about them.
"BTW- there are two Green Party US's out there, he's explicit about which platform he's reviewing, and the platform is still the same as it was in 2000"
As far as I know, the two have merged. The "Green Party" was actually first an activism group and a small official political party. They both came together before the 2000 election I believe, and some of the more radical positions of the activist wing were dropped, IIRC.
"But the greens want them ALL DESTROYED anyway!"
Yes you're right. The Green party wants to DESTROY all companies. Damn you! You found out! If only it wasn't for you meddling kids and Scooby Doo we would have gotten away with our plan! MUAHAHAHAHA. err...
"Something about making the proletariat own the means of production, and we all know how that works."
Wow, can I win an argument with such a juvenile invocation of history? Does the Green party want to burn people in ovens too? Step outside your cabin for a second, not everybody is a communist out to get you. Sheesh. Anyway, the USSR is one, BAD, failed example of communism (Stalinism really)...communism is not that great for at least 2 reasons 1) temporary dictatorships are never temporary 2) dictatorship by the proletariate is *still* dictatorship. You might want to take a look around the world to find where socialist aspects are actually working (without being explicitly called that), e.g. lots of Europe. You might also want to refer to the "socialist" Canadian health system. We all know how that works. Nicely.
Wow...all I can think is wrong wrong wrong.
You DON'T want SOAP. Have you ever SEEN a SOAP message? It's insane. What you want is a small, binary packet based protocol. The overhead of just PARSING SOAP would totally swamp latency. Yuck yuck yuck. I have developed seriously with CORBA, and while I am not enamored of it (the spec is just way too big, flexible, vague, byzantine and incomprehensible), SOAP is an even "wronger" answer. If anything, you need to go in the other direction - small, binary, application-specific protocol. CORBA is the next best thing, while gaining you portability and lots of existing support. (actually I wish somebody would just implement a native, simpler, RMI to replace CORBA - CORBA is overkill for a lot of things). Think KParts (or whatever custom protocol KDE came up with).
"They're not going to be doing any physics simulations on it."
Why the heck not? Any high-school level physics simulation can CERTAINLY be done on a 133 with CPU to spare. What, are your high school students simulating fluid dynamics or something? No, they're just dropping balls and pulling springs and stuff.
For a rich country like the U.S., environmentalism is a luxurious fad. When that same pollution is exported (either directly, or by fostering "dirty" industries to feed the west), it is a matter of life and death.
Not to mention libertarian socialists. No that is not an oxymoron.
Check out what the greens really believe in:
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
Right, don't read their platform. No, don't do that! Instead listen to some libertarian loony who apparently likes to spend his free time trolling non-smokers newsgroups.
And thusly it follows that the Greens obviously want more pollution! Aha! Oh wait, except THEY DON'T.
Yeah, we all know that always works! Let's just disregard the vast discrepency in the ability for an individual versus major polluting corporations in sustaining a legal battle.
Except, oh, this little thing called "democracy". Strangely this "no recourse" actually seems to be working somewhat (now at least it is politically "trendy" to be environmentally conscious).
Right. Let's not disincentivize people from doing this in the first place. Let's incentivize them to cover it up and then wage long inconclusive legal battles with individuals. Hey, it's not my problem! By the way, please tell me how you are going to rationally privatize and proprietize things like air and water quality. How about corporations that just *poof* go bankrupt or vanish, or whose pollution isn't discovered until years after they are around (buried waste, etc.). Yeah, let's just hope this system works.
Right, let's not put crooks in jail because that would hurt the economy! Seriously, if we have to "destroy" "all the large and small companies in the country", I think we are is seriously bad shape.
the rest of the post is just worse drivel not even worth responding to...just wanted to address the Green bashing
...and everybody will just be listening to one form of ClearChannel or another...
...those clients that the phone company will be selling information to are...
the DoD or Department of Homeland Security
works out nicely doesn't it
Or, to get even simpler, say, viruses.
I know that viruses, through rare quirks of nature actually serve some purposes in some niches (besides the obvious limiting of growth through disease), but in general, being overrun with viruses would not be a GOOD THING, right?
"Except it's not gray. It's green."
And imperfect. And bounded by a LOT of parameters. I have a wild guess that will the benefit of intellect and the knowledge of evolution, we could easily create something that is NOT bounded by some resources.
Hey, here's another example of self-replicating assemblers: VIRUSES
Doesn't quite have the innocuous ring to it that "green" does...