Morality is not globally valid
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Mankind is my business, and yours too. Enslave someone *anywhere*, and I have the moral right to stop you. Morality does not stop at national borders.
It's not as simple as that. Do you have the right to e.g. punish someone that thinks he/she is doing the right thing, no matter what organisation, religion or culture that person belongs to?
You don't have the right to force someone to do (or don't do) something unless that other person "agrees" (has the same cultural, religious or ethnic backround, or lives in the same country and abides to the same laws).
I think things like for example the U.N. declaration of the human rights are good things, but some other things don't simply have global validity. You take them for granted, like double glased windows, central heating, universities without fees, and taking your shoes off when going indoors (I'm a Swede), but everyone else does not.
You can't enforce things like that, not even the U.N. declaration of human rights, on anyone.
Enforcing a way of life upon someone is wrong. It is a violation of the integrity of the other person. It is denying everything that the other person is.
I'm not saying it's wrong to stop people hurting each other. I'm saying it's way wrong to call it your moral right to do so, because morality is not global.
And don't forget: The conflict in Aghanistan exists because of American foreign policy, because of economics, because of oil. Prove me wrong.
5000 people is a small prise to pay to ensure that ones interests in the middle east are not jeopardised. Don't come talking about moral, because moral is nothing.
I guess not a single one of the readers and posters here has actually used or seen a Windows XP system.
I'm sitting in front of one right now (the people I'm working for are MS slaves and won't even install security updates "until Microsoft tells us to do so").
Oh wait, it's better to have/bin for programs, and/usr/bin for programs, and/sbin for, uh, programs . . . some of which depend on files in various subfolders of/lib (or was it/usr/lib?) . . . much cleaner.
The scary part is that some of them is managing large numbers of Unix servers and workstations without knowing the difference between/opt and/usr/local and why it's wrong to have every single piece of additional software installed in/root and run as root.
I'm not struck by terror even if my NetBSD box without a network connection suddenly gets infected by a MS-Word macro virus. I'm just annoyed.
Terrorism is something that terrorises people. No one gets terrorised by a computer virus. No one lies awake at night fearing for their lives because they had to use a floppy that a friend gave them, but forgot to check it for viruses.
Terrorism is a little bit more sofisticated than that. Getting a whole nation to fear envelopes is a good example of terrorism (filophobia?). It's cheap, efficient and using almost no resources (most of the time, one can get the citizens themselves to help with spreading of hoaxes).
I say: If your company looses a lot of money because the MS operating system and the MS applications that you're using are faulty and insecure, then sue Microsoft!
Apaprantly, the submitter of the tidbit and me have different views of what an old Mac is...
To me, an old Mac is the SE/30 (the last Mac that I owned, and that I was very sad to let go of, it was a really Good Computer). A new Mac is one of those PowerPC thingies.
If all you need is some xterms, why bother with a windowmanager at all? Use screen and you'll have plenty.
Yeees... but what about previewing my LaTeX and lout docs, or performing simple cut 'n paste?
I am using screen when administrating the rack mounted beowulf cluster at work (from a Windows 2000 box), it's a great thing. But two/more windows behind each other lacks the flexibility of two xterms side by side.
Honestly, the only two window managers that I ever felt comfortable with are fvwm (v2 if you like) and twm (didn't find a really good link, but it's standard on NetBSD systems, so you all know what I'm talking about right?). All other managers are just visual fluff that eats memory, occupies the palette, and slows the computer down.
There has been some other really great ideas during the last few years, like the pwm and wm2 (and its sibling, wmx) window managers. They simple, easy to configure, and does NOT rely on tons of extra libraries.
Someone else here was talking about environments, but I just can't see why you would want an extra "environment" on top of the perfectly usable standard Unix environment that's already there... Also, some of them comes packed with applications tailored especially for use within that particular window manager, which in reality turns each "environment" into its own, well, distribution. One can devote a separate CD for GNOME or KDE applications and support libraries, many of which just duplicates the function of already existing Unix commands. Sometimes I think someone ought start a KDE/Linux distribution just to spare everyone else from having to download that extra CD ISO.
Then again, we might be talking about different audiences here. The teenagers might need cool "environments" to get lured into using GNU/Linux, and that might have a positive effect in 5 to 10 years. But I wouldn't be very surprised if the adoption of GNU/Linux (or any other of the free Unices for that matter) by desktop users would be slowed down by offering a vast amount of conflicting graphical environments.
I think it would be a good idea to correct the bugs and stabilise the already existing window manages, maybe even to unify some of the more similar ones. You can make most of the more configurable managers look like each other anyway.
I'm glad to have that sorted out. We can't have the japanese people of today coming over to the north Americas 15000 years ago. That would simply be too confusing...
Instead, there was a dry land bridge from Alaska to Siberia
For most people at the time, it went in the opposite direction.
CNN Washington Bureau Chief Frank Sesno was traveling in Pennsylvania and reported hearing "what sounded like a tremendous sonic boom" through the closed windows of his air-conditioned car.
It's a good thing they don't leave out any details that might turn out to be important...
We must keep our standards
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 2
I think that a lot of people feel a bit nervous to start a big programming project that will go through all the stages of development, right through to maintainance for two to five years, when the language used is not standardised.
You simply can't afford to let the language and the supporting libraries change too much when developing for the future. Using a language whos "version number" changes faster than Walt Disney's web site counter is simply not acceptable.
That's why C, C++ and Fortran are still so popular -- they haven't changed too much over the years. There's a new Fortran standard being released every four years, but if it was more frequently, people would stop using the language since they simply wouldn't trust the structure of the language to be stable.
Sure, yet another scripting language with all the bells and whistles is great fun and may be suitable for getting the small things done (small things == no real need for OOP), it's no use trying to deny that, but do you really want to put too much money into a project based on ad hoc standards?
Ok, I get your point, but my view is still that you should have at least some previous knowledge of programming before startnig with OOP. In that way you already know the "tool" and OOP becomes just another way in which you can use it.
So, no OOP in the very first programming course. That'll come in the second course.
Teaching programming using OOP is [not quite, but almost] like teaching math using finite element methods (which I know is being done in some places).
The language itself is not free, and it's not an open formal standard. To quote the Stroustrup FAQ:
Java isn't platform independent; it is a platform.
Like Windows, it is a proprietary commercial platform.
That is, you can write programs for Windows/Intel or Java/JVM, and in
each
case you are writing code for a platform owned by a single corporation
and tweaked for the commercial benefit of that corporation.
It has been pointed out that you can write programs in any language for
the JVM and associated operating systems facilities. However, the JVM,
etc.,
are heavily biased in favor of Java. It is nowhere near being a general
reasonably language-neutral VM/OS.
Java is, I would say, more platform dependent than C or C++. Furthermore C and C++ are actual real international (ISO) standards which means that you're protected against changes to the language that will make your old code incompatible with the new language every three years. Java is something that Sun does whatever they want with (and Microsoft has it extensions to it making it incompatible with the rest of the world as usual).
Why is Java more platform dependent than C or C++? First of all, if your platform hasn't got a JVM, you are done for. You can't run Java programs. If anyone tells you you don't need to have a JVM, then WHAT THE HECK IS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT?
There's absolutely nothing in the C or C++ language standards that says anything about the platform, that's why those languages are so great for writing embedded applications and operating systems. They don't even assume the existance of a monitor or a keyboard.
I have never in my life had a problem with running C++ code written using the Borland C++ tools on my GNU/Linux or NetBSD machine. I/have/ had troubles when people have been using extensions to the language, or as you call it "Borland C++ programs". The point is: Those programs are not C++. They are "Borland C++ programs". Those two things are not the same.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not as simple as that. Do you have the right to e.g. punish someone that thinks he/she is doing the right thing, no matter what organisation, religion or culture that person belongs to?
You don't have the right to force someone to do (or don't do) something unless that other person "agrees" (has the same cultural, religious or ethnic backround, or lives in the same country and abides to the same laws).
I think things like for example the U.N. declaration of the human rights are good things, but some other things don't simply have global validity. You take them for granted, like double glased windows, central heating, universities without fees, and taking your shoes off when going indoors (I'm a Swede), but everyone else does not. You can't enforce things like that, not even the U.N. declaration of human rights, on anyone.
Enforcing a way of life upon someone is wrong. It is a violation of the integrity of the other person. It is denying everything that the other person is.
I'm not saying it's wrong to stop people hurting each other. I'm saying it's way wrong to call it your moral right to do so, because morality is not global.
And don't forget: The conflict in Aghanistan exists because of American foreign policy, because of economics, because of oil. Prove me wrong.
5000 people is a small prise to pay to ensure that ones interests in the middle east are not jeopardised. Don't come talking about moral, because moral is nothing.
I'm sitting in front of one right now (the people I'm working for are MS slaves and won't even install security updates "until Microsoft tells us to do so").
My first impression of WinXP?
Teletubbies!
It's amazing how many Unix users there are that doesn't know a thing about FHS, the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard!
The scary part is that some of them is managing large numbers of Unix servers and workstations without knowing the difference between /opt and /usr/local and why it's wrong to have every single piece of additional software installed in /root and run as root.
Bugger'em
I'm not struck by terror even if my NetBSD box without a network connection suddenly gets infected by a MS-Word macro virus. I'm just annoyed.
Terrorism is something that terrorises people. No one gets terrorised by a computer virus. No one lies awake at night fearing for their lives because they had to use a floppy that a friend gave them, but forgot to check it for viruses.
Terrorism is a little bit more sofisticated than that. Getting a whole nation to fear envelopes is a good example of terrorism (filophobia?). It's cheap, efficient and using almost no resources (most of the time, one can get the citizens themselves to help with spreading of hoaxes).
I say: If your company looses a lot of money because the MS operating system and the MS applications that you're using are faulty and insecure, then sue Microsoft!
Apaprantly, the submitter of the tidbit and me have different views of what an old Mac is...
To me, an old Mac is the SE/30 (the last Mac that I owned, and that I was very sad to let go of, it was a really Good Computer). A new Mac is one of those PowerPC thingies.
Yeees... but what about previewing my LaTeX and lout docs, or performing simple cut 'n paste?
I am using screen when administrating the rack mounted beowulf cluster at work (from a Windows 2000 box), it's a great thing. But two/more windows behind each other lacks the flexibility of two xterms side by side.
Don't despair. At least you got to know what everyone thinks about window managers... And there's some really insightful comments out there.
(I don't know much about WM development, but...)
Honestly, the only two window managers that I ever felt comfortable with are fvwm (v2 if you like) and twm (didn't find a really good link, but it's standard on NetBSD systems, so you all know what I'm talking about right?). All other managers are just visual fluff that eats memory, occupies the palette, and slows the computer down.
There has been some other really great ideas during the last few years, like the pwm and wm2 (and its sibling, wmx) window managers. They simple, easy to configure, and does NOT rely on tons of extra libraries.
Someone else here was talking about environments, but I just can't see why you would want an extra "environment" on top of the perfectly usable standard Unix environment that's already there... Also, some of them comes packed with applications tailored especially for use within that particular window manager, which in reality turns each "environment" into its own, well, distribution. One can devote a separate CD for GNOME or KDE applications and support libraries, many of which just duplicates the function of already existing Unix commands. Sometimes I think someone ought start a KDE/Linux distribution just to spare everyone else from having to download that extra CD ISO.
Then again, we might be talking about different audiences here. The teenagers might need cool "environments" to get lured into using GNU/Linux, and that might have a positive effect in 5 to 10 years. But I wouldn't be very surprised if the adoption of GNU/Linux (or any other of the free Unices for that matter) by desktop users would be slowed down by offering a vast amount of conflicting graphical environments.
I think it would be a good idea to correct the bugs and stabilise the already existing window manages, maybe even to unify some of the more similar ones. You can make most of the more configurable managers look like each other anyway.
All that you need is some xterm windows.
The release notes for MS Windows NT 4.0 Resource Kit Supplement 4 also contained the BSD copyright.
Hmmm... Someone is making loud noices in Afghanistan.
I hope it's not the US, and if it is, I hope they have a very good reason for it.
Was just listening to Swedish radio...
I hope they won't rename OSF / Digital Unix / Tru64 again!
Note to self: Never kill people prematurely, always wait until told to do so.
You would be surprised to know how many archery accidents that happens each year by, eh, accident.
It's usually by christmas time and it's usually the neighbor or a sibling who gets killed.
Most of the time the parents are just as clueless as the kids.
"It's just a bow and arrow, it can't possibly hurt anyone".
Right.
Hmmm... This didn't have too much to do with the article, had it?
I'm glad to have that sorted out. We can't have the japanese people of today coming over to the north Americas 15000 years ago. That would simply be too confusing...
For most people at the time, it went in the opposite direction.Just being annoying...
It's a good thing they don't leave out any details that might turn out to be important...
I think that a lot of people feel a bit nervous to start a big programming project that will go through all the stages of development, right through to maintainance for two to five years, when the language used is not standardised.
You simply can't afford to let the language and the supporting libraries change too much when developing for the future. Using a language whos "version number" changes faster than Walt Disney's web site counter is simply not acceptable.
That's why C, C++ and Fortran are still so popular -- they haven't changed too much over the years. There's a new Fortran standard being released every four years, but if it was more frequently, people would stop using the language since they simply wouldn't trust the structure of the language to be stable.
Sure, yet another scripting language with all the bells and whistles is great fun and may be suitable for getting the small things done (small things == no real need for OOP), it's no use trying to deny that, but do you really want to put too much money into a project based on ad hoc standards?
Aha!
So there's where the MIR fungi went... I was wondering where it would show up.
It was the next natural step after the Kill -9 With a Doom Shotgun article from some time ago, I guess...
The next step will be have to be a lemmings-based office application, or maybe a combat flight simulator-based intrusion detection system.
The correct code would read:
#include
int main()
{
std::cout "Hello all!" std::endl;
}
The main function in C++ should look the same as in C (but may have '()' instead of '(void)').
You should read the C FAQ, sections 11.12, 11.14 and 11.15 at "http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/s11.html".
For an explanation of the 'std::' prefix, please ask comp.lang.c++ or alt.comp.learn.c-c++ about "namespaces".
With GCC, always use -Wall.
Ok, I get your point, but my view is still that you should have at least some previous knowledge of programming before startnig with OOP. In that way you already know the "tool" and OOP becomes just another way in which you can use it.
So, no OOP in the very first programming course. That'll come in the second course.
Teaching programming using OOP is [not quite, but almost] like teaching math using finite element methods (which I know is being done in some places).
Sig note: You know what I meant.
You're lucky this isn't comp.lang.c++!!!
It's always
int main()
(in C you have to do "int main(void)") or
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
(as in C).
Unlike C, you don't have to "return 0;" in C++ at the end of main.
OOP is a process, not a feature of a programming language. I can easily teach a OOP class using Fortran 77 or K&R C.
The whole purpose of teaching C++ is to tell the students what C++ is, and what it is not.
Also, I don't know if it's a good idea to try to explaing OOP to people who haven't done any programming whatsoever.
ps: About your sig: there _are_ no old Java programmers.
Java is, I would say, more platform dependent than C or C++. Furthermore C and C++ are actual real international (ISO) standards which means that you're protected against changes to the language that will make your old code incompatible with the new language every three years. Java is something that Sun does whatever they want with (and Microsoft has it extensions to it making it incompatible with the rest of the world as usual).
/have/ had troubles when people have been using extensions to the language, or as you call it "Borland C++ programs". The point is: Those programs are not C++. They are "Borland C++ programs". Those two things are not the same.
Why is Java more platform dependent than C or C++? First of all, if your platform hasn't got a JVM, you are done for. You can't run Java programs. If anyone tells you you don't need to have a JVM, then WHAT THE HECK IS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT?
There's absolutely nothing in the C or C++ language standards that says anything about the platform, that's why those languages are so great for writing embedded applications and operating systems. They don't even assume the existance of a monitor or a keyboard.
I have never in my life had a problem with running C++ code written using the Borland C++ tools on my GNU/Linux or NetBSD machine. I
Now, I need some coffee...