Google has been LESS good about living up to "do no evil" lately. In fact it's easy to imagine google as a mad bastard, a kind of Magic Christian Guy Grand eccentric billionaire, cackling and rubbing its hands over how it is pissing people off lately.
It's hopeless. They want everything we say to be instantly produced, meticulously researched, and entirely free from the slightest defect. Never let them see the PROCESS.
This. Absolutely. The problem with rain is not that the raindrops falling through the air impair vision. They do, but that is a minor effect compared to the wet road surface becoming entirely invisible at night. You can't see the lane markings, and you can't see the edge of the road.
To be fair, it's also designed to encourage people to reveal how they accomplished what they've been doing since the Enlightenment started, so that the rest of society can benefit from their research.
And exactly how is the rest of society supposed to benefit from that research if they, like, you know, are PREVENTED FROM USING IT ???
So then why do you get bash if you open up a terminal on OSX?
If you think bash comes from linux, you're in error. It's rather a bit the other way round[*]. Bash was written for the GNU project and first released in 1989. Linux was first released in 1991. As it happens, I'm not strident about calling it GNU/linux, but Stallman DOES have a point in doing so, and GNU really did make linux feasible to develop. There is an awful lot of work represented in the userland of linux that Linus did NOT have to do to get his OS running.
~~~~~
[*] Considering bash plus dozens to hundreds of other GNU userland programs. Bash itself was not an absolute prerequisite to linux, but the GNU projects as a whole were, in practical terms. Linus stood on the shoulders of giants, as well as being a giant himself.
It will get harder and harder though and the days of double digit growth in China will be over long before it reaches anything like the US per capita GDP
Why - because that's how wishful thinking wants it to play out?
I must admit that's a novel form of contrary reasoning.
China's industrial expansion is paid for by consumers in the US and other countries sending a lot of currency to China in return for goods. To think otherwise is just fantasy.
The destruction of our industrial base is our own doing, by offshoring all the manufacturing, and by simply buying instead of manufacturing.
The rising prices of the imported goods is not some nefarious scheme by evil foreigners; rather a blatantly obvious consequence of a rising standard of living in China as their economy grows to dwarf our own.
I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff. It's obvious as hell to anybody who isn't blinded by propaganda.
Per capita GDP, 2002 -> 2010, China +111%, US +30% GDP real growth rate, 2002 to 2010 average, China +8.3%/annum, US +2.2%/annum GDP purchasing power parity, 2002 -> 2010, China +77%, US +41% Unemployment rate trend, 2004/2009, China 10.1/4.3%, US 5.5/9.3% External debt, exchange rate basis, 2002 -> 2011, China +172%, US +1522%
You don't see a problem with paying them to industrialize on a breathtaking scale while we completely demolish our own industrial base? What do you think is going to happen when the prices they charge us skyrocket and we don't have anyone stupid enough to finance rebuilding our own industrial base?
China protects its companies (many of which are at least partially state owned). The US does not.
HA HA HA HA! Maybe not the same way, but they are mollycoddled with disgusting patent and other legal protections that represent cozy bedfellow status. Oh, and seems to me like some prominent US corporations are largely state owned as well.
And what about the US protectionist solar energy tariffs?
Bingo. I'm with you. Patents are evil by NATURE. The CONCEPT is wrong; not just the implementation. Reform is meaningless blather. As soon as you let scum sucking corporations claim ownership of THOUGHT, real free enterprise and human and societal rights are all down the toilet. The people of 200 odd years ago, who could only think in terms of the invention of the cotton gin when they considered the value and fairness of patents, could not have seen in their wildest dreams the legal cesspool which would eventually result from runaway patents, but today WE can and we should kick them the hell out of our system.
The US Constitution only ALLOWS patents; it doesn't MANDATE them. Congress "shall have Power". The corollary is that Congress may choose NOT to exercise this particular power. It can and should undo this morrass by revoking ALL patents NOW, disbanding the patent office, and never issuing any further patents.
Have you really thought this through? Explain how he would get from the limo to the jet. That's passing through UK jurisdiction on the airport grounds. Are you going to try to bundle him in a huge diplomatic pouch?
Other comment is true actually, but see my further reply. I'm not sure it matters if they are in the standard yet, as long as they are picked up along with the rest of C99 as applicable, as blazingly obvious extensions by the compilers people actually use. After all, to the best of my knowledge neither gcc nor g++ never to this day fully implemented every part of C++98.
Until gcc sees the light, and even after that day as a matter of fact, I recommend clang very highly.
Good catch. C++11 as a standard does not have them, but clang 3.1 in C++ mode DOES have C99 designated initializers as an extension. "clang++ -std=c++11 -o try try.cpp" compiles them fine. Since I had made up my mind not to use C++ until it supported designated initializers, I decided clang 3.1 was my ticket.
I think you'll find gcc also picking this up; in fact I'm not sure why 4.7 still does not allow it.
You are using a C99 designated initializer. I consider those very nice and their lack in C++ has been a sore point to me. Until NOW. Because the C and C++ WG's have a history of not being synchronized, that did not make it into C++ until the next following C++ standard, C++11. I am pleased to tell you that the just-released clang 3.1 now has this feature in C++ mode. It shouldn't be long until gcc has it. A quick summary of what I happen to think are the most important catch-up features, and some links to give more detail, is here.
In future, there is a move to better synchronize the C and C++ WGs.
So why don't you just use C++ then in the first place? No, I'm absolutely serious. You can basically take your existing C code and compile it with a C++ compiler in C++ mode, and with a very few exceptions it will compile and work just fine. Then you can start adding just those C++ features you want; no back-porting to C necessary.
I mean, that was the WHOLE IDEA of C++ right from the beginning. There's nothing that says you need to use a single class in C++.
... how can I buy an (otherwise) high-end laptop with "only" intel graphics? How can I get a quad-core i7 with full HD (or better) and intel graphics?
It's a fair question. My usual answer to most of this class of question is to say Lenovo. Check out the Lenovo 530. Hit the customize button. You will be able to pick all the way up to Core i7-3520M, display type up to 15.6" 1920x1080 LED backlit anti-glare, and still pick Intel HD Graphics 4000. It takes a little diligence to see what they will let you build. There are two even higher processors which for some reason they won't sell without Nvidia; who knows why - but this ones fills the bill. I am sure there are others.
If you're going to say "FTFY", make sure your re-writing at least makes logical sense. Otherwise you run the risk of looking dumb when you're really not.
The primary aim was NEITHER "intercepting mail that wasn't his", as originally written, NOR "receiving mail that wasn't his", as you put it. The problem isn't with the choice of verb (intercepting or receiving). The problem is with the qualifier "that wasn't his". He duly registered a domain and set himself up to receive email sent to that domain; then some email WAS sent to that domain - HIS domain, NOT the domain which is spelled SIMILARLY. By ANY reasonable definition, that was HIS email he was reading. Whoever the sender INTENDED to address and send it to is beside the point; the sender IN FACT addressed and sent it to HIM.
You would have to completely rewrite the sentence to something like "the primary aim was to receive email which the sender BELIEVED he was sending to the other guy". Now we'd be dealing with intent on both ends, as well as presumption, but law cases do that all the time. Sounds like a simple case of fraud and extortion to me. Dressing it up as e-anything is just silly.
The only way to get a country into 16Tn debt is by capitalism.
The hell it is. Capitalism has nothing to do with it one way or the other. Capitalism is amoral and arguably stupid, just as it is arguably effective for certain definitions of goals, but it can't per se get a country into debt or out of debt. Debt is caused by spending more wealth than you create, pure and simple, end of story. The only way to discharge debt is to create more wealth than you spend, or to cheat your creditors. You cheat your creditors by inflating currency (printing fake money). Or you could just default and give the finger to your creditors.
Slashdot Mirror
Google has been LESS good about living up to "do no evil" lately. In fact it's easy to imagine google as a mad bastard, a kind of Magic Christian Guy Grand eccentric billionaire, cackling and rubbing its hands over how it is pissing people off lately.
Google is doing its level best to make itself less useful and less relevant to ALMOST EVERYONE. It's a mass mental disorder on the part of management.
It's hopeless. They want everything we say to be instantly produced, meticulously researched, and entirely free from the slightest defect. Never let them see the PROCESS.
This. Absolutely. The problem with rain is not that the raindrops falling through the air impair vision. They do, but that is a minor effect compared to the wet road surface becoming entirely invisible at night. You can't see the lane markings, and you can't see the edge of the road.
And exactly how is the rest of society supposed to benefit from that research if they, like, you know, are PREVENTED FROM USING IT ???
If you think bash comes from linux, you're in error. It's rather a bit the other way round[*]. Bash was written for the GNU project and first released in 1989. Linux was first released in 1991. As it happens, I'm not strident about calling it GNU/linux, but Stallman DOES have a point in doing so, and GNU really did make linux feasible to develop. There is an awful lot of work represented in the userland of linux that Linus did NOT have to do to get his OS running.
~~~~~
[*] Considering bash plus dozens to hundreds of other GNU userland programs. Bash itself was not an absolute prerequisite to linux, but the GNU projects as a whole were, in practical terms. Linus stood on the shoulders of giants, as well as being a giant himself.
Why - because that's how wishful thinking wants it to play out?
I must admit that's a novel form of contrary reasoning.
China's industrial expansion is paid for by consumers in the US and other countries sending a lot of currency to China in return for goods. To think otherwise is just fantasy.
The destruction of our industrial base is our own doing, by offshoring all the manufacturing, and by simply buying instead of manufacturing.
The rising prices of the imported goods is not some nefarious scheme by evil foreigners; rather a blatantly obvious consequence of a rising standard of living in China as their economy grows to dwarf our own.
I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff. It's obvious as hell to anybody who isn't blinded by propaganda.
And fucked up big time. Due diligence? NOT!
If you took your head out of the sand and extrapolated the trends, you might try giving a fuck about where this process is going to end up.
I'll make it easy for you.
Per capita GDP, 2002 -> 2010, China +111%, US +30%
GDP real growth rate, 2002 to 2010 average, China +8.3%/annum, US +2.2%/annum
GDP purchasing power parity, 2002 -> 2010, China +77%, US +41%
Unemployment rate trend, 2004/2009, China 10.1/4.3%, US 5.5/9.3%
External debt, exchange rate basis, 2002 -> 2011, China +172%, US +1522%
You don't see a problem with paying them to industrialize on a breathtaking scale while we completely demolish our own industrial base? What do you think is going to happen when the prices they charge us skyrocket and we don't have anyone stupid enough to finance rebuilding our own industrial base?
HA HA HA HA! Maybe not the same way, but they are mollycoddled with disgusting patent and other legal protections that represent cozy bedfellow status. Oh, and seems to me like some prominent US corporations are largely state owned as well.
And what about the US protectionist solar energy tariffs?
Excellent insight. Mods, plus-five this port!
Have you ever looked at the concept of distributism?
Bingo. I'm with you. Patents are evil by NATURE. The CONCEPT is wrong; not just the implementation. Reform is meaningless blather. As soon as you let scum sucking corporations claim ownership of THOUGHT, real free enterprise and human and societal rights are all down the toilet. The people of 200 odd years ago, who could only think in terms of the invention of the cotton gin when they considered the value and fairness of patents, could not have seen in their wildest dreams the legal cesspool which would eventually result from runaway patents, but today WE can and we should kick them the hell out of our system.
The US Constitution only ALLOWS patents; it doesn't MANDATE them. Congress "shall have Power". The corollary is that Congress may choose NOT to exercise this particular power. It can and should undo this morrass by revoking ALL patents NOW, disbanding the patent office, and never issuing any further patents.
Have you really thought this through? Explain how he would get from the limo to the jet. That's passing through UK jurisdiction on the airport grounds. Are you going to try to bundle him in a huge diplomatic pouch?
Other comment is true actually, but see my further reply. I'm not sure it matters if they are in the standard yet, as long as they are picked up along with the rest of C99 as applicable, as blazingly obvious extensions by the compilers people actually use. After all, to the best of my knowledge neither gcc nor g++ never to this day fully implemented every part of C++98.
Until gcc sees the light, and even after that day as a matter of fact, I recommend clang very highly.
Good catch. C++11 as a standard does not have them, but clang 3.1 in C++ mode DOES have C99 designated initializers as an extension. "clang++ -std=c++11 -o try try.cpp" compiles them fine. Since I had made up my mind not to use C++ until it supported designated initializers, I decided clang 3.1 was my ticket.
I think you'll find gcc also picking this up; in fact I'm not sure why 4.7 still does not allow it.
Thank you for a pertinent and specific comment.
You are using a C99 designated initializer. I consider those very nice and their lack in C++ has been a sore point to me. Until NOW. Because the C and C++ WG's have a history of not being synchronized, that did not make it into C++ until the next following C++ standard, C++11. I am pleased to tell you that the just-released clang 3.1 now has this feature in C++ mode. It shouldn't be long until gcc has it. A quick summary of what I happen to think are the most important catch-up features, and some links to give more detail, is here.
In future, there is a move to better synchronize the C and C++ WGs.
I sympathize. C++ makes it harder in important and fundamental ways to be a lousy programmer.
I can well understand why you're posting as AC, but suppose you try to list the "lots of new syntax and semantics" in C that is NOT in C++.
So why don't you just use C++ then in the first place? No, I'm absolutely serious. You can basically take your existing C code and compile it with a C++ compiler in C++ mode, and with a very few exceptions it will compile and work just fine. Then you can start adding just those C++ features you want; no back-porting to C necessary.
I mean, that was the WHOLE IDEA of C++ right from the beginning. There's nothing that says you need to use a single class in C++.
And the difference between suit and suite.
It's a fair question. My usual answer to most of this class of question is to say Lenovo. Check out the Lenovo 530. Hit the customize button. You will be able to pick all the way up to Core i7-3520M, display type up to 15.6" 1920x1080 LED backlit anti-glare, and still pick Intel HD Graphics 4000. It takes a little diligence to see what they will let you build. There are two even higher processors which for some reason they won't sell without Nvidia; who knows why - but this ones fills the bill. I am sure there are others.
BTW, Lenovo rules.
If you're going to say "FTFY", make sure your re-writing at least makes logical sense. Otherwise you run the risk of looking dumb when you're really not.
The primary aim was NEITHER "intercepting mail that wasn't his", as originally written, NOR "receiving mail that wasn't his", as you put it. The problem isn't with the choice of verb (intercepting or receiving). The problem is with the qualifier "that wasn't his". He duly registered a domain and set himself up to receive email sent to that domain; then some email WAS sent to that domain - HIS domain, NOT the domain which is spelled SIMILARLY. By ANY reasonable definition, that was HIS email he was reading. Whoever the sender INTENDED to address and send it to is beside the point; the sender IN FACT addressed and sent it to HIM.
You would have to completely rewrite the sentence to something like "the primary aim was to receive email which the sender BELIEVED he was sending to the other guy". Now we'd be dealing with intent on both ends, as well as presumption, but law cases do that all the time. Sounds like a simple case of fraud and extortion to me. Dressing it up as e-anything is just silly.
The hell it is. Capitalism has nothing to do with it one way or the other. Capitalism is amoral and arguably stupid, just as it is arguably effective for certain definitions of goals, but it can't per se get a country into debt or out of debt. Debt is caused by spending more wealth than you create, pure and simple, end of story. The only way to discharge debt is to create more wealth than you spend, or to cheat your creditors. You cheat your creditors by inflating currency (printing fake money). Or you could just default and give the finger to your creditors.