Lets start reading what I've stated, did you see the word "only" at the END OF THE F**KING SENTENCE?
Yes, I saw the word "only" at the END OF THE FUCKING SENTENCE.
Cooking meat? The topic is Strongly Typed Language; try to stay focused, princess.
I created an analogy to generaliz the topic to:
using a tool (iestrongly typed language vs cooking thermometer) that prevents only one type of issue in a family of issues (ie type related errors from the set of all programming errors vs the food borne infection vs all infections).
My focus is fine, do try to keep up. And my question stands: "Yes. And?"
What point were you trying to make? It appeared to me, and likely the people who modded me insightful, that you were disparaging the use of strongly typed languages because it "only" (there's that word again!) prevents one type of bug.
If that wasn't your intention, what was the point of your post? To just explicitly state the completely obvious?
I was just saying that once eyes were on the bug, that the bug itself was easy to fix.
I agree completely about the cost of testing/deployment/downtime; and think its batshit insane to advocate a language that doesn't catch these automatically at 'build' time.
I use ESLint with editor integration, which will tell me if I have unused, misspelled, or shadowed variables, among a hundred other code correctness issues.
Will it tell you that these are mistakes?
newX = coord1.x + coord2;//should be coord2.x newX = coord1.GetX;// should be coord1.GetX() console.Log(coord1+ ", " + coord2);
Yes they are truly stupid mistakes; which is why I called them typos. They are the sort of error you'd make in a hurry, or that might be left behind after some maintenance/edits but they are automatically caught by type checking.
transpiled languages like Typescript
Yeah, but that's another language. I actually like Typescript.
It's more of a 'types optional' thing now.
Sure, but where is the good argument for not using them? It's like advocating writing javascript without "use strict;" because uh... i can't really think of a good reason for doing that either.
If one uses Strongly Typed Languages, one gets fewer Strongly Typed Language errors; only.
Yes. And?
Catching type errors during compile is worlds better than finding at runtime, perhaps by an end user. Does it prevent logic errors, or memory leaks, or failure to sanitize inputs, or race conditions? No. It doesn't. So what?
If one uses a thermometer to check the temperature of cooked meat, one only reduces one type of infection vector. Are you suggesting the use of thermometers to check cooked meat isn't a good idea, because it won't prevent malaria or syphilis? Because that is how ridiculous your argument is.
That does not mean that the code is better in any way though.
It doesn't mean it is good, but of course its "better". A certain class of bugs eliminated.
All the subtle bugs and shitty coding practices may remain, but at least one issue is taken care of.
I despise javascript because in code of any complexity, a stupid typo in an infrequently used if-then-else clause explodes at runtime, possibly weeks or even months later. Sure its simple and easy to fix, but holy shit how can anyone want to use a language that doesn't catch just catch this stuff for you before it even tries running it.
The difference between Nestle's bottled water, and a bottle of coke is a fraction of a cent worth of syrup. That's it. Drop 1/10000th of $1 worth of flavoring from a bottle of coke, and its now a bottle of water.
If we're going to act all outraged at nestle for selling us overpriced water, then we should be just as outraged at coke for doing the exact same thing with coke.
Because that is the entire difference between the two products. 1/10000th of a $1. The rest, the packaging, bottling, marketing, distribution, quality control, etc is all exactly the same. The only difference between the business model for bottled water, and the business model for pop is a 1/10,000th of a dollar worth of syrup per unit.
What exactly makes Nestle worse? or even meaningfully any different?
And that's just the beverage industry... you should look at all the truly massive quantities of water that goes into various other manufacturing processes; and wait for it... companies pay almost nothing for it.
No one is forcing you to use the sensor and a simple piece of tape or a case can obscure it.
Yeah, because people want to put tape on their 1000 dollar phone. And cases are generally designed to work not to block, so they'll have a hole where a hole is required.
To be honest the cops forcing people to touch unlock their phones is probably what moved apple to this approach and the reason I've never used the touch sensor. The touch sensor was actually a bigger security hole because it appears they won't yet be able to force you to facial unlock the phone.
Under what legal theory are you operating under? Why can't they can't hold your phone up to your face to unlock it?
Because the operating system traps it, handles it, and does not propagate the event outwards. So it never reaches any thing an application can hook into.
But there is nothing stopping the operating system from trapping any other key sequence too. With USB keyboards and even bluetooth keyboards... there is NOTHING electrically special about ctrl-alt-delete now.
Once upon a time the BIOS trapped the key sequence coming in on the keyboard port, and didn't even propagate it to the operating system.
By the time we had 386 protected mode though any application that had kernel level permission could trap it. There were even some pre-windows application multitaskers that trapped it. (DR-DOS for example)
And in fact, Gate's quote that he thinks he made a mistake and that it should always have been a single button is actually odd.
No its not.
That would have been a disaster. There's no way to make a single button more secure than three buttons if you are trying to prevent an accidental restart.
You are not trying to prevent an accidental restart. He's talking about using them to bring up the login/logout/lock/taskmanager screens. It would not be a 'disaster' if there was a single key to do that. Hell.. we've had "Win-L" as a shortcut for lock for ages and nobody is really up in arms about that.
Yes CTRL-ALT-DEL once upon a time was a soft reboot, but that isn't what Bill Gates is apologizing for. He's apologizing for having to press it to bring up the login screen. There is no real reason that HAD to be the choice. The fact that it was basically 'reserved' and trapped at BIOS in legacy systems meant that it wouldn't conflict with any other applications; and the use as a 'restart' isn't that semantically distant to 'start/login' so the choice wasn't ridiculous.
However it certainly wasn't necessary.
Using a single button to show a screen where you'd have the option to restart is bad too, because back in the early days you needed to restart *quickly* sometimes.
What exactly is this supposed to mean? Why did you have to restart quickly in the early days exactly? Plus "Back in the early days" computers had a reset button on the physical case too, and a power switch. Some still do.
Ctrl-Alt-Delete was just a keyboard short cut that got ingrained early for one purpose and then repurposed over the years. In practice by the time Windows NT rolled around there was no real reason it couldn't have been something simpler/easier to reach, or even on a dedicated key or something.
I think he's saying that beyond that 30k in cash, the value of the house above and beyond your "nominal" payments also qualifies as a taxable benefit.
There are lots of games.
When you own 'one house' it's a taxable benefit to live there on the company dime, but when you own several houses you still only need to pay taxes on one, and if you own your primary one outright, you don't even need much income to keep that one going (just utilities, maintenance, and property taxes). The rest can be owned by the corporation and structured as legitimate travel expenses paid for by the corporation, and not necessarily a taxable benefit when you stay in them. Especially if you put up other executives in the places from time time, or host visiting business partners, etc...
No, I said, "Adjust rates and loopholes to fill any revenue holes."
I read that as simply adjusting the regular tax rates to make your proposal net revenue neutral to the government.
I didn't realize I was supposed to read it as 'fixxing all the hard problems my proposal creates, exacerbates, or perpetuates is left as an exercise to the reader'.:p
Like what? A place to live? That is taxable compensation. A car? That is taxable compensation. Food? Taxable compensation.
I already covered those. My taxable compensation will be 30k per year, maybe. Big deal, I'll pay taxes on that, happily.
you tax money on the way out of the corporation.
Encouraging me to keep money inside the corporation.
Who cares? They do that right now under the current system.
Yes, they do. And they pay corporate taxes. Your proposed your system preserves all the abuses and loopholes they already had, but reduces the taxes they pay. Nice.
Why does my system get held to a standard that the current system does not?
Your system is being compared to the current system to see if it is actually in some way "better". What other possible standard should we hold your system to? How it it BETTER than the current system? From what I can see, it just makes things worse.
But..that is NOT something the federal government is empowered by the constitution to do.
Arguably, the commerce clause actually does apply here since the issue is state A luring a specific entity from state B.
But even if didn't, its in the states collective best interest not to play this game, but unless they all agree not to play it, the one who plays it wins at the expense of the rest. This is precisely the sort of issue the federal government should be involved in, and if that takes an amendment... then it should be done.
That is PURELY on a state level. And it should be.
Why should large companies be allowed to pit states against each other for public handouts? How do we the public benefit from that?
There is a big difference between tax incentives to a specific entity to lure it from state A to state B, and the overall tax regime universally applied within a state.
It would be easy to target one while not touching the other.
The wealthy would just own corporations, and the corporations would own and pay for everything else.
If want to go on vacation? My corporation sends me to Paris, for business meetings, meeting potential vendors, or looking at possible expansion sites.
If want a cottage, my corporation buys it as an investment property, and I pay nominal rent to the corporation when i stay there. I also do that for my various homes, and cars.
I'd draw a nominal salary for food and clothing, maybe 30 or 40,000 per year, to cover that plus my nominal rents, and depreciating assets (so I realize some tax advantages from those). And the rest of my millions, in assets, property, stock holdings,... all growing tax free.
Sure, they'll ask for incentives, but 50000 employed people including a significant number of them being well paid makes a big difference in things like property tax, land value, etc.
Because big corporations don't already benefit from economies of scale, they should also get such large tax incentives that new laws have to be passed, while pitting cities and states against eachother to pay for them.
When people complain that corporations don't pay their fair share, this is precisely the sort of thing that needs to be stopped. Instead of passing legislation to grant amazon incentives, there should be federal law banning the practice outright.
Large corporations do not need, and should not receive 'incentives'. They already do not compete on an even footing, and it is ludicrous to further bend, and even rewrite, the rules in their favor.
Why not? I would think that even if my hand was paralyzed or amputated I could imagine typing and the brain would send the signals, it just wouldn't arrive at the muscles
I can 'imagine typing' and that's not the same thing as 'typing'. Can you really 'type' without a hand to type with? Maybe yes? Maybe no. I don't know. I know there are cases where you are injured and you *are* trying to move your hand it it doesn't move, and those cases this should work, but after you've been injured for a while (years) can you still even send the signals to move your hand or whatever, or do you forget how?
I can also say that I need a keyboard to type on. I need the feedback. The home key ridges, the guides the physical buttons make. The feedback from the keys. Typing, for me at least, is not a one way stream from brain to fingers, it is a two way stream where feedback from my finger tips results in constant tiny positional corrections, ensuring that i can maintain speed and accuracy.
Actually, suicide increases as access to guns decreases.
Wait... do you really think the suicide rate would actually go down in Japan if guns were more readily available there?
If anything, I think it'd go up even higher. Guns and gun laws aren't WHY people commit suicide, guns are just a relatively quick and reliable and way TO commit suicide.
Purely symbolic agreements like these are a symptom of the larger problem:
You are right that nobody wants to make real sacrifice, but it represents significant progress to get people to agree there is a problem that even needs to be addressed.
Step one to solving a problem is to admit there is a problem. While in many respects the paris accord does nothing to solve the problem, but from another perspective it's pretty impressive we even got the Paris accord.
Slashdot Mirror
ingredients need to be delivered, mixed and water carbonated
Fair point, I missed a couple inputs.
So you know nothing about manufacturing, figures.
That's a leap.
Some of us do know.
Well, then, if you know, then how about giving us some better. Anyone can say the costs are much higher. How much higher?
What does a 500mL plastic bottle of Coca-Cola cost to produce vs a 500mL bottle of Dansani bottled water?
d,f,j,k,m,q,u,v,x,y,z
it's missing: 11 :p
therefore it has 26-11 = 15
15 out of 26 isn't really that impressive.
Lets start reading what I've stated, did you see the word "only" at the END OF THE F**KING SENTENCE?
Yes, I saw the word "only" at the END OF THE FUCKING SENTENCE.
Cooking meat? The topic is Strongly Typed Language; try to stay focused, princess.
I created an analogy to generaliz the topic to:
using a tool (iestrongly typed language vs cooking thermometer) that prevents only one type of issue in a family of issues (ie type related errors from the set of all programming errors vs the food borne infection vs all infections).
My focus is fine, do try to keep up.
And my question stands: "Yes. And?"
What point were you trying to make? It appeared to me, and likely the people who modded me insightful, that you were disparaging the use of strongly typed languages because it "only" (there's that word again!) prevents one type of bug.
If that wasn't your intention, what was the point of your post? To just explicitly state the completely obvious?
I was just saying that once eyes were on the bug, that the bug itself was easy to fix.
I agree completely about the cost of testing/deployment/downtime; and think its batshit insane to advocate a language that doesn't catch these automatically at 'build' time.
I use ESLint with editor integration, which will tell me if I have unused, misspelled, or shadowed variables, among a hundred other code correctness issues.
Will it tell you that these are mistakes?
newX = coord1.x + coord2; //should be coord2.x // should be coord1.GetX()
newX = coord1.GetX;
console.Log(coord1+ ", " + coord2);
Yes they are truly stupid mistakes; which is why I called them typos. They are the sort of error you'd make in a hurry, or that might be left behind after some maintenance/edits but they are automatically caught by type checking.
transpiled languages like Typescript
Yeah, but that's another language. I actually like Typescript.
It's more of a 'types optional' thing now.
Sure, but where is the good argument for not using them? It's like advocating writing javascript without "use strict;" because uh... i can't really think of a good reason for doing that either.
If one uses Strongly Typed Languages, one gets fewer Strongly Typed Language errors; only.
Yes. And?
Catching type errors during compile is worlds better than finding at runtime, perhaps by an end user. Does it prevent logic errors, or memory leaks, or failure to sanitize inputs, or race conditions? No. It doesn't. So what?
If one uses a thermometer to check the temperature of cooked meat, one only reduces one type of infection vector. Are you suggesting the use of thermometers to check cooked meat isn't a good idea, because it won't prevent malaria or syphilis? Because that is how ridiculous your argument is.
That does not mean that the code is better in any way though.
It doesn't mean it is good, but of course its "better". A certain class of bugs eliminated.
All the subtle bugs and shitty coding practices may remain, but at least one issue is taken care of.
I despise javascript because in code of any complexity, a stupid typo in an infrequently used if-then-else clause explodes at runtime, possibly weeks or even months later. Sure its simple and easy to fix, but holy shit how can anyone want to use a language that doesn't catch just catch this stuff for you before it even tries running it.
How the hell did their PGP key even end up on their webserver?!?!?
The summary was all of 7 sentences; 3 of them were dedicated to the answer to this very question.
The difference between Nestle's bottled water, and a bottle of coke is a fraction of a cent worth of syrup. That's it. Drop 1/10000th of $1 worth of flavoring from a bottle of coke, and its now a bottle of water.
If we're going to act all outraged at nestle for selling us overpriced water, then we should be just as outraged at coke for doing the exact same thing with coke.
Because that is the entire difference between the two products. 1/10000th of a $1. The rest, the packaging, bottling, marketing, distribution, quality control, etc is all exactly the same. The only difference between the business model for bottled water, and the business model for pop is a 1/10,000th of a dollar worth of syrup per unit.
What exactly makes Nestle worse? or even meaningfully any different?
And that's just the beverage industry... you should look at all the truly massive quantities of water that goes into various other manufacturing processes; and wait for it... companies pay almost nothing for it.
Its even dumber than that.
Nestle's bottled water product is the same as Coke's flagship product, less a 1/100th a penny worth of flavoring. Are we made about that too now?
No one is forcing you to use the sensor and a simple piece of tape or a case can obscure it.
Yeah, because people want to put tape on their 1000 dollar phone. And cases are generally designed to work not to block, so they'll have a hole where a hole is required.
To be honest the cops forcing people to touch unlock their phones is probably what moved apple to this approach and the reason I've never used the touch sensor. The touch sensor was actually a bigger security hole because it appears they won't yet be able to force you to facial unlock the phone.
Under what legal theory are you operating under? Why can't they can't hold your phone up to your face to unlock it?
Programs cannot (could not?)trap ctrl-alt-delete.
Because the operating system traps it, handles it, and does not propagate the event outwards. So it never reaches any thing an application can hook into.
But there is nothing stopping the operating system from trapping any other key sequence too. With USB keyboards and even bluetooth keyboards... there is NOTHING electrically special about ctrl-alt-delete now.
Once upon a time the BIOS trapped the key sequence coming in on the keyboard port, and didn't even propagate it to the operating system.
By the time we had 386 protected mode though any application that had kernel level permission could trap it. There were even some pre-windows application multitaskers that trapped it. (DR-DOS for example)
Today, any key sequence could be used.
And in fact, Gate's quote that he thinks he made a mistake and that it should always have been a single button is actually odd.
No its not.
That would have been a disaster. There's no way to make a single button more secure than three buttons if you are trying to prevent an accidental restart.
You are not trying to prevent an accidental restart. He's talking about using them to bring up the login/logout/lock/taskmanager screens. It would not be a 'disaster' if there was a single key to do that. Hell.. we've had "Win-L" as a shortcut for lock for ages and nobody is really up in arms about that.
Yes CTRL-ALT-DEL once upon a time was a soft reboot, but that isn't what Bill Gates is apologizing for. He's apologizing for having to press it to bring up the login screen. There is no real reason that HAD to be the choice. The fact that it was basically 'reserved' and trapped at BIOS in legacy systems meant that it wouldn't conflict with any other applications; and the use as a 'restart' isn't that semantically distant to 'start/login' so the choice wasn't ridiculous.
However it certainly wasn't necessary.
Using a single button to show a screen where you'd have the option to restart is bad too, because back in the early days you needed to restart *quickly* sometimes.
What exactly is this supposed to mean? Why did you have to restart quickly in the early days exactly? Plus "Back in the early days" computers had a reset button on the physical case too, and a power switch. Some still do.
Ctrl-Alt-Delete was just a keyboard short cut that got ingrained early for one purpose and then repurposed over the years. In practice by the time Windows NT rolled around there was no real reason it couldn't have been something simpler/easier to reach, or even on a dedicated key or something.
I think he's saying that beyond that 30k in cash, the value of the house above and beyond your "nominal" payments also qualifies as a taxable benefit.
There are lots of games.
When you own 'one house' it's a taxable benefit to live there on the company dime, but when you own several houses you still only need to pay taxes on one, and if you own your primary one outright, you don't even need much income to keep that one going (just utilities, maintenance, and property taxes). The rest can be owned by the corporation and structured as legitimate travel expenses paid for by the corporation, and not necessarily a taxable benefit when you stay in them. Especially if you put up other executives in the places from time time, or host visiting business partners, etc...
No, I said, "Adjust rates and loopholes to fill any revenue holes."
I read that as simply adjusting the regular tax rates to make your proposal net revenue neutral to the government.
I didn't realize I was supposed to read it as 'fixxing all the hard problems my proposal creates, exacerbates, or perpetuates is left as an exercise to the reader'. :p
Like what? A place to live? That is taxable compensation. A car? That is taxable compensation. Food? Taxable compensation.
I already covered those. My taxable compensation will be 30k per year, maybe. Big deal, I'll pay taxes on that, happily.
you tax money on the way out of the corporation.
Encouraging me to keep money inside the corporation.
Who cares? They do that right now under the current system.
Yes, they do. And they pay corporate taxes. Your proposed your system preserves all the abuses and loopholes they already had, but reduces the taxes they pay. Nice.
Why does my system get held to a standard that the current system does not?
Your system is being compared to the current system to see if it is actually in some way "better". What other possible standard should we hold your system to? How it it BETTER than the current system? From what I can see, it just makes things worse.
But..that is NOT something the federal government is empowered by the constitution to do.
Arguably, the commerce clause actually does apply here since the issue is state A luring a specific entity from state B.
But even if didn't, its in the states collective best interest not to play this game, but unless they all agree not to play it, the one who plays it wins at the expense of the rest. This is precisely the sort of issue the federal government should be involved in, and if that takes an amendment ... then it should be done.
That is PURELY on a state level. And it should be.
Why should large companies be allowed to pit states against each other for public handouts? How do we the public benefit from that?
Not really.
There is a big difference between tax incentives to a specific entity to lure it from state A to state B, and the overall tax regime universally applied within a state.
It would be easy to target one while not touching the other.
Then it would never be "out".
The wealthy would just own corporations, and the corporations would own and pay for everything else.
If want to go on vacation? My corporation sends me to Paris, for business meetings, meeting potential vendors, or looking at possible expansion sites.
If want a cottage, my corporation buys it as an investment property, and I pay nominal rent to the corporation when i stay there. I also do that for my various homes, and cars.
I'd draw a nominal salary for food and clothing, maybe 30 or 40,000 per year, to cover that plus my nominal rents, and depreciating assets (so I realize some tax advantages from those). And the rest of my millions, in assets, property, stock holdings, ... all growing tax free.
I don't think this works.
Would you also tax corporate capital gains?
Sure, they'll ask for incentives, but 50000 employed people including a significant number of them being well paid makes a big difference in things like property tax, land value, etc.
Because big corporations don't already benefit from economies of scale, they should also get such large tax incentives that new laws have to be passed, while pitting cities and states against eachother to pay for them.
When people complain that corporations don't pay their fair share, this is precisely the sort of thing that needs to be stopped. Instead of passing legislation to grant amazon incentives, there should be federal law banning the practice outright.
Large corporations do not need, and should not receive 'incentives'. They already do not compete on an even footing, and it is ludicrous to further bend, and even rewrite, the rules in their favor.
The question is, will it shatter when the ship gets hit by a shock wave that does not kill the crew?
The controllers aren't indestructable but they're pretty good, (remember the old atari joysticks?)
As long they've got a spare or 2 in the original packaging stashed nearby, does it even matter?
I just find it more interesting that they're going with the older xbox 360 over the newer xbox one controllers.
Why not? I would think that even if my hand was paralyzed or amputated I could imagine typing and the brain would send the signals, it just wouldn't arrive at the muscles
I can 'imagine typing' and that's not the same thing as 'typing'. Can you really 'type' without a hand to type with? Maybe yes? Maybe no. I don't know. I know there are cases where you are injured and you *are* trying to move your hand it it doesn't move, and those cases this should work, but after you've been injured for a while (years) can you still even send the signals to move your hand or whatever, or do you forget how?
I can also say that I need a keyboard to type on. I need the feedback. The home key ridges, the guides the physical buttons make. The feedback from the keys. Typing, for me at least, is not a one way stream from brain to fingers, it is a two way stream where feedback from my finger tips results in constant tiny positional corrections, ensuring that i can maintain speed and accuracy.
Actually, suicide increases as access to guns decreases.
Wait... do you really think the suicide rate would actually go down in Japan if guns were more readily available there?
If anything, I think it'd go up even higher. Guns and gun laws aren't WHY people commit suicide, guns are just a relatively quick and reliable and way TO commit suicide.
Purely symbolic agreements like these are a symptom of the larger problem:
You are right that nobody wants to make real sacrifice, but it represents significant progress to get people to agree there is a problem that even needs to be addressed.
Step one to solving a problem is to admit there is a problem. While in many respects the paris accord does nothing to solve the problem, but from another perspective it's pretty impressive we even got the Paris accord.