First, C++ was designed as C with Simula-67 classes, and did a good job of being that. Second, aside from syntax, what's the difference between sending a message and calling a member function? In both cases, the object in question has to know how to deal with it.
Some Lisp implementations produce very efficient object code. At one time, CMU Common Lisp beat Fortran in solving a numeric problem. (Turned out that CMUCL was using a function-call optimization the Fortran compiler didn't have, so it wasn't long before the Fortran system was as fast.) The big problem with Lisp (aside from the fact that some people are syntax junkies) is that it doesn't interface well with most other software.
C++ is not a Smalltalk descendant. C++ started as a version of C with classes from Simula-67, and evolved from there (primarily in areas that aren't OO, although the OO stuff is still very important).
It's perfectly reasonable to think that one can't know whether or not there is something reasonably describable as a god. It's perfectly reasonable to think evolution is how God created species. The concept of a "soul" is not currently subject to scientific analysis, and can't be said to be impossible or patently absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to think no such thing exists, which is a different proposition.
WWII happened less than a century ago. It's still in living memory as were the events surrounding Christ's life and death at the time the Gospels or Josephus were written.
Right. What we know about WWII, we get from contemporaneous accounts (including books written after the war from personal experience, and have turned out to be rather unreliable) and physical evidence We aren't sitting down now to write about World War II for the first time. If all the historians of 4016 had were relatively few pop histories written now that didn't have citations, assuming all the physical evidence was gone, would they consider WWII historical?
Are you also going to go on a quest to remove them from history books on the same basis? (Homer, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Sun Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, etc., etc
Amateur historian here. Off the top of my head....
>p>
I'm not all that keen on including people known only for authorship here. We know somebody or several people wrote the Iliad and Odyssey, reputed to be Homer. The history stops there. Similarly someone, generally called Lao-Tse, or something similar, wrote the Tao Te Ching. In either case, the works could have been written by multiple people. (The Xena: Warrior Princess episode in which she meets Lao-Tse and she's a woman with a pen name is historically possible.) A quick look at Wikipedia finds that Homer, Lao-Tse, and Sun-Tzu are considered dubious historical figures. Jesus didn't leave writings behind, and we know of him (if he existed) by what he is said to have been and done.
Socrates is attested to by Plato and Xenophon, IIRC, who knew him well personally.
I'm not familiar enough to go through all of your examples, but you seem to be talking about people who may or may not have been historical along with people we seem to have better evidence of of than of Jesus. I'm not really impressed with this line of reasoning.
How's it supposed to cause house fires? Part of code is making sure that sort of thing doesn't happen. If there's too much current gong through a breaker, it trips the breaker and shuts down.
Also, the amount of electrical power available for houses is limited. The power distribution system has physical limits, after all.
We don't cotton to prescriptive linguists in these parts, pardner.
Seriously, there have been complaints about "he" as singular sex-neutral pronoun for at least a century and a half, and I've seen "they" used for about that long. It doesn't take fringe-edge sociology to believe that "he" makes a lousy generic and to want an alternative.
Similarly, "Mrs. Mike Smith" was the proper formal way to address Mike's wife. It's not used that much anymore.
CR has, for decades, made a point of not accepting money from manufacturers. I subscribe, and I also send them additional money, and hence CR has to keep people like me happy, not people like Tim Cook.
They can test only a limited number of products, unless people like me give them more money, because they buy test samples anonymously and through standard retail channels. They rate the more popular products because that provides the most value to the most people.
It's reasonable to doubt their expertise in a particular field (I wasn't impressed by their computer ratings for quite a few years after CR started them), but I'd need some solid evidence to doubt their objectivity.
There's nothing inconsistent about the results. There's a whole lot more variation than CR had expected. Saying that the battery life is tested to be something like 3-19 hours is a legitimate and consistent result, and a good reason to not recommend a laptop.
In a series of measurements, the average value (for an appropriate definition of "average") is a useful thing to know,. So is the variance.
If this is a hardware problem with the computer, then the whole line is hosed and people should avoid it. If this is a Safari problem, then there's a good work-around (use Chrome, which CR seems to have had good results with) and Apple is going to be able to distribute fixes easily. If I were considering buying a MBP, I really would want to know which (if either) of these applies. CR's job is to help me decide what to buy, not to favor or disfavor a given manufacturer.
Apple also works hard to make it an affordable luxury experience. My iPhone was the most powerful on the market when I bought it. (Obviously, this didn't last.)
As it happens, I have a $300 set of noise-canceling headphones, and they plug into a standard jack. Usually, during the workday, I plug the power (this is the only time it sits around next to a power source nobody else is using) and the headphones in (it's a bit noisy in here). I'd have to get the Y adapter. It isn't a dealbreaker, but it's not something I really want to do.
The user did nothing but exercise the UI provided by the manufacturer with the level of skill that is to be expected of someone who simply bought a TV (that is, none).
You're making that up. It might be true, but there isn't enough information in the article to way. The article explicitly says that the user might or might not have installed a third-party app.
Also, let's consider my son, who just got his driver's license. Suppose he's taken by surprise by a traffic incident, doesn't notice in time, and drives into the car in front of him. He's using the provided UI with the level of skill to be expected from someone who just got his license. By your reasoning, it's all Honda's fault.
LG can't make everything absolutely safe against future threats. The only way to keep the user from doing the wrong thing with the UI is to greatly restrict what the user can do, and when Apple does that people on Slashdot complain about it.
Maybe they did give him the instructions to actually do a factory reset, and the malware (deliberately or accidentally) screwed something up so the standard factory reset doesn't work. There's a lot of information we're missing here.
$340 seems like a reasonable charge for doing something out of the ordinary that may require some time and trouble-shooting.
TVs are meantto show broadcast images or pictures from other sources, either in motion or static. That's the normal function of a TV. Getting hijacked by ransomware is not -
Whenever I've had TVs that just showed images, I never had malware problems with them. If the TV is intended to do other things, such as play games, then the normal function isn't just to show images from somewhere else.
I never stuck an ethernet cable into my Blu-Ray player, and never told it the wifi password. It managed to update itself anyway (fortunately, it didn't seem to hurt anything). My suspicion is that it grabs at open wifi when it can.
The media finds that "Apple phone workers mistreated" gets a lot more eyeballs than "Motorola phone workers mistreated". It isn't exactly "activist media", but it has the same effect.
As far as "Apple shady business practices" go, exactly what do you know about them and how? This looks like potential groupthink, and the fact you don't recognize that it could be makes it seem more likely.
It's diminishing in influence in most developed countries. The US is an exception here.
because secularism is ineffective in propagating a culture into the future
Speculation. We haven't had enough secular societies to tell anything. We know that ritual polytheist societies can last for a long time, and they aren't all that similar to modern Christianity.
whereas religions like Christianity and Islam are very effective, and will always swamp out asexual blue haired feminists and gay marrying men who cut their dicks off. That shit will die off long, long before religion will.
What is it with you and transsexuality? Did a transsexual who was considered female at birth rape your dog or something? There aren't that many of them, and they aren't as a class going to bother you. Our best current treatment is not all that sophisticated, but it's what we've got. What's your idea on treating gender dysphoria, or do you just refuse to acknowledge that it exists?
The feminists I know aren't blue-haired or asexual. People on the fringe like that will tend to die off on their own, and the ecological niche is usually replaced by one or more slightly different fringes.
You're right, opiates and maintaining class structure are not the purpose of religion. They're near-universal uses of religion, and organized religions generally adapt to them. Every so often, somebody has an attack of real religion, realizes that their country/employer/church/whatever is not run on principles that Jesus or Gautama Buddha or whoever would approve of at all, and tries to do something about it. Marxism, and more generally socialism, doesn't try to exploit differences in nationality and the such, and aims for a union of workers and farmers without much in the way of distinction by race or such. Racial and national differences are the sort of thing the upper class tends to use.
Similarly, people are economic units, and much of their behavior can be understood because of that. They're not just economic units. Since I never brought up economics, it looks to me like you say "opiate of the masses" and jumped to conclusions. Marx was a smart guy, and saw some serious problems with society. He then proceeded to make up an imaginary utopia and call it "scientific socialism" as opposed to "utopian socialism", although his was as utopian as they come.
The entire purpose of Marxism is to lead to a happy situation where everyone is economically important and the government is mostly unnecessary. Those who have professed to apply it in practice have had different goals.
If the laptop lasts no more than 2 hours without doing anything really strange, there's a defect somewhere. It might be the battery, or it might not. I'm sure Apple would consider that a defect worth fixing. If it was lasting eight hours instead of nine, they'd probably not be concerned.
Yup. That's unfortunate. It doesn't affect the fact that your problems are with an individual defect in your laptop than any issue that affects lots of people (unless, of course, it does - wasn't there a case some years back where Apple used a lot of bad capacitors?).
If a company makes $500M profit, it really doesn't matter that much whether total revenue is $1G or $50G for most purposes. (It does show how resilient a company can be to serious competition, as you mention.) Between companies that do the same thing, it's a good indicator of efficiency, but comparing it between companies that make their money in different ways is pointless. A grocery chain that's really efficient and tightly run will have a much smaller margin than an inefficient and sloppily-run bookstore. Apple makes most of its money selling hardware, which has far higher unit costs to produce than software, so Microsoft's margin will be higher than Apple's no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
First, C++ was designed as C with Simula-67 classes, and did a good job of being that. Second, aside from syntax, what's the difference between sending a message and calling a member function? In both cases, the object in question has to know how to deal with it.
Some Lisp implementations produce very efficient object code. At one time, CMU Common Lisp beat Fortran in solving a numeric problem. (Turned out that CMUCL was using a function-call optimization the Fortran compiler didn't have, so it wasn't long before the Fortran system was as fast.) The big problem with Lisp (aside from the fact that some people are syntax junkies) is that it doesn't interface well with most other software.
C++ is not a Smalltalk descendant. C++ started as a version of C with classes from Simula-67, and evolved from there (primarily in areas that aren't OO, although the OO stuff is still very important).
It's perfectly reasonable to think that one can't know whether or not there is something reasonably describable as a god. It's perfectly reasonable to think evolution is how God created species. The concept of a "soul" is not currently subject to scientific analysis, and can't be said to be impossible or patently absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to think no such thing exists, which is a different proposition.
Right. What we know about WWII, we get from contemporaneous accounts (including books written after the war from personal experience, and have turned out to be rather unreliable) and physical evidence We aren't sitting down now to write about World War II for the first time. If all the historians of 4016 had were relatively few pop histories written now that didn't have citations, assuming all the physical evidence was gone, would they consider WWII historical?
Amateur historian here. Off the top of my head.... >p> I'm not all that keen on including people known only for authorship here. We know somebody or several people wrote the Iliad and Odyssey, reputed to be Homer. The history stops there. Similarly someone, generally called Lao-Tse, or something similar, wrote the Tao Te Ching. In either case, the works could have been written by multiple people. (The Xena: Warrior Princess episode in which she meets Lao-Tse and she's a woman with a pen name is historically possible.) A quick look at Wikipedia finds that Homer, Lao-Tse, and Sun-Tzu are considered dubious historical figures. Jesus didn't leave writings behind, and we know of him (if he existed) by what he is said to have been and done.
Socrates is attested to by Plato and Xenophon, IIRC, who knew him well personally.
I'm not familiar enough to go through all of your examples, but you seem to be talking about people who may or may not have been historical along with people we seem to have better evidence of of than of Jesus. I'm not really impressed with this line of reasoning.
How's it supposed to cause house fires? Part of code is making sure that sort of thing doesn't happen. If there's too much current gong through a breaker, it trips the breaker and shuts down.
Also, the amount of electrical power available for houses is limited. The power distribution system has physical limits, after all.
We don't cotton to prescriptive linguists in these parts, pardner.
Seriously, there have been complaints about "he" as singular sex-neutral pronoun for at least a century and a half, and I've seen "they" used for about that long. It doesn't take fringe-edge sociology to believe that "he" makes a lousy generic and to want an alternative.
Similarly, "Mrs. Mike Smith" was the proper formal way to address Mike's wife. It's not used that much anymore.
CR has, for decades, made a point of not accepting money from manufacturers. I subscribe, and I also send them additional money, and hence CR has to keep people like me happy, not people like Tim Cook.
They can test only a limited number of products, unless people like me give them more money, because they buy test samples anonymously and through standard retail channels. They rate the more popular products because that provides the most value to the most people.
It's reasonable to doubt their expertise in a particular field (I wasn't impressed by their computer ratings for quite a few years after CR started them), but I'd need some solid evidence to doubt their objectivity.
There's nothing inconsistent about the results. There's a whole lot more variation than CR had expected. Saying that the battery life is tested to be something like 3-19 hours is a legitimate and consistent result, and a good reason to not recommend a laptop.
In a series of measurements, the average value (for an appropriate definition of "average") is a useful thing to know,. So is the variance.
That's not the only relevant fact.
If this is a hardware problem with the computer, then the whole line is hosed and people should avoid it. If this is a Safari problem, then there's a good work-around (use Chrome, which CR seems to have had good results with) and Apple is going to be able to distribute fixes easily. If I were considering buying a MBP, I really would want to know which (if either) of these applies. CR's job is to help me decide what to buy, not to favor or disfavor a given manufacturer.
Ever had a van cut in front of you on the freeway? There's some time before I can establish a safe interval, speaking for myself.
Apple also works hard to make it an affordable luxury experience. My iPhone was the most powerful on the market when I bought it. (Obviously, this didn't last.)
As it happens, I have a $300 set of noise-canceling headphones, and they plug into a standard jack. Usually, during the workday, I plug the power (this is the only time it sits around next to a power source nobody else is using) and the headphones in (it's a bit noisy in here). I'd have to get the Y adapter. It isn't a dealbreaker, but it's not something I really want to do.
You're making that up. It might be true, but there isn't enough information in the article to way. The article explicitly says that the user might or might not have installed a third-party app.
Also, let's consider my son, who just got his driver's license. Suppose he's taken by surprise by a traffic incident, doesn't notice in time, and drives into the car in front of him. He's using the provided UI with the level of skill to be expected from someone who just got his license. By your reasoning, it's all Honda's fault.
LG can't make everything absolutely safe against future threats. The only way to keep the user from doing the wrong thing with the UI is to greatly restrict what the user can do, and when Apple does that people on Slashdot complain about it.
Maybe they did give him the instructions to actually do a factory reset, and the malware (deliberately or accidentally) screwed something up so the standard factory reset doesn't work. There's a lot of information we're missing here.
$340 seems like a reasonable charge for doing something out of the ordinary that may require some time and trouble-shooting.
Whenever I've had TVs that just showed images, I never had malware problems with them. If the TV is intended to do other things, such as play games, then the normal function isn't just to show images from somewhere else.
I never stuck an ethernet cable into my Blu-Ray player, and never told it the wifi password. It managed to update itself anyway (fortunately, it didn't seem to hurt anything). My suspicion is that it grabs at open wifi when it can.
The media finds that "Apple phone workers mistreated" gets a lot more eyeballs than "Motorola phone workers mistreated". It isn't exactly "activist media", but it has the same effect.
As far as "Apple shady business practices" go, exactly what do you know about them and how? This looks like potential groupthink, and the fact you don't recognize that it could be makes it seem more likely.
It's diminishing in influence in most developed countries. The US is an exception here.
Speculation. We haven't had enough secular societies to tell anything. We know that ritual polytheist societies can last for a long time, and they aren't all that similar to modern Christianity.
What is it with you and transsexuality? Did a transsexual who was considered female at birth rape your dog or something? There aren't that many of them, and they aren't as a class going to bother you. Our best current treatment is not all that sophisticated, but it's what we've got. What's your idea on treating gender dysphoria, or do you just refuse to acknowledge that it exists?
The feminists I know aren't blue-haired or asexual. People on the fringe like that will tend to die off on their own, and the ecological niche is usually replaced by one or more slightly different fringes.
You're right, opiates and maintaining class structure are not the purpose of religion. They're near-universal uses of religion, and organized religions generally adapt to them. Every so often, somebody has an attack of real religion, realizes that their country/employer/church/whatever is not run on principles that Jesus or Gautama Buddha or whoever would approve of at all, and tries to do something about it. Marxism, and more generally socialism, doesn't try to exploit differences in nationality and the such, and aims for a union of workers and farmers without much in the way of distinction by race or such. Racial and national differences are the sort of thing the upper class tends to use.
Similarly, people are economic units, and much of their behavior can be understood because of that. They're not just economic units. Since I never brought up economics, it looks to me like you say "opiate of the masses" and jumped to conclusions. Marx was a smart guy, and saw some serious problems with society. He then proceeded to make up an imaginary utopia and call it "scientific socialism" as opposed to "utopian socialism", although his was as utopian as they come.
The entire purpose of Marxism is to lead to a happy situation where everyone is economically important and the government is mostly unnecessary. Those who have professed to apply it in practice have had different goals.
If the laptop lasts no more than 2 hours without doing anything really strange, there's a defect somewhere. It might be the battery, or it might not. I'm sure Apple would consider that a defect worth fixing. If it was lasting eight hours instead of nine, they'd probably not be concerned.
Yup. That's unfortunate. It doesn't affect the fact that your problems are with an individual defect in your laptop than any issue that affects lots of people (unless, of course, it does - wasn't there a case some years back where Apple used a lot of bad capacitors?).
If a company makes $500M profit, it really doesn't matter that much whether total revenue is $1G or $50G for most purposes. (It does show how resilient a company can be to serious competition, as you mention.) Between companies that do the same thing, it's a good indicator of efficiency, but comparing it between companies that make their money in different ways is pointless. A grocery chain that's really efficient and tightly run will have a much smaller margin than an inefficient and sloppily-run bookstore. Apple makes most of its money selling hardware, which has far higher unit costs to produce than software, so Microsoft's margin will be higher than Apple's no matter what.
What do you mean by the "metallic standard:"? I really don't understand.