Brillian minds speaking outside their realm of expertise don't impress me much. Google "Carl Sagan Kuwait Oil Fires" to see how wrong cosmologists can be when pontificating about the Earth.
My wife and I use debit cards that hit the same checking account for just about everything. I keep an eagle eye on it, though, so that we can stay in budget. (Kids are expensive.)
I received an updated CC from Bank Of America, and it's got a chip-looking thing, but didn't receive a PIN, and don't remember seeing anything where I had to request one.
I wish I could think of the right terms to google for the stories I've read about the situation. Hard to find in the piles of results that are just about debugging GCC.
:)
Indexing all human knowledge is great and all, but often worthless when natural language is so ambiguous and overlapping.
I guess just keep it in the back of your mind and if you ever come across an article about the history of GCC debugging development, scan it for this information.
so they deliberately made the debugging output require hooks inside GCC
While I agree that what RMS did was probably unwise (this is the third time I written it), Cafe Alpha said, "(make it) deliberately harder to understand than clang" and "obfuscate (the) code".
I do not see where deliberately hooking debuggers to gcc does what CA claims it does.
He's taking useful features out... Only a fanatic would not call that "making software worse"
Ah, but that's not what you wrote in http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6934855&cid=49012347. Let me refresh your memory, FUD-monger: developers who've said that GCC has been made deliberately harder to understand than clang... Something about wanting to keep the wrong sort of developers out. Freedom to obfuscate your code isn't really freedom of information either.
"Taking useful features out" may -- or may not -- be foolish and unwise, but it does not obfuscate the code, nor make it harder to understand.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not nerdy enough.
Brillian minds speaking outside their realm of expertise don't impress me much. Google "Carl Sagan Kuwait Oil Fires" to see how wrong cosmologists can be when pontificating about the Earth.
So therefore we should never ever use software?
That in no way shape or form derives from what I wrote.
Horrible fscking grammar is what it is...
Does this mean that Ubuntu is a guest OS on a cloud powered by Windows?
You're just too young to remember how Eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiiillllll that RR was.
And have no sense of humor, either.
Ronald Reagan's cold dead hand stretches forth again to wreak havoc across the land!
Submitter can't be so dim that "human error" doesn't occur to him, can he?
(Females in the 21st century are too sainted to make this kind of mistake...)
Is it a theory or a hypothesis?
We seem to be pretty good to sticking to the budget
You're better than us, then... things go off the rails when I don't watch.
My wife and I use debit cards that hit the same checking account for just about everything. I keep an eagle eye on it, though, so that we can stay in budget. (Kids are expensive.)
just wondering how a crook could get a PIN
Software is hackable.
once I confirmed they were nothing to do with me
You have a computer and it's the second decade of the 21st century. How did you not see them?
so if your account is compromised, you're assumed to be at fault.
Even if C&P isn't secure. That's what I was afraid of.
One thing that I wonder about is the definition of "fraud".
If C&P isn't as secure as banks say, can the bad guys steal people's money but the banks deny it, saying that C&P is secure?
I received an updated CC from Bank Of America, and it's got a chip-looking thing, but didn't receive a PIN, and don't remember seeing anything where I had to request one.
Naturally not "he" and "dad".
The electronics won't appreciate the ventilation slits being covered. Why not make the Faraday cage out of mesh/screen?
2. Wrap TV carefully, don't allow any gaps
That's a joke, right?
143" HD screen for under $3k.
Brand and model would help.
But, but, but... EFF!!!
I wish I could think of the right terms to google for the stories I've read about the situation. Hard to find in the piles of results that are just about debugging GCC.
:)
Indexing all human knowledge is great and all, but often worthless when natural language is so ambiguous and overlapping.
I guess just keep it in the back of your mind and if you ever come across an article about the history of GCC debugging development, scan it for this information.
Will do.
so they deliberately made the debugging output require hooks inside GCC
While I agree that what RMS did was probably unwise (this is the third time I written it), Cafe Alpha said, "(make it) deliberately harder to understand than clang" and "obfuscate (the) code".
I do not see where deliberately hooking debuggers to gcc does what CA claims it does.
only metadata
Famous last words...
Then in http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6934855&cid=49015413 you should have mentioned that.
Changing the tune in the middle of the dance is a common debating tactic for the stupid and the losing.
He's taking useful features out ... Only a fanatic would not call that "making software worse"
Ah, but that's not what you wrote in http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6934855&cid=49012347.
Let me refresh your memory, FUD-monger: developers who've said that GCC has been made deliberately harder to understand than clang... Something about wanting to keep the wrong sort of developers out. Freedom to obfuscate your code isn't really freedom of information either.
"Taking useful features out" may -- or may not -- be foolish and unwise, but it does not obfuscate the code, nor make it harder to understand.