Didn't. Or isn't supposed to But scientists are human. They do have to eat. Which means they have to work for profit or for hand outs. And then it's just the matter of who's motivated to give the hand outs (grants).
bad news for the deniers
I don't know too many deniers. Plenty of skeptics though. And the more ad hominems are used to defend "science" (for example, by calling skeptics "deniers"), the less scientific credibility these positions have.
you'd have a million guys
Who'd pay for it? If you can't establish credibility, you can't get paid. If you question paid-for consensus, you get shut down as not credible. It's catch 22. Unless you show that a lot of grant money goes to credible efforts to actively disprove the hypothesis, you can't claim that it's been tested and vetted. You need to show me where you have grants which actually motivate contrarian evidence. An no, oil company payments don't count. Because receiving those immediately discredits the researchers. So can you show me government sponsored research aimed at disproving AGW and done by researchers who are paid more only if they can successfully challenge some of the standing hypothesis? No? Only grant money if they provide further evidence supporting government control and intervention? Nough said.
Why is it a "problem" with the market? People getting what they want instead of what sociologists' (sorry, psychopaths') believes of what they need? That's how "satisfaction" is defined -- getting what you want. The fact that strangers, who would rather be entertained by troubles in your relationship than see you be genuinely content, don't get to enjoy the show of your relationship fiascos is not a "problem."
Well, at least, that's what they'll claim. And they'll, of course, attempt to use their clout as "the science guys" to claim that their deductions are accurate. They might even get some legitimate linguists researchers on their side. Grant money buys a lot of consensus.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that a person who cannot properly use C (and understand how memory management works) has no business writing mission-critical software in any language. JVM's garbage collector is for sissies. =P
You are an armature. Making mark-and-sweep mission critical actually requires a trick which DOES include keeping track of all memory you grab from the heap. Relying on gc is only something you can afford to do with low-frequency-creation-destruction objects. Just so you understand, I have written systems which relied on GC-based languages and which had to create and destroy objects faster than GC could handle them. And the way I did it did not make the system grow to the worst-case-scenario use pooling. Tell me I am a sissy to my face... cause my code will run circles around your code:P
Object-oriented is good for projects that need to be maintained
Only if you think that a program "does" stuff. If you think of the actions in the program as secondary to what is being accomplished, OO reduces the attention span foot print.
less duplication means less typing
You are a bad person. I mean it. From the bottom of my heart. You think that 20 seconds of your typing is worth 20 minutes of my reading.
entirely optional. and can be turned off at compile time.
RTTI
only part of runtime if you want it to be.
dynamic memory allocation and the crappy way new/delete handle out of memory
utter unadulterated nonsense. you have multiple ways of handling memory allocation. you can have custom memory management schemes. C standard library pretty much is guaranteed to cause memory fragmentation.
no _standard_ way to specify order of global constructors/destructors
if it's an issue, than don't make them global. there are standard (ie, language guaranteed) ways to control their run order... they come directly from C, btw, so not sure if you know both languages as well as you think
ability to have functors (cludgy syntax and actually misnomer, but it is a huge functionality necessity which is missing from C and is present even in the earliest versions of C++)
Nope, the atheist Mao still holds the record (with 100 million). The 2nd highest goes to atheist Stalin with 60 million. If you claim that Hitler was Catholic acting on behalf of the church (something that he himself never claimed), then you might have a claim for the 3rd place for the church.
McCain wasn't born on a ship at sea. He was born on a US military base in Panama. Today US considers US military bases sovereign territory akin to embassies. It is ambiguous whether such consideration was given to US bases at the time of McCain's birth.
Don't forget restricting religious practices. Although, to be fair, the 1st Amendment only forbids Congress from restricting exercise of religion. It makes no such prohibition on the executive.
If you want to argue the Communist propaganda, just as an advise, don't try to argue racism. Anyone making an accusation of racism is nowadays considered to have no legitimate point to make. In fact, most people will stop listening the moment you make that accusation. It just doesn't carry water anymore.
Belize couldn't get a better publicity if it paid for it. It's a nation of less than half a million people. They are trying to attract US retirees as a business model. Powerful people? C'mon.
The media really is evil. Actually, by design. It's an evil business. Any business which produces physical things that enable or improve life must have waste. Such business must take natural resources (which have no use) and turn it into something useful. News business just has to talk. When there a true danger, the "real" news businesses are often too late to cover it. So they must constantly invent reasons to complain. The ones which don't invent reasons to complain simply go out of business. One must, therefore, assume that the only general news outlets which survive are the ones which complain about the side effects of real life-enabling businesses. And since they cannot be sued for lying or exaggerating, they have little to lose by lying or exaggerating the extent of harm brought about by life-enabling businesses vs the benefit they produce for society. They pooh pooh anyone who does something useful by pointing out the waste that useful activity generates. Of course, they could complain about their own harm (exorbitant salaries, social unrest, excessive political influence and waste of resources which they are responsible for) but they rarely do.
Not gonna convince me that FB are the good guys. Not going to open a FB page anyway. Although kudos to them for getting *one* thing right. They sell information. Creation of that information does not take roads, public telecommunications (the info goes over private networks), etc. Why should they pay for services of which they consume none?
Who take money from other human being and promise to pay them dividends at some future time (that's what a stock is -- a right to vote in an entity which promises but does not guarantee future dividends). And that money which they take from those human beings has been taxed at least once (and in many case multiple times).
You can't stop it. But you can withstand it. I find it amusing that they would do it to Bank of America, to be honest. Their service was always spotty without any outside "assistance".
Nah, only religions which have not gone through a reformation causing an introspection and self moderation. Islam is one of them. Christianity, for example, doesn't cause irrational behavior in otherwise rational people. Nor does Judaism or Buddhism. Islam does.
The delayed execution is the 3rd option. Or an event model. Think of something like a make file where you don't do anything until all the pre-requisites have been satisfied. Error checking is necessary because ultimately you want to be able to have programs which can adjust to real world events (mouse motions, changing screen sizes, stuff arriving on the network wire). And in the real world thinks may not happen in the order you hope they would or in one of the orders you thought they could. Probably the most common way to handle this is publish subscribe or event model.
Everything Assange does is now easier to do if you are in the government? This is an obvious deflection on his part.... "hey look pay no attention to how I violate privacy of others communications.. look at how the government could theoretically violate YOUR privacy of communication".
Slashdot Mirror
Science doesn't work that way.
Didn't. Or isn't supposed to But scientists are human. They do have to eat. Which means they have to work for profit or for hand outs. And then it's just the matter of who's motivated to give the hand outs (grants).
bad news for the deniers
I don't know too many deniers. Plenty of skeptics though. And the more ad hominems are used to defend "science" (for example, by calling skeptics "deniers"), the less scientific credibility these positions have.
you'd have a million guys
Who'd pay for it? If you can't establish credibility, you can't get paid. If you question paid-for consensus, you get shut down as not credible. It's catch 22. Unless you show that a lot of grant money goes to credible efforts to actively disprove the hypothesis, you can't claim that it's been tested and vetted. You need to show me where you have grants which actually motivate contrarian evidence. An no, oil company payments don't count. Because receiving those immediately discredits the researchers. So can you show me government sponsored research aimed at disproving AGW and done by researchers who are paid more only if they can successfully challenge some of the standing hypothesis? No? Only grant money if they provide further evidence supporting government control and intervention? Nough said.
Why is it a "problem" with the market? People getting what they want instead of what sociologists' (sorry, psychopaths') believes of what they need? That's how "satisfaction" is defined -- getting what you want. The fact that strangers, who would rather be entertained by troubles in your relationship than see you be genuinely content, don't get to enjoy the show of your relationship fiascos is not a "problem."
Well, at least, that's what they'll claim. And they'll, of course, attempt to use their clout as "the science guys" to claim that their deductions are accurate. They might even get some legitimate linguists researchers on their side. Grant money buys a lot of consensus.
welcome our stylistic overlords
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that a person who cannot properly use C (and understand how memory management works) has no business writing mission-critical software in any language. JVM's garbage collector is for sissies. =P
You are an armature. Making mark-and-sweep mission critical actually requires a trick which DOES include keeping track of all memory you grab from the heap. Relying on gc is only something you can afford to do with low-frequency-creation-destruction objects. Just so you understand, I have written systems which relied on GC-based languages and which had to create and destroy objects faster than GC could handle them. And the way I did it did not make the system grow to the worst-case-scenario use pooling. Tell me I am a sissy to my face... cause my code will run circles around your code :P
Object-oriented is good for projects that need to be maintained
Only if you think that a program "does" stuff. If you think of the actions in the program as secondary to what is being accomplished, OO reduces the attention span foot print.
less duplication means less typing
You are a bad person. I mean it. From the bottom of my heart. You think that 20 seconds of your typing is worth 20 minutes of my reading.
Exception Handling
entirely optional. and can be turned off at compile time.
RTTI
only part of runtime if you want it to be.
dynamic memory allocation and the crappy way new/delete handle out of memory
utter unadulterated nonsense. you have multiple ways of handling memory allocation. you can have custom memory management schemes. C standard library pretty much is guaranteed to cause memory fragmentation.
no _standard_ way to specify order of global constructors/destructors
if it's an issue, than don't make them global. there are standard (ie, language guaranteed) ways to control their run order... they come directly from C, btw, so not sure if you know both languages as well as you think
You have more control over which parts to speed up in C++ than you do in C.
inline keyword
ability to have functors (cludgy syntax and actually misnomer, but it is a huge functionality necessity which is missing from C and is present even in the earliest versions of C++)
rich compile-time semantics
you asked for 3....
The entire story feels like free fsf FUD
No, no, you have it all wrong. FSF is all about free bunnies and sunshine.
It impacts people who care about principle the software they use is based upon.
That's a weird way of saying "no commercial android developers".
Nope, the atheist Mao still holds the record (with 100 million). The 2nd highest goes to atheist Stalin with 60 million. If you claim that Hitler was Catholic acting on behalf of the church (something that he himself never claimed), then you might have a claim for the 3rd place for the church.
McCain wasn't born on a ship at sea. He was born on a US military base in Panama. Today US considers US military bases sovereign territory akin to embassies. It is ambiguous whether such consideration was given to US bases at the time of McCain's birth.
But everything about Romney was born in America. Including his religion.
Don't forget restricting religious practices. Although, to be fair, the 1st Amendment only forbids Congress from restricting exercise of religion. It makes no such prohibition on the executive.
If you want to argue the Communist propaganda, just as an advise, don't try to argue racism. Anyone making an accusation of racism is nowadays considered to have no legitimate point to make. In fact, most people will stop listening the moment you make that accusation. It just doesn't carry water anymore.
or the fraking? Hey, it's the weekend. Let the flame wars begin.
Belize couldn't get a better publicity if it paid for it. It's a nation of less than half a million people. They are trying to attract US retirees as a business model. Powerful people? C'mon.
The media really is evil. Actually, by design. It's an evil business. Any business which produces physical things that enable or improve life must have waste. Such business must take natural resources (which have no use) and turn it into something useful. News business just has to talk. When there a true danger, the "real" news businesses are often too late to cover it. So they must constantly invent reasons to complain. The ones which don't invent reasons to complain simply go out of business. One must, therefore, assume that the only general news outlets which survive are the ones which complain about the side effects of real life-enabling businesses. And since they cannot be sued for lying or exaggerating, they have little to lose by lying or exaggerating the extent of harm brought about by life-enabling businesses vs the benefit they produce for society. They pooh pooh anyone who does something useful by pointing out the waste that useful activity generates. Of course, they could complain about their own harm (exorbitant salaries, social unrest, excessive political influence and waste of resources which they are responsible for) but they rarely do.
Not gonna convince me that FB are the good guys. Not going to open a FB page anyway. Although kudos to them for getting *one* thing right. They sell information. Creation of that information does not take roads, public telecommunications (the info goes over private networks), etc. Why should they pay for services of which they consume none?
but they're still actual human beings
Who take money from other human being and promise to pay them dividends at some future time (that's what a stock is -- a right to vote in an entity which promises but does not guarantee future dividends). And that money which they take from those human beings has been taxed at least once (and in many case multiple times).
You can't stop it. But you can withstand it. I find it amusing that they would do it to Bank of America, to be honest. Their service was always spotty without any outside "assistance".
Nah, only religions which have not gone through a reformation causing an introspection and self moderation. Islam is one of them. Christianity, for example, doesn't cause irrational behavior in otherwise rational people. Nor does Judaism or Buddhism. Islam does.
The delayed execution is the 3rd option. Or an event model. Think of something like a make file where you don't do anything until all the pre-requisites have been satisfied. Error checking is necessary because ultimately you want to be able to have programs which can adjust to real world events (mouse motions, changing screen sizes, stuff arriving on the network wire). And in the real world thinks may not happen in the order you hope they would or in one of the orders you thought they could. Probably the most common way to handle this is publish subscribe or event model.
Everything Assange does is now easier to do if you are in the government? This is an obvious deflection on his part.... "hey look pay no attention to how I violate privacy of others communications.. look at how the government could theoretically violate YOUR privacy of communication".