No, it's one thousand. You forgot those who complain about those who say "I could have done that", and of course all the trolls, first-posters, slashdot-editor-complainers etc. accompanying the discussion, as well as the moderators.
What do you mean with "even Aristotle"? Aristotle was a philosopher, that is, all he did for solving problems was to think about them. It is basically a given that he was wrong on some of the things which you cannot decide by pure thinking.
So what's your business plan for a software like Photoshop?
For example, selling for now as closed source, but with a legally binding promise to open-source at as soon as a certain number of copies have been sold.
Which just means that having that process automated doesn't protect you. If all of them were using scanners with built-in email function, you'd have more of a point. OTOH, even a single sued company not using an automated process is a confirmation of my point.
Well, that is essentially to say that there's no value in producing the software.
Wrong. It says there's virtually no value in producing another copy of the same existing software. Your competitor cannot give away the software before getting that software. So you can charge as much as you want (well, as much as others are willing to pay) for producing the first copy. Also, you can charge for the promise to write more code when it is needed (i.e. maintenance).
A decimal system of weights and measures based on the meter and on the kilogram
kg are not a unit of weight. Newton is the unit of weight in SI.
You don't even use the correct SI units. Again Metric is not SI.
Darned if I'm going to let you out-pedant me. Just because a system of weights and measures is based on the meter and kilogram doesn't actually say the the kilogram itself is the measure of weight, just the basis for the measure of weight. So there!
Indeed, when interpreting the sentence as 1:1 relation between the word pairs, one would have to conclude that weights are given in meters and measures are given in kilograms.:-)
Technically, the units are metres and kilogrammes. It's not obvious from the Wikipedia article, but I don't think that adding a prefix (or removing one to get "grammes") counts as making a new unit.
Actually, they could restrict version numbers to be prime numbers afterwards, then they will appear to progress much faster. Although... thinking about it, they probably would soon reach primes so large that they would face export restrictions from the version number alone.:-)
Not much care is needed. Basically, in all but the most contrieved cases if the C compiler eats your definition then it will also understand your data structure. Especially you don't need to maintain separate C headers and C++ headers, but you cannot do that with Java.
From the article I cannot infer whether this was indeed scientific consensus. Do you have any evidence that it was?
Existence of the planet Vulcan (not Star Trek, but the expected 10th planet)
From the Wikipedia page, it seems to me that the existence of the planet was disputed, although it is not clear if that was only a small minority (note that from the information given, it could as well have been that the proponents were a minority).
Expanding Earth theory
No scientific consensus.
Phlogiston theory
OK. But again, a fundamental theory, not comparable to global warming.
Phrenology
No scientific consensus.
Static or collapsing universe
Static universe: That wasn't really a theory, more of an implicit assumption which was never questioned before it became inevitable to do so. Collapsing universe: I'm pretty sure there was never scientific consensus about that.
Unless the object is being constructed in the global scope, in which case there is nowhere for the catch block to be placed.
OK. Global objects with constructors have enough problems in C++ even without exceptions that I'd avoid them anyway.
Or if the object is being constructed as part of the destructor of another object, which would happen if you were using smart pointers and the destructor passed a smart pointer object to some function.
If the destructor code doesn't add a proper try/catch around that code, it's a problem of the destructor passing the smart pointer, not of the constructor of the class pointed to. Note that an exception could also be thrown by the operator new called from the new expression inside the smart pointer code, thus the constructor not throwing is no guarantee to getting no exception in this case. Of course exceptions are only safe if the calling code is written to correctly handle them. That's not specific to constructors.
Fair enough, although for all of the complexity of C++ it does little to solve the problems we see with C (perhaps not more dangling pointers, but not substantially less either).
Here I disagree. A lot of things where you need pointers in C can be written using C++'s container classes where the pointers are well hidden and already managed for you. In C++ you'd need to use pointers there which then could dangle if you get it wrong. Moreover, a lot of the cases where you have to use pointers can be done with RAII/smart pointers. Provided smart pointers won't dangle either, and even self-written RAII is so dead simple that it is hard to get wrong once you've learned the basics. It probably depends on the type of programs you write, but I'd say that C++ reduces dangling pointers a lot.
While there are indeed many things which could be profitably added to C++ (I don't agree about all items on your list, though; for example I'd hate it if every program compiled with C++ had to include a C++ compiler), remember this is about people who prefer C to C++. C gives you not a single of the items on your list.
Slashdot Mirror
Precedent-based law is not required. Most of Europe works fine without it.
I'm still wondering how Perl was "discovered".
If you figure out something which is part of the fundamental working of the universe then it's usually called a discovery,
No, it's one thousand. You forgot those who complain about those who say "I could have done that", and of course all the trolls, first-posters, slashdot-editor-complainers etc. accompanying the discussion, as well as the moderators.
What do you mean with "even Aristotle"? Aristotle was a philosopher, that is, all he did for solving problems was to think about them. It is basically a given that he was wrong on some of the things which you cannot decide by pure thinking.
From your link, "With this exception, any SI prefix may be used with any SI unit,"
That means to me that "grams" and "kilometers" are units with prefixes, and not "new" units at all.
You didn't need to quote that part because the part I quoted already says so in maximal clarity. But thanks for confirming my point.
For example, selling for now as closed source, but with a legally binding promise to open-source at as soon as a certain number of copies have been sold.
Which just means that having that process automated doesn't protect you. If all of them were using scanners with built-in email function, you'd have more of a point. OTOH, even a single sued company not using an automated process is a confirmation of my point.
While that works, at least for me it also works to enter the pound sign directly: £
It's a process patent, according to the summary. I'd say it's the end user who does the process of scanning, then sending the scanned page by email.
I'm sorry, but you violated my patent on Slashdot first-posting. Please pay $100.000 to my account. Thank you.
It's a poor phrase, unfortunately. Software patents are nothing like actually collecting rent because they provide no utility to the one paying.
If it provided no utility to the one paying, then the one paying wouldn't be using it and instead would do something else.
So I get blackmailers provide utility to the blackmailed, because they often get paid by the blackmailed.
Wrong. It says there's virtually no value in producing another copy of the same existing software. Your competitor cannot give away the software before getting that software. So you can charge as much as you want (well, as much as others are willing to pay) for producing the first copy. Also, you can charge for the promise to write more code when it is needed (i.e. maintenance).
A decimal system of weights and measure based on the meter and gram
otherwise we'd have kilokilogram's and millikilograms
Wrong.
A decimal system of weights and measures based on the meter and on the kilogram
kg are not a unit of weight. Newton is the unit of weight in SI.
You don't even use the correct SI units. Again Metric is not SI.
Darned if I'm going to let you out-pedant me. Just because a system of weights and measures is based on the meter and kilogram doesn't actually say the the kilogram itself is the measure of weight, just the basis for the measure of weight. So there!
Indeed, when interpreting the sentence as 1:1 relation between the word pairs, one would have to conclude that weights are given in meters and measures are given in kilograms. :-)
Your height in cm.
I prefer mm. 1820mm sounds pretty damn impressive.
Your weight is in kgs.
I prefer tonnes. 0.105 sounds far less depressing.
cm is a womans measurement (see dress making) The real world uses mm or m
Women aren't real?
Well, you also can say 105 millitonnes; wile the number is large, the "milli" more than compensates that because it suggests a tiny amount.
He obviously meant Gm, which is one million km. :-)
Technically, the units are metres and kilogrammes. It's not obvious from the Wikipedia article, but I don't think that adding a prefix (or removing one to get "grammes") counts as making a new unit.
It is obvious from NIST:
It is important to note that the kilogram is the only SI unit with a prefix as part of its name and symbol.
The malware extensions only can do anything if they are already running. I'd expect Chrome to check the extensions before starting them.
Actually, they could restrict version numbers to be prime numbers afterwards, then they will appear to progress much faster. ... thinking about it, they probably would soon reach primes so large that they would face export restrictions from the version number alone. :-)
Although
Not much care is needed. Basically, in all but the most contrieved cases if the C compiler eats your definition then it will also understand your data structure. Especially you don't need to maintain separate C headers and C++ headers, but you cannot do that with Java.
None of the things you list are models of the atom. Please re-read what I asked.
Anyway:
One of many attempts to explain the MM experiment. No scientific consensus.
OK. But again, about fundamentals, not comparable to global warming where no fundamentals are in question.
From the article I cannot infer whether this was indeed scientific consensus. Do you have any evidence that it was?
From the Wikipedia page, it seems to me that the existence of the planet was disputed, although it is not clear if that was only a small minority (note that from the information given, it could as well have been that the proponents were a minority).
No scientific consensus.
OK. But again, a fundamental theory, not comparable to global warming.
No scientific consensus.
Static universe: That wasn't really a theory, more of an implicit assumption which was never questioned before it became inevitable to do so.
Collapsing universe: I'm pretty sure there was never scientific consensus about that.
C++ is an open standard. You can even compile it with the GNU compiler. There's absolutely nothing proprietary about C++.
OK. Global objects with constructors have enough problems in C++ even without exceptions that I'd avoid them anyway.
If the destructor code doesn't add a proper try/catch around that code, it's a problem of the destructor passing the smart pointer, not of the constructor of the class pointed to. Note that an exception could also be thrown by the operator new called from the new expression inside the smart pointer code, thus the constructor not throwing is no guarantee to getting no exception in this case. Of course exceptions are only safe if the calling code is written to correctly handle them. That's not specific to constructors.
Here I disagree. A lot of things where you need pointers in C can be written using C++'s container classes where the pointers are well hidden and already managed for you. In C++ you'd need to use pointers there which then could dangle if you get it wrong. Moreover, a lot of the cases where you have to use pointers can be done with RAII/smart pointers. Provided smart pointers won't dangle either, and even self-written RAII is so dead simple that it is hard to get wrong once you've learned the basics. It probably depends on the type of programs you write, but I'd say that C++ reduces dangling pointers a lot.
While there are indeed many things which could be profitably added to C++ (I don't agree about all items on your list, though; for example I'd hate it if every program compiled with C++ had to include a C++ compiler), remember this is about people who prefer C to C++. C gives you not a single of the items on your list.