Agreed. I get really sick of people lumping those two together as if they are one language. The fate of C++ is dependent in part on that of C, but not vice versa.
I've also noticed many people talking about sometimes writing C code to add functionality beneath Python, Java, or the like. I wonder how much less common that would be if the underlying OS weren't written in C. If the underlying OS were written in Java, you'd be writing Java code to create your libraries.
And that brings me to the conclusion of the exercise: Someone needs to write an entire OS in Intercal.
You're moving a step closer to incremental development, from the sounds of it. Soon enough, you'll be using Common Lisp and wondering what you liked so much about C syntax in the first place.
I will, however, admit that C# has some of the best syntactic sugar of any language. Ruby has the same thing going for it, among others.
My thought is this... any key logger that is sophisticated enough to capture mouse movements, timestamps, etc., is going to be both more complicated to write and more difficult to use (especially in terms of decoding all the data it gathers into useful form) than the obvious solution: A custom version of Firefox or an IE plugin that logs forms. This covers all the more interesting parts of your life, such as webmail, bank accounts, and, of course, Slashdot.
It would be interesting to read the Craigslist articles of incorporation or charter, bylaws, and so forth. Did they include a clause that overrides the default rule about maximizing shareholder profits?
Isn't the word "competitive" always relative? My real gripe is actually that the actual price point isn't mentioned in the blurb. I am not new enough to Slashdot to ever RTFA, so I rely solely on the misinformation in the blurb and comments.
I had a Fisher Space Pen and loved it, until it turned out to be falsely advertised. It claims to write at any temperature, but it would not write at all when it was a scant -20F (-28C) out. I was very disappointed.
Most law school classes, especially those that are large enough for you to get away with browsing the web or talking on AIM through without the professor noticing, are taught in some form of the Socratic method. The Socratic method only works if enough people are paying attention to contribute to the learning. "Lecture" is the wrong word to use in describing these classes, and the quality of everyone's education goes up the more viewpoints and, more importantly, the more unique trains of thought get expressed aloud.
You use words like "bollocks." What legal system do you have?
As to the common law vs. civil code question, your argument is extremely naive and over-simplified.
The common law permits the law to evolve as each unique case is decided, rather than requiring a legislature to draft a comprehensive code by which all cases must be decided with no exceptions.
Do you really trust a legislative body to write a perfect, comprehensive code more than you trust judges, on average, to make the right decisions based on the law and the facts of each case that set it apart from other cases?
I wanted to also add this observation: The things that make the news are generally the exceptions to the norm. When you murder someone, it is perfectly normal to be convicted but highly unusual to be let off due to a lawyer's mistake. When you download a file, it is normal to be left alone but unusual to be sued - especially if you are homeless. That's why these things make the news, and it's why the McDonald's coffee verdict made the front-page news but the appellate court's modifications to that verdict didn't.
There are a few issues here. First off, the judge did dismiss the case and is not likely to give the RIAA a second chance against the homeless guy. The judge simply reversed the order of sanctions against the RIAA lawyers. So the RIAA lawyers aren't getting punished, but the suit is still dropped.
Second, double jeopardy is a very limited doctrine. It applies only in criminal cases and really only when there has been a trial with a judgment of not guilty on the exact same charge or one that is by necessity a part of it (such as an acquittal for manslaughter cuts off a prosecution for murder with the same event and victim). Some limited exceptions apply, such as when the prosecutor realizes he's going to lose and starts sexually harassing the jurors to get a mistrial so he can try again - that kind of trick doesn't work.
I blame the movie Double Jeopardy for most of the public confusion about the doctrine. Read the (mostly, albeit not perfectly, accurate) Wikipedia article for clarification.:)
I think that per-process or per-user memory quotas/limits are a more likely way to get malloc() to fail than the system running out of memory. But I also don't know if Windows has those.
I'm fairly certain that you have over-simplified and caricatured the situation a bit. The court system isn't, as a whole, broken. It's part of our checks and balances. What is broken is that federal judges are too hesitant to impose sanctions on those who deserve them.
This is in federal court. Federal judges are appointed for life, although they can be impeached if it gets bad enough. The magistrate judge who got it right in the first place is not appointed, though, to my knowledge.
I also spat peanut debris at her while on the flight, and at the gate I overheard her giggling to her father about nobody getting peanuts now. Does that help eliminate some of the assumptions?
On a side note, do people here believe everything they read in a Slashdot comment? The point is that, if you really can't be around peanuts, don't go places where there are guaranteed to be peanuts. You are the cheaper cost avoider, just like people with fear of heights should take the train rather than insisting that the jet taxi the whole way. It's exactly the same thing. You have an idiosyncrasy that requires you to work around it, and the only excuse you have for doing so is that you suffer a severe entitlement complex.
Just so I'm clear on this: You are in favor of children being raised to think they can get away with anything they want just by lying about it. Correct?
But, by the same token, providing the blind with access to Flash games is unreasonable to expect. It's a simple rule that is easy to apply - if it is not unreasonable to make provisions for the blind on your web page, then do so.
I am reminded of the most touching moment in all the time I spent programming. I had written a CLI Yahoo Messenger client. Version 2 added a curses interface, not too dissimilar in appearance from TinyFugue's. I got an e-mail later on asking if I would be so kind as to keep the non-curses version updated enough to connect and chat, since it was the only Yahoo Messenger client that was substantially screen-reader capable.
Adding a -DNOCURSES option to the project was very easy for me to do and allowed the blind and damn near blind to connect to a messenger service that they were, at the time, otherwise unable to use without being more frustrated than it was worth. The world was a (very, very marginally) better place because I did something small for a larger benefit. What's so tough about that?:)
One time, on one of the last flights ever to offer peanuts, I was flying to a frigid place from a pleasant one and the only joy left in my life was that little packet of peanuts on the plane. It just brings back happy memories of all the good travels I have had to eat what will always be remembered as "airline peanuts."
A little girl gleefully ran up to the gate agent and told her that she was allergic to peanuts and that they couldn't have any on the plane. The girl ran back to her parents with that smug "I just ruined your flight by making up a story to tell the gate agent and there's nothing you can do about it!" look on her face. But she was wrong, and there was something I could do about it. I immediately ran to an airport gift shop in search of a bag of peanuts. Failing that, I did buy a large Snickers bar and then run back to the gate and board my flight.
It turns out I was seated very near this unruly, obnoxious little brat, so I gleefully opened and slowly enjoyed my Snickers bar, peanuts and all. As it turns out, the girl had no reaction whatsoever to the peanuts a few seats away.
Am I an evil jerk? Maybe. Did I enjoy my flight ten times more by calling an obnoxious brat's bluff? Very much so. Would the plane taxi the whole way if I said I was afraid of heights? No.
People with idiosyncrasies like fear of heights and peanut allergies need to realize that when they are the cheaper cost avoiders and avoid the costs. People who make up idiosyncrasies for attention should furthermore be thrown off of cliffs. (Or is that redundant of the previous sentence?) If having a chance encounter with a peanut in the same room as you are in will kill you, then you need to be more careful of walking down the street and take those preparations to your decisions about whether and how to travel. If you see me walking around, munching on peanuts for no apparent reason, now you know why. I'm part of the solution.
New rule: Obvious jokes must be reserved for those with 5-digit or shorter Slashdot IDs. Respect your virtual elders, and get off my lawn while you're at it.:P
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I forgot to "omit [] words." =)
Agreed. I get really sick of people lumping those two together as if they are one language. The fate of C++ is dependent in part on that of C, but not vice versa.
I've also noticed many people talking about sometimes writing C code to add functionality beneath Python, Java, or the like. I wonder how much less common that would be if the underlying OS weren't written in C. If the underlying OS were written in Java, you'd be writing Java code to create your libraries.
And that brings me to the conclusion of the exercise: Someone needs to write an entire OS in Intercal.
You're moving a step closer to incremental development, from the sounds of it. Soon enough, you'll be using Common Lisp and wondering what you liked so much about C syntax in the first place.
I will, however, admit that C# has some of the best syntactic sugar of any language. Ruby has the same thing going for it, among others.
Duplicating your whole message in the subject line will make it easier for the key loggers to find out what you are up to.
(Sorry, it was necessary.)
My thought is this ... any key logger that is sophisticated enough to capture mouse movements, timestamps, etc., is going to be both more complicated to write and more difficult to use (especially in terms of decoding all the data it gathers into useful form) than the obvious solution: A custom version of Firefox or an IE plugin that logs forms. This covers all the more interesting parts of your life, such as webmail, bank accounts, and, of course, Slashdot.
It would be interesting to read the Craigslist articles of incorporation or charter, bylaws, and so forth. Did they include a clause that overrides the default rule about maximizing shareholder profits?
Isn't the word "competitive" always relative? My real gripe is actually that the actual price point isn't mentioned in the blurb. I am not new enough to Slashdot to ever RTFA, so I rely solely on the misinformation in the blurb and comments.
I had a Fisher Space Pen and loved it, until it turned out to be falsely advertised. It claims to write at any temperature, but it would not write at all when it was a scant -20F (-28C) out. I was very disappointed.
The B-52s are coming back, though, and I do mean the band. Funplex is the new album. o hai - im in ur lurv shakk, roman w/ all ur rock lobstahs
Most law school classes, especially those that are large enough for you to get away with browsing the web or talking on AIM through without the professor noticing, are taught in some form of the Socratic method. The Socratic method only works if enough people are paying attention to contribute to the learning. "Lecture" is the wrong word to use in describing these classes, and the quality of everyone's education goes up the more viewpoints and, more importantly, the more unique trains of thought get expressed aloud.
Did you want to describe how it's broken or just make an unsupported, vague claim?
You use words like "bollocks." What legal system do you have?
As to the common law vs. civil code question, your argument is extremely naive and over-simplified.
The common law permits the law to evolve as each unique case is decided, rather than requiring a legislature to draft a comprehensive code by which all cases must be decided with no exceptions.
Do you really trust a legislative body to write a perfect, comprehensive code more than you trust judges, on average, to make the right decisions based on the law and the facts of each case that set it apart from other cases?
I wanted to also add this observation: The things that make the news are generally the exceptions to the norm. When you murder someone, it is perfectly normal to be convicted but highly unusual to be let off due to a lawyer's mistake. When you download a file, it is normal to be left alone but unusual to be sued - especially if you are homeless. That's why these things make the news, and it's why the McDonald's coffee verdict made the front-page news but the appellate court's modifications to that verdict didn't.
There are a few issues here. First off, the judge did dismiss the case and is not likely to give the RIAA a second chance against the homeless guy. The judge simply reversed the order of sanctions against the RIAA lawyers. So the RIAA lawyers aren't getting punished, but the suit is still dropped.
:)
Second, double jeopardy is a very limited doctrine. It applies only in criminal cases and really only when there has been a trial with a judgment of not guilty on the exact same charge or one that is by necessity a part of it (such as an acquittal for manslaughter cuts off a prosecution for murder with the same event and victim). Some limited exceptions apply, such as when the prosecutor realizes he's going to lose and starts sexually harassing the jurors to get a mistrial so he can try again - that kind of trick doesn't work.
I blame the movie Double Jeopardy for most of the public confusion about the doctrine. Read the (mostly, albeit not perfectly, accurate) Wikipedia article for clarification.
I think that a better write-up may have made that more clear. The one that was actually posted on the Slashdot front page is pretty weak.
I think that per-process or per-user memory quotas/limits are a more likely way to get malloc() to fail than the system running out of memory. But I also don't know if Windows has those.
I'm fairly certain that you have over-simplified and caricatured the situation a bit. The court system isn't, as a whole, broken. It's part of our checks and balances. What is broken is that federal judges are too hesitant to impose sanctions on those who deserve them.
This is in federal court. Federal judges are appointed for life, although they can be impeached if it gets bad enough. The magistrate judge who got it right in the first place is not appointed, though, to my knowledge.
I also spat peanut debris at her while on the flight, and at the gate I overheard her giggling to her father about nobody getting peanuts now. Does that help eliminate some of the assumptions?
On a side note, do people here believe everything they read in a Slashdot comment? The point is that, if you really can't be around peanuts, don't go places where there are guaranteed to be peanuts. You are the cheaper cost avoider, just like people with fear of heights should take the train rather than insisting that the jet taxi the whole way. It's exactly the same thing. You have an idiosyncrasy that requires you to work around it, and the only excuse you have for doing so is that you suffer a severe entitlement complex.
Just so I'm clear on this: You are in favor of children being raised to think they can get away with anything they want just by lying about it. Correct?
I was sitting very close to her. She said she was so sensitive that a single peanut in the plane would kill her. It was a bluff.
But, by the same token, providing the blind with access to Flash games is unreasonable to expect. It's a simple rule that is easy to apply - if it is not unreasonable to make provisions for the blind on your web page, then do so.
:)
I am reminded of the most touching moment in all the time I spent programming. I had written a CLI Yahoo Messenger client. Version 2 added a curses interface, not too dissimilar in appearance from TinyFugue's. I got an e-mail later on asking if I would be so kind as to keep the non-curses version updated enough to connect and chat, since it was the only Yahoo Messenger client that was substantially screen-reader capable.
Adding a -DNOCURSES option to the project was very easy for me to do and allowed the blind and damn near blind to connect to a messenger service that they were, at the time, otherwise unable to use without being more frustrated than it was worth. The world was a (very, very marginally) better place because I did something small for a larger benefit. What's so tough about that?
One time, on one of the last flights ever to offer peanuts, I was flying to a frigid place from a pleasant one and the only joy left in my life was that little packet of peanuts on the plane. It just brings back happy memories of all the good travels I have had to eat what will always be remembered as "airline peanuts."
A little girl gleefully ran up to the gate agent and told her that she was allergic to peanuts and that they couldn't have any on the plane. The girl ran back to her parents with that smug "I just ruined your flight by making up a story to tell the gate agent and there's nothing you can do about it!" look on her face. But she was wrong, and there was something I could do about it. I immediately ran to an airport gift shop in search of a bag of peanuts. Failing that, I did buy a large Snickers bar and then run back to the gate and board my flight.
It turns out I was seated very near this unruly, obnoxious little brat, so I gleefully opened and slowly enjoyed my Snickers bar, peanuts and all. As it turns out, the girl had no reaction whatsoever to the peanuts a few seats away.
Am I an evil jerk? Maybe. Did I enjoy my flight ten times more by calling an obnoxious brat's bluff? Very much so. Would the plane taxi the whole way if I said I was afraid of heights? No.
People with idiosyncrasies like fear of heights and peanut allergies need to realize that when they are the cheaper cost avoiders and avoid the costs. People who make up idiosyncrasies for attention should furthermore be thrown off of cliffs. (Or is that redundant of the previous sentence?) If having a chance encounter with a peanut in the same room as you are in will kill you, then you need to be more careful of walking down the street and take those preparations to your decisions about whether and how to travel. If you see me walking around, munching on peanuts for no apparent reason, now you know why. I'm part of the solution.
New rule: Obvious jokes must be reserved for those with 5-digit or shorter Slashdot IDs. Respect your virtual elders, and get off my lawn while you're at it. :P