Haskell for example can detect which type a function has based on type inference
I would consider Haskell a strongly typed language, as types are known at compile time. I think the difference between strongly typed and weakly typed languages is between systems that know all types at compile time and those that figure them out at run time.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was after labelling of food products became law in the United States that the worst epidemy of obesity ever seen happened.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was shortly after the creation of Libertarian Party that the AIDS epidemic started.
Recite after me: correlation does not equal causation. Frankly, the "labelling of food products" is a very arbitrary starting point; it arguably started before the "fat clubs" in the East, where it was cool to be fat, before the labelling of food and it arguably started after the 1950's, where the weight/height data we use to judge normallacy was collected, long after the labelling of food.
My point is that smaller code is easier to inspect as you're are typing it and quicker to write unit tests for. Also, the less you type the less errors you make.
Again: APL all the way, baby.
Your unit tests shouldn't change at all; in fact, they can be come shorter, since they don't have to test the constraints embodied in the strong checking.
The second line is suspicious because we are append a string to something that looked like a number originally.
This is a simple case; just as importantly, it's going to flag every time you want to append a number to a string. Why is
x = 3 y = "foo" . x// LINT: Shut up!!!
better than
x = 3 y = "foo" . image (x)
?
I have found over the years that a whole lot of software engineering is subjective (depends on individual psychology) such that it is redundant to explicitly state such.
Then why are you arguing it? I don't sit around arguing whether Coke is better or worse than Pepsi, because it's purely an individual preference. It's absurd to make logical arguments about subjective issues.
It has also been proven that staticly-typed languages use up more code.
Is there a finite supply of code somewhere? If there is, then APL all the way. Otherwise, what's the issue here?
No, just *most* of the time.
Doubtful. Strong typing makes the weird stuff stand out like it should, and the normal stuff needs no typecasts.
A "lint" like feature that scans interpreted code and warns of suspicious stuff.
The only way for a lint program to even start to compare is if you annotated the program with notes, which reduces readability more than using a strongly-typed language would.
Personally, I am more productive with dynamic languages, but for other people this may be different. I only know what works for me.
Which is quite different from how you've presented the issue.
Heavy type-checking relies on the same theory that more buerocracy is the solution to quality.
The earlier you catch a bug, the easier it is to fix. That's been proven. Heavy type-checking catches bugs at compile time. Dynamic type-checking may leave bugs until the user runs over them.
Is the array row-first or column-first? If rows and columns are different types, then the compiler will tell me when I got it wrong. I don't find that chasing that bug later, when it could be anywhere in a thousand lines of code, is a more efficent way to quality. Sure, it means a few more casts when I want to add rows and columns, but I've never found that a problem.
Type-checking doesn't always make the code harder to read. In a type-checking language, "if (a==0)" lets me know that a is a number. In several non-type-checking languages, a could be just about anything. It's possible that you can't figure out what a is, even after looking around the code; it's possible that the else part of that statement may have to deal with a being a list, or a record, or a string. There is no local checks you can make to discover that; you may have to read every line of code to discover what type a is.
If you want to launch from America, you deal with the American Government.
I'm sure plenty of companies will base themselves elsewhere for precisely this reason.
How many countries have the land area to support missile launches that won't try and regulate it? And even if you can ship your widgets to the Ukraine to launch them into space, most people around the world aren't going to want to go to the Ukraine to launch, especially as the fact you're located in the Ukraine is to avoid pesky safety regulations. The space tourism buisness is going to have to go where the customers are.
Right. Look at that damn HDTV, forking the NTSC standard. That's just so evil.
If you want to produce a better standard, then forking an existing standard is sometimes the way to go. 99 times out of a hundred, nobody is going to care. No license can stop you from putting out a new video format of your own design out there, anyway. The only people who can make people care about a new video standard--Microsoft and Apple--have their own standards already, and they'll do their own thing no matter what you do.
In any case, forks are rare, but an essential part of free software. What happens if the BBC stops supporting it--should no one else be able to even apply patches to make it portable to new architectures? Should no one else be able to improve on it? They're so essential, they're part of the definition of free software.
Spamming a bug with comments like "why isn't this fixed?", "this bug still annoys me", "don't wontfix this bug" and "this bug is really old and annoying, you guys suck and don't care" doesn't help fix the bug
On the flip side, each program has its own bug tracking system, with its own specialized demands for information that I have to hunt up and assemble in its own specialized manner. Furthermore, I have to localize the bug and provide a reasonable testcase. And after spending that time to help you find a bug in your program, to be told that "nobody uses that feature", or worse yet just ignored, isn't amusing and encourages me, in the future, to work around bugs instead of reporting them, since we know you aren't going to fix them.
You will probably also have a significant fraction (perhaps greater than 100%) of all pennies ever produced.
I've seen a million pennies before at a kids mueseum. I doubt one mueseum had a tenth of pennies in circulation; I would think the mint would start to get a little uncomfortable with the idea.
I'm just saying its theoretically possible people.
This wasn't a theoritical discussion, so that's a cop-out. About the only way we could prove there are no WMDs in Iraq is to completely nuke it to bedrock, and we don't have enough nukes.
As a theoretical matter, it's damn hard to prove the nonexistance of anything. It could very well be in a place you didn't look, or moved from one place to another while you were looking.
If something is binary, weapons or no weapons, it can be proved one way or the other.
Really. Just because we didn't find any weapons in your house, doesn't mean they aren't there, especially if your house is the size of Iraq and we have political goals of discovering that you were hiding weapons. You just hid them better than we searched. You hid them in a dam, in Joe Shmo's basement, in the foundation under Joe Shmo's basement, in a secret basement under a dam, hidden somewhere in the desert. While we were searching, you moved them. Remember the alleged bio-terrorism trucks? How was Iraq supposed to prove that they didn't exist, stop all traffic on all roads while we searched all the trucks? How could they prove they hadn't stuck them away somewhere while we searched the trucks?
As apparently you didn't know, you can't prove a negative, unless you can exhaustively search a space. Which you can't, for any real space.
It's kind of ludicrous to think a criminal court found him *not guilty* and a civil court could actually find him *probably guilty* afterwards.
So they should have sued him in civil court, then in criminal court? If the probability of him having committed the crime is 75%, then that's the exactly correct result. A civil court is not held to the same standards a criminal court is.
Fundamentalist atheists are just as bad. Only, it's not socially acceptable to show bigotry towards them, like it is to Christians.
Really? Which society do you live in? Because in my society, I've heard that atheists have no morals, are all communists, aren't citizens (according to George HW Bush, then president of my country), etc.
Christians have a lot of power in many societies, and frequently try and wield it en bloc. Yes, Christians sometimes get lumped in with the loud visible groups of Christians; guess what, every other group tends to get lumped in with the most loud and visible part. Deal.
What I am saying is that there are A LOT of groups and regemes (sp?) in ["the Middle-east, Arabia[...], and Northern Africa"] that actively hunt and kill Christians and Jews, because it is what they have been taught to do from pre-school age.
It's not an attack against Christians. It's an attack against non-believers. In fact, in Iran, it's legal to be a Christian or a Jew, but not a Baha'i or an Atheist. In Saudi Arabia, it's not even legal to be a Sunni Muslim. To act like a cross is put upon your backs, and your backs alone is absurd.
Now, don't tell me that my opinion that Star Wars is not a big deal in the film history makes me a troll.
No, just stupid. Any trilogy that is a huge release the second time it's released after 25 years and which are some of the best selling movies of all time, with countless auxillary movies and books and various spinoffs is a big deal in file history. It's not really a matter of opinion.
The same reason why every year 100,000+ Mexicans try to enter the borders of USA
The differnce being is that the Mexicans that immigrate to the US don't try and get the US government to overthrown the current Mexican government. On the other hand, Cuban immigrates are vocable about how bad Castro is.
but the core belief in Christianity is there is a GOD. If you don't belive in this then you can't be Christian.
You love absolutes, don't you. Who says you can't be a Christian? If you believe in the words of Christ as a moral philosopher and follow them completely, you are a follower of Christ. Why aren't you a Christian?
There are many other country's in the world that have to vote (by law) after a certain age to help insure we have a democratically elected government.
So a bunch of people who don't really care have to go in and punch random holes in a piece of paper? Great.
If your one of the richest men in your country or the poorest you have equal value of '1 vote' everyone get thats freedom. That is the core foundation of democracy if that is destoryed you no longer have a democratic country
So the UK wasn't a democracy until 1940, when the universities were deprived of the vote? Again, you're being absolutist; in every real society, ballots are going to get screwed up and misread, ballot boxes are going to get lost, and yes, out and outright fraud is going to happen. It should be minimized, but that doesn't mean that it's not a democracy.
One person, one vote is still the principle in the US and usually the practice.
But clearly the interest of the corporations doesn't tie in with public interest so they don't go hand in hand.
"Clearly"? It's easiest to assume what you're trying to prove, isn't it.
No one's interest is the public interest, and no one can be relied upon to follow it. The theory of capitalism is that the interest of the corporation will approximate the public interest in most cases, with the government moderating the rest.
But its law that corporations put the 'self interest' of the shareholders (profit) over social and environmental issues. And yes that is law in the USA.
And just about everywhere else. In theory, if the people are concerned about social and environmental issues, the corporations will be concerned less they lose market share.
Your making the assumption I'm from Europe. I'm not I'm actually from one of your allied country's
No, actually I'm not. And why should I believe you anyway, if you won't even say which nation?
sometimes war is the only opinion
"option". And it's never the only option; the UK could have peacably surrendered to Germany.
I guess that part of the constitution that covers freedom of speech, your not to big on that either.
This is a private forum. And even if it were, I would still have the right to ask you to stop causing a fuss and leave so other people could enjoy themselves. That is my freedom of speech.
Again, I assure you I'm not from Europe.
Fine, your standards. Big difference.
I don't dispise the people of America.
But you despise the US, the society, the government. That comes through loud and clear no matter what you say.
That is why i'm not pro war.
At a party, Oscar Wilde was talking to a lady. "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"
"Well, yes, I guess I would."
"What about for 1 pound?"
"Mr Wilde, what do you think I am?!?"
"We've established that, we're now haggling over the price."
The point being, once you give the UK the right to wage war on Germany just because Germany was attacking Poland (remember, the UK declared war first), you are at best usually anti-war, a viewpoint which most people in the modern world agree with. Now we're haggling over the details.
Most radiation passes right through the body without colliding with anything ( matter is mostly 'empty' space ). It is a very rare occasion indeed when an alpha particle will actually hit something.
Huh? An alpha particle is pretty big, and will very rarely pass through a body. In fact, that's why they're of as little concern as they are; they'll rarely make it through your clothes or the outer layer of exposed skin.
So it is quite arbitrary where you draw the line and say "this much is safe, and this much is dangerous".
How dangerous is a flight of stairs? How about an elevator? Both of them present non-negligable hazards. It's always arbitrary where you draw the line, but that doesn't mean you take away everything sharp and make us live in small padded rooms for our safety. You've got to weigh the risks and the advantages.
If you have to depend on something, you need to be able to depend on that something.
You would rather have no compiler on a platform than a mostly working one?
A fixed test suite help assure that at least the bugs don't keep changing on you.
No, you don't. You get assured that the tests in the test suite pass, which doesn't tell you that the compiler actually works for your program. Compiling this program with -fprofile-arcs -O3 may work this version and not the next, because it's probably not exhaustively tested.
you have to pass the test suite to call your implementation Ada.
That hasn't been true for a long time; I don't believe it was ever true for Ada95.
The GNU Ada Translator (GNAT) passes just fine.
That's half true. There exists a version of GNAT, several years old, that on a one (a small group?) of systems, again several years old, it has been certified to pass. There is a much larger group of systems and versions that it passes on, although it's never been checked officially. As for the versions that many distributions ship based on GCC 3.x, they generally don't pass all the tests.
You might want to cover elementary English punctuation and capitalization rules.
The foundations of democracy has never been in the USA.
A strawman attack, since that's not what was argued.
There are many country's were everyone over a certain age has to vote, this voting is not just federal its state and council elections. That to me helps insure that the majority of a society decides their own government. That is a crucial part of Democracy and USA doesn't have it.
Where does the US not let everyone vote?
USA is also a country that has a heavy lean towards Privatisation and Commercialization.
Yes. Just because you're a democracy, doesn't mean you need to be a socialist state.
Take the actions of the "Florida 2000 fiasco". [...] Yet hardly any American's cared.
Lots of Americans cared. You think it was only covered in non-US media? But in the end of the day, we had two canidates running neck to neck; no matter who won, no great crime to democracy was done.
That is what democracy is about so going to war for democracy is a contradiction.
So Britain shouldn't have fought in World War I or II? Should the US have ignored Hitler? Sometimes you have to fight to protect yourself and other innocent people.
to compare even their so called 'Liberal Media' it's extremely bias
I.e. you disagree with it. There's no bias-free viewpoint of the world.
After Sept 11, USA media was saying the 'world had changed' 'the world has changed!', But the reality is nothing had changed.
So all those reports about people dieing were just lies, huh? Yes, the impact was more social and psychological then physical, but it doesn't mean that stuff hadn't changed.
You only need to look at any world event, You'll notice that USA generally has a different view to the rest of the world, Why do you think that is?
You only need to look at any world event and you'll notice that Europe generally has a different view of it than the rest of the world does. The US is a large cultural block; of course it has its own viewpoint. Or do you really think the Chinese and Arabs agree with the European viewpoint on everything.
Take Cuba for example, Most of the world see Cuba as a country that had a social revolution lead by Fedel Castro and Che Guevara. Yet Americans tend to think of them as dictators.
Pope John Paul II doesn't see it as a "social revolution". It's "long been a one-party state" (according to Human Rights Watch), so Castro looks a lot like a dictator to me. And again, just if Americans tend to disagree with the rest of the world, doesn't mean they aren't democratic.
Take Iraq, Most Americans belive in their war for democracy, yet most of the world don't.
I question "most Americans" here. Once more, this has nothing to do with whether or not Americans are democratic, it has to do whether Americans agree with the world.
i belive it's because of extreme bias media.
I've seen a reproduction of a pamphlet lauding Charles the II and the monarchy, published in the 1600s. Does the fact the viewpoint the pamphlet express is nowhere to be seen in modern society mean that the media of that day and culture was extremely biased, or rather does it mean that the people of that culture held a different viewpoint than we do, and that the media of the time and place may well have offered a balanced selection of the viewpoints common in that society?
I don't see any founded facts for saying USA is the worlds most stable democracy.
Is that what you're discussing? It's funny, because I see little to nothing discussing the stability of the American democracy. No discussion that it's been a democracy of some sort for 230 years, that it's been through one civil war, but the parts not in rebellion had democracy throughout it. It's certainly one of the longest running democracies (Britain by no means being democratic until at least the mid-nineteenth century), but it certainly has its rough points, and the citizens seem to have lost a lot of faith in the system. You could discuss stuff like that, but you would rather give the "why I despise the US" speech, wouldn't you.
As soon as you Open Source Java, someone is going to want to put in pre-compiler directives because they're used to them from the C/C++ world.
You don't need to mess with the compiler to add pre-compiler directives. M4, or a hand written preprocessor, will do it just fine. Even cpp will probably work.
Maintainers are going to start worrying less-and-less about API compatibility issues because developers are going to have pre-compiler directives to work around them
Really. I can't recall ever seeing this. Do you think maintainers want to write programs that are hard to use and break standards?
Around the same time, someone is going to create a Java fork which isn't 100% compitable in some area.
There's several open source Java implementations, and I've always had huge problems running Java programs; they're usually depend on some API that the open source libraries don't support.
I have never seen a standard that was out there before the implementations, that was actually sufficient to do what was needed, that got a bunch of incompatible implemenations.
Slashdot Mirror
Haskell for example can detect which type a function has based on type inference
I would consider Haskell a strongly typed language, as types are known at compile time. I think the difference between strongly typed and weakly typed languages is between systems that know all types at compile time and those that figure them out at run time.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was after labelling of food products became law in the United States that the worst epidemy of obesity ever seen happened.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was shortly after the creation of Libertarian Party that the AIDS epidemic started.
Recite after me: correlation does not equal causation. Frankly, the "labelling of food products" is a very arbitrary starting point; it arguably started before the "fat clubs" in the East, where it was cool to be fat, before the labelling of food and it arguably started after the 1950's, where the weight/height data we use to judge normallacy was collected, long after the labelling of food.
Again: APL all the way, baby.
Your unit tests shouldn't change at all; in fact, they can be come shorter, since they don't have to test the constraints embodied in the strong checking.
The second line is suspicious because we are append a string to something that looked like a number originally.
This is a simple case; just as importantly, it's going to flag every time you want to append a number to a string. Why isbetter than?
I have found over the years that a whole lot of software engineering is subjective (depends on individual psychology) such that it is redundant to explicitly state such.
Then why are you arguing it? I don't sit around arguing whether Coke is better or worse than Pepsi, because it's purely an individual preference. It's absurd to make logical arguments about subjective issues.
It has also been proven that staticly-typed languages use up more code.
Is there a finite supply of code somewhere? If there is, then APL all the way. Otherwise, what's the issue here?
No, just *most* of the time.
Doubtful. Strong typing makes the weird stuff stand out like it should, and the normal stuff needs no typecasts.
A "lint" like feature that scans interpreted code and warns of suspicious stuff.
The only way for a lint program to even start to compare is if you annotated the program with notes, which reduces readability more than using a strongly-typed language would.
Personally, I am more productive with dynamic languages, but for other people this may be different. I only know what works for me.
Which is quite different from how you've presented the issue.
Heavy type-checking relies on the same theory that more buerocracy is the solution to quality.
The earlier you catch a bug, the easier it is to fix. That's been proven. Heavy type-checking catches bugs at compile time. Dynamic type-checking may leave bugs until the user runs over them.
Is the array row-first or column-first? If rows and columns are different types, then the compiler will tell me when I got it wrong. I don't find that chasing that bug later, when it could be anywhere in a thousand lines of code, is a more efficent way to quality. Sure, it means a few more casts when I want to add rows and columns, but I've never found that a problem.
Type-checking doesn't always make the code harder to read. In a type-checking language, "if (a==0)" lets me know that a is a number. In several non-type-checking languages, a could be just about anything. It's possible that you can't figure out what a is, even after looking around the code; it's possible that the else part of that statement may have to deal with a being a list, or a record, or a string. There is no local checks you can make to discover that; you may have to read every line of code to discover what type a is.
I doubt Australia is going to be much better, regulation-wise, as a launching site than the US is.
If you want to launch from America, you deal with the American Government.
I'm sure plenty of companies will base themselves elsewhere for precisely this reason.
How many countries have the land area to support missile launches that won't try and regulate it? And even if you can ship your widgets to the Ukraine to launch them into space, most people around the world aren't going to want to go to the Ukraine to launch, especially as the fact you're located in the Ukraine is to avoid pesky safety regulations. The space tourism buisness is going to have to go where the customers are.
Forking a video standard is asinine.
Right. Look at that damn HDTV, forking the NTSC standard. That's just so evil.
If you want to produce a better standard, then forking an existing standard is sometimes the way to go. 99 times out of a hundred, nobody is going to care. No license can stop you from putting out a new video format of your own design out there, anyway. The only people who can make people care about a new video standard--Microsoft and Apple--have their own standards already, and they'll do their own thing no matter what you do.
In any case, forks are rare, but an essential part of free software. What happens if the BBC stops supporting it--should no one else be able to even apply patches to make it portable to new architectures? Should no one else be able to improve on it? They're so essential, they're part of the definition of free software.
two audio codecs for Ogg
Nitpick: three. Vorbis, Speex and Flac.
Spamming a bug with comments like "why isn't this fixed?", "this bug still annoys me", "don't wontfix this bug" and "this bug is really old and annoying, you guys suck and don't care" doesn't help fix the bug
On the flip side, each program has its own bug tracking system, with its own specialized demands for information that I have to hunt up and assemble in its own specialized manner. Furthermore, I have to localize the bug and provide a reasonable testcase. And after spending that time to help you find a bug in your program, to be told that "nobody uses that feature", or worse yet just ignored, isn't amusing and encourages me, in the future, to work around bugs instead of reporting them, since we know you aren't going to fix them.
You will probably also have a significant fraction (perhaps greater than 100%) of all pennies ever produced.
I've seen a million pennies before at a kids mueseum. I doubt one mueseum had a tenth of pennies in circulation; I would think the mint would start to get a little uncomfortable with the idea.
I'm just saying its theoretically possible people.
This wasn't a theoritical discussion, so that's a cop-out. About the only way we could prove there are no WMDs in Iraq is to completely nuke it to bedrock, and we don't have enough nukes.
As a theoretical matter, it's damn hard to prove the nonexistance of anything. It could very well be in a place you didn't look, or moved from one place to another while you were looking.
If something is binary, weapons or no weapons, it can be proved one way or the other.
Really. Just because we didn't find any weapons in your house, doesn't mean they aren't there, especially if your house is the size of Iraq and we have political goals of discovering that you were hiding weapons. You just hid them better than we searched. You hid them in a dam, in Joe Shmo's basement, in the foundation under Joe Shmo's basement, in a secret basement under a dam, hidden somewhere in the desert. While we were searching, you moved them. Remember the alleged bio-terrorism trucks? How was Iraq supposed to prove that they didn't exist, stop all traffic on all roads while we searched all the trucks? How could they prove they hadn't stuck them away somewhere while we searched the trucks?
As apparently you didn't know, you can't prove a negative, unless you can exhaustively search a space. Which you can't, for any real space.
It's kind of ludicrous to think a criminal court found him *not guilty* and a civil court could actually find him *probably guilty* afterwards.
So they should have sued him in civil court, then in criminal court? If the probability of him having committed the crime is 75%, then that's the exactly correct result. A civil court is not held to the same standards a criminal court is.
Fundamentalist atheists are just as bad. Only, it's not socially acceptable to show bigotry towards them, like it is to Christians.
Really? Which society do you live in? Because in my society, I've heard that atheists have no morals, are all communists, aren't citizens (according to George HW Bush, then president of my country), etc.
Christians have a lot of power in many societies, and frequently try and wield it en bloc. Yes, Christians sometimes get lumped in with the loud visible groups of Christians; guess what, every other group tends to get lumped in with the most loud and visible part. Deal.
What I am saying is that there are A LOT of groups and regemes (sp?) in ["the Middle-east, Arabia[...], and Northern Africa"] that actively hunt and kill Christians and Jews, because it is what they have been taught to do from pre-school age.
It's not an attack against Christians. It's an attack against non-believers. In fact, in Iran, it's legal to be a Christian or a Jew, but not a Baha'i or an Atheist. In Saudi Arabia, it's not even legal to be a Sunni Muslim. To act like a cross is put upon your backs, and your backs alone is absurd.
Now, don't tell me that my opinion that Star Wars is not a big deal in the film history makes me a troll.
No, just stupid. Any trilogy that is a huge release the second time it's released after 25 years and which are some of the best selling movies of all time, with countless auxillary movies and books and various spinoffs is a big deal in file history. It's not really a matter of opinion.
The same reason why every year 100,000+ Mexicans try to enter the borders of USA
The differnce being is that the Mexicans that immigrate to the US don't try and get the US government to overthrown the current Mexican government. On the other hand, Cuban immigrates are vocable about how bad Castro is.
You love absolutes, don't you. Who says you can't be a Christian? If you believe in the words of Christ as a moral philosopher and follow them completely, you are a follower of Christ. Why aren't you a Christian?
There are many other country's in the world that have to vote (by law) after a certain age to help insure we have a democratically elected government.
So a bunch of people who don't really care have to go in and punch random holes in a piece of paper? Great.
If your one of the richest men in your country or the poorest you have equal value of '1 vote' everyone get thats freedom. That is the core foundation of democracy if that is destoryed you no longer have a democratic country
So the UK wasn't a democracy until 1940, when the universities were deprived of the vote? Again, you're being absolutist; in every real society, ballots are going to get screwed up and misread, ballot boxes are going to get lost, and yes, out and outright fraud is going to happen. It should be minimized, but that doesn't mean that it's not a democracy.
One person, one vote is still the principle in the US and usually the practice.
But clearly the interest of the corporations doesn't tie in with public interest so they don't go hand in hand.
"Clearly"? It's easiest to assume what you're trying to prove, isn't it.
No one's interest is the public interest, and no one can be relied upon to follow it. The theory of capitalism is that the interest of the corporation will approximate the public interest in most cases, with the government moderating the rest.
But its law that corporations put the 'self interest' of the shareholders (profit) over social and environmental issues. And yes that is law in the USA.
And just about everywhere else. In theory, if the people are concerned about social and environmental issues, the corporations will be concerned less they lose market share.
Your making the assumption I'm from Europe. I'm not I'm actually from one of your allied country's
No, actually I'm not. And why should I believe you anyway, if you won't even say which nation?
sometimes war is the only opinion
"option". And it's never the only option; the UK could have peacably surrendered to Germany.
I guess that part of the constitution that covers freedom of speech, your not to big on that either.
This is a private forum. And even if it were, I would still have the right to ask you to stop causing a fuss and leave so other people could enjoy themselves. That is my freedom of speech.
Again, I assure you I'm not from Europe.
Fine, your standards. Big difference.
I don't dispise the people of America.
But you despise the US, the society, the government. That comes through loud and clear no matter what you say.
That is why i'm not pro war.
The point being, once you give the UK the right to wage war on Germany just because Germany was attacking Poland (remember, the UK declared war first), you are at best usually anti-war, a viewpoint which most people in the modern world agree with. Now we're haggling over the details.
Most radiation passes right through the body without colliding with anything ( matter is mostly 'empty' space ). It is a very rare occasion indeed when an alpha particle will actually hit something.
Huh? An alpha particle is pretty big, and will very rarely pass through a body. In fact, that's why they're of as little concern as they are; they'll rarely make it through your clothes or the outer layer of exposed skin.
So it is quite arbitrary where you draw the line and say "this much is safe, and this much is dangerous".
How dangerous is a flight of stairs? How about an elevator? Both of them present non-negligable hazards. It's always arbitrary where you draw the line, but that doesn't mean you take away everything sharp and make us live in small padded rooms for our safety. You've got to weigh the risks and the advantages.
Hitler was invading other country's, installing his own governments, and killing people worldwide.
So you change your tune. Now war is fine, it's just war you don't like that's bad.
Cut a lot of crap that has nothing to do with the stablity of the American democracy. Go rant in some forum where it's actually on topic.
Your country is assuming that 'American democracy' is the only true way the world should be run
He says, after telling us why American democracy doesn't match up to the standards of European democracy.
If you have to depend on something, you need to be able to depend on that something.
You would rather have no compiler on a platform than a mostly working one?
A fixed test suite help assure that at least the bugs don't keep changing on you.
No, you don't. You get assured that the tests in the test suite pass, which doesn't tell you that the compiler actually works for your program. Compiling this program with -fprofile-arcs -O3 may work this version and not the next, because it's probably not exhaustively tested.
you have to pass the test suite to call your implementation Ada.
That hasn't been true for a long time; I don't believe it was ever true for Ada95.
The GNU Ada Translator (GNAT) passes just fine.
That's half true. There exists a version of GNAT, several years old, that on a one (a small group?) of systems, again several years old, it has been certified to pass. There is a much larger group of systems and versions that it passes on, although it's never been checked officially. As for the versions that many distributions ship based on GCC 3.x, they generally don't pass all the tests.
You might want to cover elementary English punctuation and capitalization rules.
The foundations of democracy has never been in the USA.
A strawman attack, since that's not what was argued.
There are many country's were everyone over a certain age has to vote, this voting is not just federal its state and council elections. That to me helps insure that the majority of a society decides their own government. That is a crucial part of Democracy and USA doesn't have it.
Where does the US not let everyone vote?
USA is also a country that has a heavy lean towards Privatisation and Commercialization.
Yes. Just because you're a democracy, doesn't mean you need to be a socialist state.
Take the actions of the "Florida 2000 fiasco". [...] Yet hardly any American's cared.
Lots of Americans cared. You think it was only covered in non-US media? But in the end of the day, we had two canidates running neck to neck; no matter who won, no great crime to democracy was done.
That is what democracy is about so going to war for democracy is a contradiction.
So Britain shouldn't have fought in World War I or II? Should the US have ignored Hitler? Sometimes you have to fight to protect yourself and other innocent people.
to compare even their so called 'Liberal Media' it's extremely bias
I.e. you disagree with it. There's no bias-free viewpoint of the world.
After Sept 11, USA media was saying the 'world had changed' 'the world has changed!', But the reality is nothing had changed.
So all those reports about people dieing were just lies, huh? Yes, the impact was more social and psychological then physical, but it doesn't mean that stuff hadn't changed.
You only need to look at any world event, You'll notice that USA generally has a different view to the rest of the world, Why do you think that is?
You only need to look at any world event and you'll notice that Europe generally has a different view of it than the rest of the world does. The US is a large cultural block; of course it has its own viewpoint. Or do you really think the Chinese and Arabs agree with the European viewpoint on everything.
Take Cuba for example, Most of the world see Cuba as a country that had a social revolution lead by Fedel Castro and Che Guevara. Yet Americans tend to think of them as dictators.
Pope John Paul II doesn't see it as a "social revolution". It's "long been a one-party state" (according to Human Rights Watch), so Castro looks a lot like a dictator to me. And again, just if Americans tend to disagree with the rest of the world, doesn't mean they aren't democratic.
Take Iraq, Most Americans belive in their war for democracy, yet most of the world don't.
I question "most Americans" here. Once more, this has nothing to do with whether or not Americans are democratic, it has to do whether Americans agree with the world.
i belive it's because of extreme bias media.
I've seen a reproduction of a pamphlet lauding Charles the II and the monarchy, published in the 1600s. Does the fact the viewpoint the pamphlet express is nowhere to be seen in modern society mean that the media of that day and culture was extremely biased, or rather does it mean that the people of that culture held a different viewpoint than we do, and that the media of the time and place may well have offered a balanced selection of the viewpoints common in that society?
I don't see any founded facts for saying USA is the worlds most stable democracy.
Is that what you're discussing? It's funny, because I see little to nothing discussing the stability of the American democracy. No discussion that it's been a democracy of some sort for 230 years, that it's been through one civil war, but the parts not in rebellion had democracy throughout it. It's certainly one of the longest running democracies (Britain by no means being democratic until at least the mid-nineteenth century), but it certainly has its rough points, and the citizens seem to have lost a lot of faith in the system. You could discuss stuff like that, but you would rather give the "why I despise the US" speech, wouldn't you.
As soon as you Open Source Java, someone is going to want to put in pre-compiler directives because they're used to them from the C/C++ world.
You don't need to mess with the compiler to add pre-compiler directives. M4, or a hand written preprocessor, will do it just fine. Even cpp will probably work.
Maintainers are going to start worrying less-and-less about API compatibility issues because developers are going to have pre-compiler directives to work around them
Really. I can't recall ever seeing this. Do you think maintainers want to write programs that are hard to use and break standards?
Around the same time, someone is going to create a Java fork which isn't 100% compitable in some area.
There's several open source Java implementations, and I've always had huge problems running Java programs; they're usually depend on some API that the open source libraries don't support.
I have never seen a standard that was out there before the implementations, that was actually sufficient to do what was needed, that got a bunch of incompatible implemenations.