That statement is not of the "No true Scotsman" type
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
You said:
There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.
Admittedly, it isn't formatted over three lines, and doesn't involve Scotsmen and porridge, but if you substitute as follows, you'll see the similarity:
Scotsman = scientist
Puts sugar on porridge = is unconvinced by the evidence
true = not predisposed to automatically reject it
There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.
'No True Scotsman' fallacy
If anyone has a better explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, then they need to provide this explanation
Begging the question. Providing a common explanation for a large set of different events presupposes accepting your belief that the events share a common cause.
I think it's a good thing if a business publication sneers at Mozilla and encourages suits to stay with IE. Let the business community swim in its own filth of popups and banner ads.
You're right that in many cases it wouldn't really matter, except maybe pissing off a customer with a terse error message.
The problem comes in those other cases when you need to handle the error locally. The only way is to trap it with try & catch, which is syntactically ugly and explicitly discouraged by the SDK documentation and the JLS.
Perhaps you have control over so much data that you can then start relasing some of that memory elsewhere
Nothing so exceptional - perhaps you just want to tell the user 'Not enough memory - try again later' without exiting, or perhaps you just have some cleanup to do.
I just offer it as an example where the use of Java has made programs typically lest robust than previously, in the arena where it supposedly trounces C and C++
My karma is excellent, so I guess I must be a troll.
you can have a big try statement wherever you want to and catch (OutOfMemoryException e)
Well, it's an Error, not an Exception. This means that a reasonable application should not try to catch it, according to the documentation. If you go against the documentation and decide to attempt some local recovery after certain failed allocations, you need a try-catch clause around each one.
The alternative in C is ugly. A million if() statements for every malloc that basically do the explicit checking. Big whoop.
To be fair, it's at most one if statement for every malloc.
With C you have the extra "printf("Out of memory\n"); exit(ENOMEM);" code after every malloc.
Nonsense. If it's acceptable to terminate in the event of any malloc failing, you'd write a wrapper to hide the details. There would be no explicit error checking at all at the call site. Now whose argument is retarded?
In my opinion, one of the best things to come along in a long time is Java. The gentle reader may recall earlier posts along those lines. I enjoy C, and have spent the majority of my career doing C and C++. However, I have also spent _way_ too much time tracking down memory-related bugs.
Java addresses almost all of the glaring deficiencies of C++, both in language design and in runtime safety.
Certainly, Java helps shit programmers write code without worrying about the most obvious category of memory leak. However, it introduces its own insidious memory problem, not acknowledged by Java advocates.
The first thing a competent C coder learns about malloc() is *always check the return value*. Ask a typical Java programmer what happens when the VM runs out of memory and they look blank or mutter some bullshit about the garbage collector.
The trouble is that OutOfMemoryError isn't a checked exception: you're actually encouraged to ignore it.
Moreover, there's no easy way to determine if any code you call can throw it.
So, they solve a supposed major problem of C and C++ by pretending it doesn't exist, with the result that
almost all Java code in existence, certainly all I've ever seen, is broken in conditions of low memory, and can't reasonably be fixed.
If someone is really trying to get me to consider a peculiar religious or ethical viewpoint, I can't think of a better approach than to write some decent sci-fi about it. For example, I despise the views of the anti-abortion crowd, but liked Philip K Dick's 'The Pre-Persons'. A well-written piece of sci-fi will win my sympathy better than any number of humourless leaflets or aeroplanes flown into buildings.
Slashdot Mirror
They need to devise a better naming scheme for these events, or else we'll end up with
...
1. The 'Hey, Bob, look at this!' signal
2. The 'Jesus Christ!' signal
3. The 'Fuck me!' signal
(97 others)
No visible obstructions last time I looked
I thought that computers all had an autistic kid inside.
An 8.5% p.a. rate of increase? I hope these estimates are correct - I'd expected it to be much worse.
Do you have any advice for making sites less accessible? Like a retard-proof 'Post' button?
That's a fellatious argument
But a little more difficult to fly into towers
Well they say "hey look, there's a newsgroup called comp.windows.x - maybe someone can tell me how to use Outlook Express."
Some of their older stuff is actually pretty funny, like 'Need Another Seven Astronauts' and 'What does this button do?'
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
You said:
There is plenty of evidence, of high quality, that would convince any scientist that is not predisposed to automaticaly reject it.
Admittedly, it isn't formatted over three lines, and doesn't involve Scotsmen and porridge, but if you substitute as follows, you'll see the similarity:
Scotsman = scientist
Puts sugar on porridge = is unconvinced by the evidence
true = not predisposed to automatically reject it
'No True Scotsman' fallacy
If anyone has a better explanation that accounts for all of the evidence, then they need to provide this explanationBegging the question. Providing a common explanation for a large set of different events presupposes accepting your belief that the events share a common cause.
Really? Then explain this
I think it's a good thing if a business publication sneers at Mozilla and encourages suits to stay with IE. Let the business community swim in its own filth of popups and banner ads.
I suspect people haven't yet forgiven him for creating the Daleks.
my grammar is retarded
You're right that in many cases it wouldn't really matter, except maybe pissing off a customer with a terse error message.
The problem comes in those other cases when you need to handle the error locally. The only way is to trap it with try & catch, which is syntactically ugly and explicitly discouraged by the SDK documentation and the JLS.
Perhaps you have control over so much data that you can then start relasing some of that memory elsewhereNothing so exceptional - perhaps you just want to tell the user 'Not enough memory - try again later' without exiting, or perhaps you just have some cleanup to do.
I just offer it as an example where the use of Java has made programs typically lest robust than previously, in the arena where it supposedly trounces C and C++
My karma is excellent, so I guess I must be a troll.
you can have a big try statement wherever you want to and catch (OutOfMemoryException e)Well, it's an Error, not an Exception. This means that a reasonable application should not try to catch it, according to the documentation. If you go against the documentation and decide to attempt some local recovery after certain failed allocations, you need a try-catch clause around each one.
The alternative in C is ugly. A million if() statements for every malloc that basically do the explicit checking. Big whoop.To be fair, it's at most one if statement for every malloc.
With C you have the extra "printf("Out of memory\n"); exit(ENOMEM);" code after every malloc.Nonsense. If it's acceptable to terminate in the event of any malloc failing, you'd write a wrapper to hide the details. There would be no explicit error checking at all at the call site. Now whose argument is retarded?
Java addresses almost all of the glaring deficiencies of C++, both in language design and in runtime safety.
Certainly, Java helps shit programmers write code without worrying about the most obvious category of memory leak. However, it introduces its own insidious memory problem, not acknowledged by Java advocates.
The first thing a competent C coder learns about malloc() is *always check the return value*. Ask a typical Java programmer what happens when the VM runs out of memory and they look blank or mutter some bullshit about the garbage collector.
The trouble is that OutOfMemoryError isn't a checked exception: you're actually encouraged to ignore it. Moreover, there's no easy way to determine if any code you call can throw it.
So, they solve a supposed major problem of C and C++ by pretending it doesn't exist, with the result that almost all Java code in existence, certainly all I've ever seen, is broken in conditions of low memory, and can't reasonably be fixed.
See this story which says Xbox has overtaken GameCube, at least in UK.
If someone is really trying to get me to consider a peculiar religious or ethical viewpoint, I can't think of a better approach than to write some decent sci-fi about it. For example, I despise the views of the anti-abortion crowd, but liked Philip K Dick's 'The Pre-Persons'. A well-written piece of sci-fi will win my sympathy better than any number of humourless leaflets or aeroplanes flown into buildings.
This quote comes from John Menzies, one of the distributors fined.
given sufficient stem-cell research
Of course it was.
Remember, chlorinating the gene pool is everyone's responsibility. Kill yourself today.Funny and original. That took you two hours?
Bored now. Keep crying about your towers, ginger. I'm moving on. Feel free to respond with your lame last word. You or 'the other AC'.
OK. So you're a ginger, American anonymous coward, who thinks that 'stupider' and 'alright' are words. You certainly are a force to be reckoned with.
I thought so for a moment. But he follows up his own post with more gleeful posturing.
Apparently, you're about the only person on the planet stupider than he is.That, too, is a possibility.