You'd also be surprised how many 'reports' are hard coded to filter out all the names starting with 'ZZ'. I surprised nobody has been able to leverage it into a real computer crime.
Crimes committed by people whose name starts with ZZ don't show up in official reports, for some reason.
Your link does not, in fact, support your assertion. The ability to copy data is a vital necessity for any programming language, and hardly something that can be tracked specifically to C.
It was a very specific design goal of C++ to support user-defined types that are indistinguishable from built-in types (Stroustrup wanted to be able to define a complex number type that acted as if it were a built-in type). For this to be possible, objects must support operator overloading, and must be able to manage their own resources. Eventually it became clear that if a class is only partially specified (for example, without a copy constructor), people would still try to copy-construct instances of the class (which is possible since there are defaults for these functions), leading to resource leaks and crashes.
It wasn't until C++11 that this problem was actually acknowledged on the language level, by giving programmers clear and simple tools to avoid the generation of default functions. One could argue that the choice to have defaults to begin with came from C, but the notion of an object being responsible for its own resources is exactly what separates the C mindset from the C++ mindset. It is where the languages diverge, rather than a point of common history.
C mostly serves to make the stupid, annoying stuff in C++ clear, though. The rule of three doesn't come from a C background; it is part of RAII, something that C does not have.
The C background makes clear why we have old-style casts, switch cases with implicit fallthrough, array to pointer decay, and the whole f'ing preprocessor, but we could pretty much have lived just fine without all of that. It was necessary for C++ to gain acceptance during the early days, but now it is mostly just a pain to have to deal with.
Since you seem to know it, explain me this: I have studied lisp for a while, and I never actually found that magic that suddenly made me much better than I was before. "You can redefine the language!", the ads said. I still don't get it: yes, I can add new functions. I can do the same thing in pretty much _every single other language out there_. Yes, I can pass code blocks to other code blocks. I can do that in other languages too, and only occasionally use it for some small code improvement - it's not a silver bullet that redefines how I write software. So, where is it, that magic you people keep talking about?
I don't mean creating our own service, and then _still_ handing our data over to some 3rd party. What I meant was creating a service like email - something that runs at every provider, giving people a choice of whether to place their "social" account with one provider or with another - or be entirely self-hosted, if they're up for that.
The license is less relevant in that sense. The software itself can be GPL. And for the data you entrust to it, different providers might have different terms, but since there is no single over-arching monopolist that sets all the rules, you can always choose a provider that has terms you can agree to. Or just host it yourself.
Isn't it time for a distributed, open source, facebook competitor? One where you can _choose_ which FB-provider you want to use (or just run on your own server if you want), and migrate your account if need be. One where you retain ownership over your comments and your data and your f'ing life?
Knowing Obama, he is going to get Europe to destroy its economy even further by placing even more sanctions on Russia... Worked out marvelously last time as well.
Normally Windows runs in an inefficient mode where it prioritizes background tasks, the OS, and other things that are not in the immediate interest of the user, but if a game is running it can now optionally decide to play nice and prioritize the user's chosen activity?
Gee, that's nice. Maybe a little late - I mean, I sort of expected my personal computer to prioritize the f'ing work I'm actually trying to do _at all times_, and I've pretty much done that since I first encountered multitasking back in 1985, but it's still nice.
The EU's lack of popularity and impending collapse is entirely self-inflicted. It's caused by wildly impopular policies (immigration), the disregard of democratic values (Ukraine referendum, Brexit), the abandonment of cornerstone treaties at the first hiccup, and the lies of its leadership (Juncker - "when it becomes important you have to lie"). Russia did not do any of these things; the EU did all of those itself.
It's like the old slashdot rose from the grave one more time... Don't worry kids, tomorrow we'll be back to stories about windmills and mobile phones, I'm sure.
Apparently there is a kind of magic in LISP that is not in other languages. I studied LISP for a while to see if I could get a sense of this magic, but failed miserably - it never clicked, there was never any sense of enlightenment. Is LISP elegant? Not in my eyes. It's a mess of brackets, weird syntax, and strange symbols.
At the same time, the attempts to write software with "C-like words, but with LISP syntax" is almost endearing. "Look, now you can actually have a switch-statement with strings in it!" they proudly exclaim, failing to note that this new statement only exists in their personal version of C, rather than in standard C. Who exactly is the target market for this new type of switch statement? Neither the C community nor the LISP community is likely to want it, since neither side recognizes the syntax they are using in the first place.
According to one of the links, the goal is this: "The syntax is more like C as this is more of a tool that is meant to bring C programmers into the Lisp world rather than pulling Lisp programmers into the C world." To that I say, "good luck with that". But hey, maybe they can get Linus on board and rewrite the entire kernel in LISP-in-C-like-form?
It's sure nice to see the people at the high end of the financial scale being the first to go... Not something I expected, but hey, surprises now and then keep you sharp.
"Hedge fund manager? Yeah, I replaced a few of them with perl scripts last summer..."
This need not be universally bad. For example, an AI could be set up to further environmentalism or poverty elimination goals just as easily as it could a particular business's interests.
Don't forget to equip your environmental and poverty AI's with the three laws of robotics, otherwise it might go for the easy solution in both cases...
Don't underestimate the car. In the not too distant past, you would live close to work, and most likely not too far from where you were born, in a community you'd consider to be yours. Now you can live a vast distance from work. Your coworkers are people from other communities as well, so there is no bond there, and you don't spend enough time at home to build meaningful bonds in your local community either.
Given that it killed off Western health workers, who aren't exactly poor, and West Africa having plenty of rich people (given their income disparity), there's plenty of profit to be made in making this vaccine. Even Western countries might buy a bunch just because they're so terrified of Ebola. Besides, it's got good PR value.
The argument was that Western companies ignore the needs of poor countries because they are poor, and gave dengue as an example of an untreated disease. It's just bullshit: far more Western people get dengue than ever got ebola. Far more rich local people get dengue (and malaria and all those other fun tropical diseases) as well. Do you really think nobody is trying to find a cure? Of course they are - billions are spent each year on trying to find a malaria cure alone. But hey, surprise, it's actually a tough problem that cannot simply be solved in five minutes. And even if you do...
Developing any kind of medicine costs lots of money (200-500 million USD is not uncommon), and there are always people suffering from it. So should all medicine be given away for free then? Who is going to pay for the laboratories, the researchers, the materials needed, etc.?
If the people involved do not have any money, you could presumably do it for humanitarian of PR purposes. That will work right until there is a problem; if even one vaccinated person coughs funny after receiving the vaccine the media will be all over this for "experimenting on poor Africans" and "unresponsible deployment of untested medicine". Any Western doctors will be lucky to escape with their lives once the local population gets the idea the vaccine is actually spreading the disease - and don't think that won't happen...
As for fearing ebola - Western countries really need not fear ebola, and that's because we don't believe in witch doctors over here. We isolate victims (sucks to die like that, but I would happily be isolated if it meant not killing the rest of my family), and we certainly don't touch and wash the dead (a very significant vector for the spread of ebola in Africa).
To summarize: African countries had a health problem. African counties did precisely nothing to help themselves (like set up their own research, or even just changing their funeral rites). Western countries stepped in and solved the problem (hopefully). African countries are still bitching and moaning about racism, because apparently we solved the wrong problem and are not doing so entirely free of charge. I'm feeling really inspired to continue my donations to Medicine Sans Frontiers - NOT...
Not racism. There's no money in selling drugs to poor people, and the owners of the drug companies are rich westerners who won't get dengue, but might get Ebola. Their lives are just a BIT more important than other peoples'.
Far more Western people get dengue than ebola. Pretty much all the victims of ebola are poor people; the non-poor victims can be counted on the fingers of one, maybe two hands. In other words, there is no money to be made on ebola vaccins, and yet Western companies created one anyway. Would you care to adjust your prejudices?
I'm worried about the effectiveness of the vaccin. What if none of the vaccinated group even came into contact with the virus?
It is only final until the next new top manager decides to monetize Windows in a different way. Give it 3-4 years, and they'll be back to 'normal' releases.
I reckon that's OK if it works for you.... as long as you don't then complain that your browser is slow.
Gee thanks, that's kind of you. My browser isn't all that slow, but if it were, I most certainly would complain. Most of those pages are by and large static text, just sitting there without doing much. I don't see why that would cost me any kind of performance. I'm also not quite sure why a downloaded page of a few hundred kilobyte of text needs to expand into the tens of megabytes range just to display it.
You completely misunderstand the purpose of the experiment, then. The experiment is not "here is a crackpot theory, let's try to prove it". It's "here's a device that seems to produce an effect we cannot yet explain. Is the effect real, and what is the explanation?".
Several teams across the world claim to have replicated this result. Now, maybe it's all nonsense; maybe there is really something there we don't (yet) understand - the only thing I know is that it is too early to judge. And instead of explaining why the measurements could not have been taken, what you should be feeling is excitement at a mystery to be solved, and (very slight chance, but still) the possibility of a new extension to the laws of physics. If you really are a scientist, your job is not to close your mind and explain why everybody got it all wrong. It is to explain the effect apparently being measured.
And sure, it can be a measurement error. It can be outright fraud (unlikely, I think). It can be an overlooked conventional effect. But it can also be something new - something for which Nobel prizes are given out, something that may one day send probes to the stars. Shouldn't we at least look?
Slashdot Mirror
You'd also be surprised how many 'reports' are hard coded to filter out all the names starting with 'ZZ'. I surprised nobody has been able to leverage it into a real computer crime.
Crimes committed by people whose name starts with ZZ don't show up in official reports, for some reason.
Your link does not, in fact, support your assertion. The ability to copy data is a vital necessity for any programming language, and hardly something that can be tracked specifically to C.
It was a very specific design goal of C++ to support user-defined types that are indistinguishable from built-in types (Stroustrup wanted to be able to define a complex number type that acted as if it were a built-in type). For this to be possible, objects must support operator overloading, and must be able to manage their own resources. Eventually it became clear that if a class is only partially specified (for example, without a copy constructor), people would still try to copy-construct instances of the class (which is possible since there are defaults for these functions), leading to resource leaks and crashes.
It wasn't until C++11 that this problem was actually acknowledged on the language level, by giving programmers clear and simple tools to avoid the generation of default functions. One could argue that the choice to have defaults to begin with came from C, but the notion of an object being responsible for its own resources is exactly what separates the C mindset from the C++ mindset. It is where the languages diverge, rather than a point of common history.
C mostly serves to make the stupid, annoying stuff in C++ clear, though. The rule of three doesn't come from a C background; it is part of RAII, something that C does not have.
The C background makes clear why we have old-style casts, switch cases with implicit fallthrough, array to pointer decay, and the whole f'ing preprocessor, but we could pretty much have lived just fine without all of that. It was necessary for C++ to gain acceptance during the early days, but now it is mostly just a pain to have to deal with.
Since you seem to know it, explain me this: I have studied lisp for a while, and I never actually found that magic that suddenly made me much better than I was before. "You can redefine the language!", the ads said. I still don't get it: yes, I can add new functions. I can do the same thing in pretty much _every single other language out there_. Yes, I can pass code blocks to other code blocks. I can do that in other languages too, and only occasionally use it for some small code improvement - it's not a silver bullet that redefines how I write software. So, where is it, that magic you people keep talking about?
So this is an example of that 'fake news' I keep hearing so much about? Or does that depend entirely on who is spreading the news?
I don't mean creating our own service, and then _still_ handing our data over to some 3rd party. What I meant was creating a service like email - something that runs at every provider, giving people a choice of whether to place their "social" account with one provider or with another - or be entirely self-hosted, if they're up for that.
The license is less relevant in that sense. The software itself can be GPL. And for the data you entrust to it, different providers might have different terms, but since there is no single over-arching monopolist that sets all the rules, you can always choose a provider that has terms you can agree to. Or just host it yourself.
Isn't it time for a distributed, open source, facebook competitor? One where you can _choose_ which FB-provider you want to use (or just run on your own server if you want), and migrate your account if need be. One where you retain ownership over your comments and your data and your f'ing life?
Knowing Obama, he is going to get Europe to destroy its economy even further by placing even more sanctions on Russia... Worked out marvelously last time as well.
Normally Windows runs in an inefficient mode where it prioritizes background tasks, the OS, and other things that are not in the immediate interest of the user, but if a game is running it can now optionally decide to play nice and prioritize the user's chosen activity?
Gee, that's nice. Maybe a little late - I mean, I sort of expected my personal computer to prioritize the f'ing work I'm actually trying to do _at all times_, and I've pretty much done that since I first encountered multitasking back in 1985, but it's still nice.
The EU's lack of popularity and impending collapse is entirely self-inflicted. It's caused by wildly impopular policies (immigration), the disregard of democratic values (Ukraine referendum, Brexit), the abandonment of cornerstone treaties at the first hiccup, and the lies of its leadership (Juncker - "when it becomes important you have to lie"). Russia did not do any of these things; the EU did all of those itself.
Why is this shit on slashdot? No news about climate change today?
I see. But everyone will recognize who I'm talking about, and it's the not the God of the Jews and Christians.
It's like the old slashdot rose from the grave one more time... Don't worry kids, tomorrow we'll be back to stories about windmills and mobile phones, I'm sure.
Apparently there is a kind of magic in LISP that is not in other languages. I studied LISP for a while to see if I could get a sense of this magic, but failed miserably - it never clicked, there was never any sense of enlightenment. Is LISP elegant? Not in my eyes. It's a mess of brackets, weird syntax, and strange symbols.
At the same time, the attempts to write software with "C-like words, but with LISP syntax" is almost endearing. "Look, now you can actually have a switch-statement with strings in it!" they proudly exclaim, failing to note that this new statement only exists in their personal version of C, rather than in standard C. Who exactly is the target market for this new type of switch statement? Neither the C community nor the LISP community is likely to want it, since neither side recognizes the syntax they are using in the first place.
According to one of the links, the goal is this: "The syntax is more like C as this is more of a tool that is meant to bring C programmers into the Lisp world rather than pulling Lisp programmers into the C world." To that I say, "good luck with that". But hey, maybe they can get Linus on board and rewrite the entire kernel in LISP-in-C-like-form?
It's sure nice to see the people at the high end of the financial scale being the first to go... Not something I expected, but hey, surprises now and then keep you sharp.
"Hedge fund manager? Yeah, I replaced a few of them with perl scripts last summer..."
You know, I genuinely don't understand the point you are making. Which word are you talking about?
This need not be universally bad. For example, an AI could be set up to further environmentalism or poverty elimination goals just as easily as it could a particular business's interests.
Don't forget to equip your environmental and poverty AI's with the three laws of robotics, otherwise it might go for the easy solution in both cases...
Don't underestimate the car. In the not too distant past, you would live close to work, and most likely not too far from where you were born, in a community you'd consider to be yours. Now you can live a vast distance from work. Your coworkers are people from other communities as well, so there is no bond there, and you don't spend enough time at home to build meaningful bonds in your local community either.
Granted, I'm in the middle east
It's for the best. If allah knew you were having fun he'd send his goons to kill you anyway.
Given that it killed off Western health workers, who aren't exactly poor, and West Africa having plenty of rich people (given their income disparity), there's plenty of profit to be made in making this vaccine. Even Western countries might buy a bunch just because they're so terrified of Ebola. Besides, it's got good PR value.
The argument was that Western companies ignore the needs of poor countries because they are poor, and gave dengue as an example of an untreated disease. It's just bullshit: far more Western people get dengue than ever got ebola. Far more rich local people get dengue (and malaria and all those other fun tropical diseases) as well. Do you really think nobody is trying to find a cure? Of course they are - billions are spent each year on trying to find a malaria cure alone. But hey, surprise, it's actually a tough problem that cannot simply be solved in five minutes. And even if you do...
Developing any kind of medicine costs lots of money (200-500 million USD is not uncommon), and there are always people suffering from it. So should all medicine be given away for free then? Who is going to pay for the laboratories, the researchers, the materials needed, etc.?
If the people involved do not have any money, you could presumably do it for humanitarian of PR purposes. That will work right until there is a problem; if even one vaccinated person coughs funny after receiving the vaccine the media will be all over this for "experimenting on poor Africans" and "unresponsible deployment of untested medicine". Any Western doctors will be lucky to escape with their lives once the local population gets the idea the vaccine is actually spreading the disease - and don't think that won't happen...
As for fearing ebola - Western countries really need not fear ebola, and that's because we don't believe in witch doctors over here. We isolate victims (sucks to die like that, but I would happily be isolated if it meant not killing the rest of my family), and we certainly don't touch and wash the dead (a very significant vector for the spread of ebola in Africa).
To summarize: African countries had a health problem. African counties did precisely nothing to help themselves (like set up their own research, or even just changing their funeral rites). Western countries stepped in and solved the problem (hopefully). African countries are still bitching and moaning about racism, because apparently we solved the wrong problem and are not doing so entirely free of charge. I'm feeling really inspired to continue my donations to Medicine Sans Frontiers - NOT...
Not racism. There's no money in selling drugs to poor people, and the owners of the drug companies are rich westerners who won't get dengue, but might get Ebola. Their lives are just a BIT more important than other peoples'.
Far more Western people get dengue than ebola. Pretty much all the victims of ebola are poor people; the non-poor victims can be counted on the fingers of one, maybe two hands. In other words, there is no money to be made on ebola vaccins, and yet Western companies created one anyway. Would you care to adjust your prejudices?
I'm worried about the effectiveness of the vaccin. What if none of the vaccinated group even came into contact with the virus?
.
It is only final until the next new top manager decides to monetize Windows in a different way. Give it 3-4 years, and they'll be back to 'normal' releases.
How can an entire team of engineers be so foolish?
When will we stop blaming management decisions on engineers? Do you really think engineers are in charge at Microsoft?
How are they making money though? And, given that it is Google, what will happen when they unexpectedly close the project, 2-3 years from now?
(still angry about them dropping Picasa!)
I reckon that's OK if it works for you. ... as long as you don't then complain that your browser is slow.
Gee thanks, that's kind of you. My browser isn't all that slow, but if it were, I most certainly would complain. Most of those pages are by and large static text, just sitting there without doing much. I don't see why that would cost me any kind of performance. I'm also not quite sure why a downloaded page of a few hundred kilobyte of text needs to expand into the tens of megabytes range just to display it.
You completely misunderstand the purpose of the experiment, then. The experiment is not "here is a crackpot theory, let's try to prove it". It's "here's a device that seems to produce an effect we cannot yet explain. Is the effect real, and what is the explanation?".
Several teams across the world claim to have replicated this result. Now, maybe it's all nonsense; maybe there is really something there we don't (yet) understand - the only thing I know is that it is too early to judge. And instead of explaining why the measurements could not have been taken, what you should be feeling is excitement at a mystery to be solved, and (very slight chance, but still) the possibility of a new extension to the laws of physics. If you really are a scientist, your job is not to close your mind and explain why everybody got it all wrong. It is to explain the effect apparently being measured.
And sure, it can be a measurement error. It can be outright fraud (unlikely, I think). It can be an overlooked conventional effect. But it can also be something new - something for which Nobel prizes are given out, something that may one day send probes to the stars. Shouldn't we at least look?