"Yes they do but where does it developers have a right to use Apple's store to distribute their software as they wish. Nowhere."
Flip that around from the users perspective and ask why the user when they buy an iPhone doesn't have the right to run the software they want to run and only the software Apple lets them run from the only official app source.
Who gives a fuck what Apple thinks, if Apple has only given that single official avenue to end users to install apps then users should be able to install the apps they want from it, or Apple should enable side-loading. It's not a question of Apple's rights, it's a question of users right to be able to use the device they've bought with the software they want to use.
There's no problem with abiding by Apple's distribution channel if there are alternatives, but Apple can't make it's app store the only legitimate distribution channel and then restrict what people can and can't do on it and expect not to be called out on that.
"What you consider fair is not what everyone considers fair. Some developers do not want anyone to see their source code under any circumstances."
What are you on about? Allowing GPL code on the app store wouldn't force every other app to suddenly become GPL...
You seem to have gone off on a tangent about a very fringe edge case which you personally dislike, none of which changes the fact that IDEs make you way more productive as a developer.
Further, contrary to all the FOSS FUD one of the reasons that Microsoft's products like Windows and Office are succesful is because people actually find them easier to use. This is in part because Microsoft spends a fortune on usability studies that let them objectively design in the way that best helps the user do what they need to do, something which FOSS software almost never benefits from because most UI work is done by developers who think they know better, but don't.
Given the way he seems to be letting corporations and the security services dictate what should and shouldn't happen I'd argue the same applies to Obama's job too to be honest.
"*A* learning curve is OK, but every IDE has its own learning curve, then every iteration of those IDEs have learning curves as well. I like learning about new technologies and algorithms, but I'm busy. I'm sick of re-inventing the wheel every time I want to get down and get some work done."
I disagree. The first IDE I used was Borland Turbo C++ in DOS and Turbo Pascal shortly after. My first GUI based IDE was MSVC++ 4. In recent years I've used things like Eclipse, and NetBeans and have used pretty much every edition of Visual Studio as well as some "fringe" IDEs like BlueJ.
The biggest differences are in configuration - i.e. debugging is built into Visual Studio so it "just works" but getting XDebug working for PHP in NetBeans was a fucking nightmare.
But assuming everything is working they all work pretty much the same, there are a few different features but it's pretty intuitive as to how they work. This is slightly less so in Eclipse with things like Maven but you could throw a new IDE at me tomorrow and I'd be productive in it in no time at all. At the end of the day when developing you know you have a few key tools you need - a code editor, a debugger, build tools and so forth and finding them and figuring them out if you've worked with one IDE like Visual Studio is really quite trivial.
There's always going to be something to learn when using new software or technologies but I don't find switching between IDEs prohibitive in this respect.
"I typically work on cross platform stuff, Linux, Windows, Mac. I have tried many IDEs and when all is said and done, I end up configuring a standard makefile based project. I have to do all the I normally do, but then I have to deal with the IDE on top of that. It just does not make my life any easier."
I sympathise with this, it does get more awkward if you have to work cross platform. Few IDEs are any good at creating cross platform projects. The normal solution though is to have a Visual Studio project file for VS Windows, XCode files for Mac, and whatever else for Linux and other platforms you want. Creating them (you can put them in separate folders) is easier and quicker than building makefiles, but of course if you're talking about one IDE to work across all platforms then again I sympathise, none are really good at that.
"Lastly, to use VC, I'd have to run Windows, and, really, that's not something I'd want to do. I find the terribly unproductive."
It's probably just a question of what you're used to, but even Windows supports things like Cygwin if you must. Once you get going with Visual Studio specifically though as I say I'm convinced it's the single most productive development environment around, some others come close but I've felt nothing quite touches it and it is in large part as I say because of intellisense, it's just so smart in terms of guessing what you want to type next such that you don't have to.
For example, just an arbitrary demonstration from the IDE window I have open right now:
string name = MySpecialType.GetType().Assembly.FullName;
Can be typed as:
string name = My.GetT().A.F;
That's typed 16 characters after the equals vs. 40 and less scope for typos requiring backspacing as a result. Across a full class or project you can surely imagine this results in code being churn out way way faster. It's a wonderful feeling being able to churn out code as quickly as you can think through the problem, rather than as quickly as you can type which is what this sort of thing helps allow you to do.
Things like Eclipse support this too but it's dog slow as to be useless as you've typed it before the intellisense pops up. NetBeans is better but not very smart.
IDEs also make things like refactoring and jumping between code easy as well, click a classname, method or whatever and hit F12 and it takes you to where that class/method/variable is defined and visual diff between multiple files/versions is excellent. Language features in C# are helpful too in terms of IDE integration, like code regions for example.
IDEs have a learning curve and this puts a lot of folk like you who are stuck in their ways with their command line tools off and that's okay.
But it's not a particularly steep learning curve, and if you bother to sit through it you become way more productive because things like intellisense let you churn out code way faster than you can manually type it.
But despite this, Microsoft actually provides a ton of documentation about it's command line tools (the same was VS utilises) and VS project/configuration files so you can work exactly as you like to with VS projects and command line tools if you really must. Microsoft mainly provides them for automation purposes though because it's silly to develop that way in this day and age.
That's because the author is a first class idiot. Slashdot for some reason seems to parrot his views all the time now, in fact, I think he's even employed by them.
The problem is he also has no idea what he's on about, because every one of his opinions that have been posted to the news page recently have been based off of lack of knowledge or outright wrong.
For example, he tried comparing a simple servlet against an MVC page for his Java vs..NET performance test claiming they were equivalent but this is utterly nonsensical as an MVC request does an awful lot more (it has to route the request for one, as well as run any action filters etc.).
The guy is just completely clueless, he has really no idea of what he's on about. I can't help but wonder if Slashdot employed him knowing how inexperienced and lacking in knowledge he was just to stir up page hits with his articles that basically amount to trolling.
I suppose it depends how slowly you type. Eclipse has always been too slow with it's intellisense for it to offer me any value. In contrast Visual Studio's works excellently because it's fast and can keep up with the speed at which I type and hence autocomplete for me on time and speed me up even more.
So sure even if Eclipse's is more intelligent (I don't think it is anyway) then what use is that if it's too slow as to be of any benefit unless you hen peck the keys at a grandad rate?
"I can only conclude, you don't have any â" but aren't man enough to admit it."
And that making of excuses, rather than a simple Google search, is why you will remain wrong. It's known as wilful ignorance, and you're engaging in it. Here:
"When the alternative to killing is letting the target escape, killing is justified."
So why is it wrong that Obama's drone strikes are deep in Pakistani territory that that's the case? Why was Bush's killing of Zarqawi acceptable given that the fucking bombs were guided in using laser painters from ground based troops? You still can't explain any difference between the Obama and Bush programme because there isn't one. You're clutching at straws because for every example of a killing where there could've been a capture under Obama there is one under Bush.
"Did you skip the high-school debating exercises or something?"
We don't have them here which seems to be an excellent thing given that all it seems to teach you is that if you can't be arsed to perform a 5 second verification of something for yourself then it's okay to just demand that it must be wrong even when it's not. Given the absolutely pathetic level of political discourse in your country it obviously hasn't done much for debating in your nation as a whole either. All it's taught you and your fellow Americans is how to be wrong and demand that you're right, even when you're not. No wonder your nation has such a reputation for being thick as pig shit - you teach ignorance and tactics for defending your wilful ignorance in your schools.
You know you don't have to type multiple paragraphs going off topic to admit that you were wrong to claim it's the UN's job to punish countries for not adhering to US ideals. Just the first paragraph would've done it.
I don't know why people like you find it so hard to admit you were wrong because that's exactly what you've just done in a rather long winded way.
Ah, I see, so you're just horrendously bad at your job then because anyone actually doing rescuing would need to be compassionate and would recognise the value of saving pets in keeping people calm and comfortable in a tragic situation.
"Actually, by joining the UN you generally agree to follow a lot of US-Style rules."
That's not how the UN works, the UN has a number of areas and you join them separately. For example, you join the IMO to engage in defining and implementing international standards on maritime issues.
There are declarations that define how the majority of the UN would like things to be but again, they're non-binding.
The USSR under Stalin abstained from voting on the UDHR FWIW.
Have a read of what it actually says. Just about all those clauses talk about governments having the right to monitor/snoop on their own national sections of the internet (i.e. what Prism does).
Unfortunately that news article masks that fact because it's written by an over-reactive emo-hipster who doesn't understand what she's reading.
The first part of the document simply tries to clarify terms because getting agreement on terms itself is a nightmare. Section 31a just largely defines what already happens albeit with more focus on international agreement, 31b already happens in terms of numbering, and naming is what I referred to in terms of bringing ICANN under international control, 31c is about being able to regulate the internet nationally, and 31d and 31e already happen.
If that's as damning as it gets then it's not very damning really is it?
What is the "UN" declaration of human rights? I'm assuming you're referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
If that's what you're referring to then it's non-binding and is primarily just a framework. Implementations include things like the European Convention on Human Rights which EU member nations implement and the European Court of Human Rights enforces. Also, said members haven't all agreed to it anyway, there are around 203 countries, and only 48 voted for the UDHR with 8 abstaining.
It seems a bit rich though for you to bring that up and suggest that America is the guiding example of enforcing it and others should be punished for not doing so. I'd ask that you actually read the articles contained within it, specifically have a look at articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and ask yourself if given the context of Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and waterboarding you still believe the US is somehow doing better on this document than many other member nations? If you look at all the articles it doesn't take a second's thought to recognise that the US has succeded in maintaining even half of them and has violated most in the last 10 years alone.
I think you're on weak ground here because you have a rather ethnocentric view but seem oblivious to the fact that the very nation you cite as the shining example other nations should be held to account for not reaching has been one of the biggest violators of the document you cite.
The reason the US has gotten away with it is precisely because it is non-binding and although it has breached it's own laws that implement sections of it no one internally is holding the nation, government, or military to account over violations. If the US can't even hold itself to account when breaking it's own binding laws then how can it expect to hold anyone else to account over a non-binding agreement?
Sounds like the biggest mistake they made was rescuing you not the animals as you apparently don't have anything valuable to contribute to society whilst pets at least provide their owners with comfort.
The infrastructure isn't even in discussion though, really the debate is only about ICANN and domain name assignment - i.e. should the US really have the final say on who can and can't have gtlds and who can and can't have international domain names?
The problem is that the argument has been blown out of all proportion and context. I suspect this is in part by vested interests who want to maintain the status quo. By framing it as an argument about freedom of speech, civil liberties, access to and spying on the internet they've successfully diverted away from the real issue, and that's that internet naming could probably be done in a more neutral manner if a less US-centric party was involved. Look how long internationalised domain names took to come about for example - it was 2009 when they finally arrived, this is because it just wasn't a priority for the English speaking ICANN with it's ethnocentric view of the world.
Similarly nations like Antigua have valid complaints that the US has abused it's control of international domain registry to seize DNS entries for perfectly legal international gambling sites. What the US should've done is had the debate about internet censorship internally if it wants to prevent it's citizens accessing legal overseas online gambling sites but those behind it knew they'd lose that argument so they instead abused their control of international TLDs to censor these legitimate business globally instead.
I'd be the last person to give control of the pipes and endpoints to China and Russia, but making domain name assignment and management fairer internationally and less-US centric? I'm quite okay with that because there's only so much harm the "bad guys" could do even if they did somehow manage to hijack the entire domain name system. It's really quite valid and innocent, but try telling that to the likes of Fox News when the word "China" is involved such that they instead started conflating it with general ITU disputes about charging for usage of international telecomms transit routes and so forth. I think the US has abused it's control of ICANN enough and the maximum amount of harm from making management of ICANN more international small enough to make it a fair proposal.
"That aside, the US still does have one of the best freedom of speech while the UN doesn't seem to have any desire to enforce or even go after member nations that are hostile to freedom of speech."
Huh? That's not the UN's job, or are you suggesting the UN should exist to impose US was of life on the whole world against their will?
I'm not even sure what you say makes any sense, "the UN doesn't seem to have any desire" - why would it? It's composed of the very nations you're saying it should go after, whatever "go after" means, war? economic sanctions for not adhering to the US way? What action do you think the UN should take exactly if it even could?
It almost sounds as if you don't want nations to be heard at the UN unless they adhere to your whims... that sounds an awful lot like censorship to me. One of the downsides of the US' freedom of speech laws you cite as being an example of "good" is that yes, sometimes it means you have to listen to the Phelps too as distasteful as most people find that but that's the price you pay for that freedom. The UN is no different, stop trying to suggest your will should be imposed on everyone else like a little fascist.
"First, it's something to show off if you know how to circumvent net nanny and the like"
Exactly, and even more so, because porn is contraband they can show off if they have it too. So creating a veil of pretending that it's some majorly dangerous contraband just means they'll be more inclined to seek it out.
Kids more so than any other age group are constantly battling to increase their standing in their social groups at school and so forth, and the more you pretend porn is taboo, the more lucrative a thing it is show off in your social group to increase your standing and the more likely it is that kids will hence find a way to access it. As the say goes, where there's a will there's a way, and prohibition creates an ever stronger will.
80% of parents are against it, yes parents, not lone single adults, actual parents. Factor in the rest of the population including those without kids and it'll sway even more against it.
I'd wager at most 10% of the population support a default filter. This is a fascist minority who want to impose their will on the vast majority of the population and The Daily Mail and Claire Perry are the figureheads of the campaign.
Or just fight it because if Snowden's leaks have told us anything in the UK it's that even when the government pretends to be transparent it's not.
For example, they claimed they needed the Interception Modernisation Programme to be able to keep up to date with modern spying requirements. Two successive governments involving all three main parties in fact have pushed exactly this but each time the public has said no way.
It turns out GCHQ has been doing it anyway and the so the legislation was being pushed to legalise what was already being done illegally.
So given that, why would we trust them on filtering? Even if they said it's going to happen and offer transparency on what's blocked we can't trust that they wont block anything else as they've already proven themselves untrustworthy. Better to fight the law altogether and even produce and distribute tools that make it a one click operation to bypass the filters (very easily done).
Ironically though if you read TFA you'd see that it's actually not going to happen anyway, basically Claire Perry the retard behind this along with her ultra-religious hard right media fanaticists like The Daily Mail has been defeated but is asking ISPs to pretend that she hasn't by pretending what they're offering is something that it isn't.
"the real question is, does it make things better - and how much? And what do we understand by better?"
Right and we know the answers to these. No it doesn't make things better because kids will always find porn, even if they don't find it at home someone will bring it into school. They may even just use one of the trivial methods of getting around the block at home though, because it's that easy for a kid - as soon as one kid at school gets told by their older brother how, then every kid at school will know. They'll always find it and there's absolutely no getting away from that.
"and they don't want to have to learn something they find difficult. And this scheme doesn't affect the freedom of those who want it - they just have to make a bit more of an effort. What's not to like about it?"
So your argument is that some parents are too lazy to set up a filter so they shouldn't have to go out their way to do so and instead everyone else should have to go out there way to remove it?
Why when the default is that the lazy parents have to expend effort should we reverse that exactly? What have they done that warrants everyone else having to dance around them because they can't be bothered to be parents?
So effectively you're arguing that everyone else should have to go out there way to expend effort because some parents are too lazy to parent and instead want an ineffective mechanism that allows them to pretend to be parenting. That's what's not to like about that - it's a waste of everyone's time, money, and effort for literally zero benefit.
All it takes is one kid at school to have unfiltered access at home, to have an unfiltered mobile phone, to find a page 3 lying around and by the end of the next day every kid in school will have seen it.
When I was a kid we used to go and dick around at a building site sometimes for new homes, the builders always left a ton of porn just lying around though I'm not sure if we were more interested in that or the big fuck off tools and sharp things that you could throw like a ninja and watch them stick into the breeze block walls.
It's not like I even had a deprived childhood or anything, my parents and friends were of all wealth backgrounds and we all did that sort of thing and this was before the web was even a thing. By the time I was 14 the web was an actual thing and we had access at school, it was filtered but it didn't matter because once one of the 16 year old kids brought in some hot Sandra Bullock pictures amongst others on a floppy disk it was all around the network hidden in the depths of Windows system folders and so forth, usually alongside a copy of Doom that we played multiplayer at lunchtime when the teachers buggered off for their lunch. We all knew where to find it all even if the teachers and admins never did.
It's even easier for a kid to find and stumble across it now, have no illusions, even if they haven't already they will long before you think they will.
"Can't we just have a language that gives us both and stop shoving one or the other down our throats? As in, the language has a built-in keyword/feature that allows one to dynamically bind function/program/thread/whatever-level to your memory arena (GC or non-GC) of choice?"
Doesn't.NET's CLR do exactly that with C#/C++ and the ability to jump out to unmanaged code?
Alternatively if you prefer unmanaged by default you can just implement a garbage collector in C++ and use it when you need to, avoid it when you don't.
I don't really see what's surprising about all that. The mobile GC does more to prevent itself hitting memory constraints, doing more is always going to cost more than doing less so of course the mobile GC will perform worse than the desktop GC.
But I don't think he's saying it performs worse than the desktop one would when it hits memory constraints of the device and that's really the key.
Optimisation is often about the trade-off between between memory/storage and processing. If memory/storage/bandwidth is tight then you can increase CPU usage to take the strain off the memory/storage/bandwidth limitation - compression being the obvious and common example. If CPU is tight and memory/storage/bandwidth is plenty then use big fat pre-processed lookup tables or whatever rather than calculating dynamically as an obvious example in that case.
There's no free lunch, on mobile the constraint seems to be memory more than anything else so it makes sense to use just a little more CPU to prevent hitting the boundaries of that.
I just don't really see the problem. There doesn't seem to be anything new here.
I think what he's saying is that the DOM is poorly designed and that's partly because of and partly contributes to poor documentation.
The net result is a clusterfuck with many other clusterfucks built on top of it and we all know that clusterfucks stacked on clusterfucks are especially slow. Or something.
No seriously, I think there's some merit in the point, that if it's not well designed and everyone and anyone has just thrown their own bits and pieces in and much of it isn't well documented then it becomes hard to optimise. It may be that we could achieve speedups by removing obsolete parts, but if they're not documented then how do we know if they're definitely obsolete? Even if removing obsolete parts themselves doesn't offer a speedup, it at least results in a cleaner code base that is then easier to optimise.
Fixing documentation in itself will have no impact on performance, but it'll definitely help in putting developers in a better position to do things that will achieve performance gains. It would be quite sensible to start looking at how the DOM can be improved by looking through the documentation to see what is and isn't relevant still, and what is and isn't a candidate for improvement, but that becomes a far harder task if documentation is wrong or out of date.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes they do but where does it developers have a right to use Apple's store to distribute their software as they wish. Nowhere."
Flip that around from the users perspective and ask why the user when they buy an iPhone doesn't have the right to run the software they want to run and only the software Apple lets them run from the only official app source.
Who gives a fuck what Apple thinks, if Apple has only given that single official avenue to end users to install apps then users should be able to install the apps they want from it, or Apple should enable side-loading. It's not a question of Apple's rights, it's a question of users right to be able to use the device they've bought with the software they want to use.
There's no problem with abiding by Apple's distribution channel if there are alternatives, but Apple can't make it's app store the only legitimate distribution channel and then restrict what people can and can't do on it and expect not to be called out on that.
"What you consider fair is not what everyone considers fair. Some developers do not want anyone to see their source code under any circumstances."
What are you on about? Allowing GPL code on the app store wouldn't force every other app to suddenly become GPL...
You seem to have gone off on a tangent about a very fringe edge case which you personally dislike, none of which changes the fact that IDEs make you way more productive as a developer.
Further, contrary to all the FOSS FUD one of the reasons that Microsoft's products like Windows and Office are succesful is because people actually find them easier to use. This is in part because Microsoft spends a fortune on usability studies that let them objectively design in the way that best helps the user do what they need to do, something which FOSS software almost never benefits from because most UI work is done by developers who think they know better, but don't.
Given the way he seems to be letting corporations and the security services dictate what should and shouldn't happen I'd argue the same applies to Obama's job too to be honest.
"*A* learning curve is OK, but every IDE has its own learning curve, then every iteration of those IDEs have learning curves as well. I like learning about new technologies and algorithms, but I'm busy. I'm sick of re-inventing the wheel every time I want to get down and get some work done."
I disagree. The first IDE I used was Borland Turbo C++ in DOS and Turbo Pascal shortly after. My first GUI based IDE was MSVC++ 4. In recent years I've used things like Eclipse, and NetBeans and have used pretty much every edition of Visual Studio as well as some "fringe" IDEs like BlueJ.
The biggest differences are in configuration - i.e. debugging is built into Visual Studio so it "just works" but getting XDebug working for PHP in NetBeans was a fucking nightmare.
But assuming everything is working they all work pretty much the same, there are a few different features but it's pretty intuitive as to how they work. This is slightly less so in Eclipse with things like Maven but you could throw a new IDE at me tomorrow and I'd be productive in it in no time at all. At the end of the day when developing you know you have a few key tools you need - a code editor, a debugger, build tools and so forth and finding them and figuring them out if you've worked with one IDE like Visual Studio is really quite trivial.
There's always going to be something to learn when using new software or technologies but I don't find switching between IDEs prohibitive in this respect.
"I typically work on cross platform stuff, Linux, Windows, Mac. I have tried many IDEs and when all is said and done, I end up configuring a standard makefile based project. I have to do all the I normally do, but then I have to deal with the IDE on top of that. It just does not make my life any easier."
I sympathise with this, it does get more awkward if you have to work cross platform. Few IDEs are any good at creating cross platform projects. The normal solution though is to have a Visual Studio project file for VS Windows, XCode files for Mac, and whatever else for Linux and other platforms you want. Creating them (you can put them in separate folders) is easier and quicker than building makefiles, but of course if you're talking about one IDE to work across all platforms then again I sympathise, none are really good at that.
"Lastly, to use VC, I'd have to run Windows, and, really, that's not something I'd want to do. I find the terribly unproductive."
It's probably just a question of what you're used to, but even Windows supports things like Cygwin if you must. Once you get going with Visual Studio specifically though as I say I'm convinced it's the single most productive development environment around, some others come close but I've felt nothing quite touches it and it is in large part as I say because of intellisense, it's just so smart in terms of guessing what you want to type next such that you don't have to.
For example, just an arbitrary demonstration from the IDE window I have open right now:
string name = MySpecialType.GetType().Assembly.FullName;
Can be typed as:
string name = My.GetT().A.F;
That's typed 16 characters after the equals vs. 40 and less scope for typos requiring backspacing as a result. Across a full class or project you can surely imagine this results in code being churn out way way faster. It's a wonderful feeling being able to churn out code as quickly as you can think through the problem, rather than as quickly as you can type which is what this sort of thing helps allow you to do.
Things like Eclipse support this too but it's dog slow as to be useless as you've typed it before the intellisense pops up. NetBeans is better but not very smart.
IDEs also make things like refactoring and jumping between code easy as well, click a classname, method or whatever and hit F12 and it takes you to where that class/method/variable is defined and visual diff between multiple files/versions is excellent. Language features in C# are helpful too in terms of IDE integration, like code regions for example.
IDEs have a learning curve and this puts a lot of folk like you who are stuck in their ways with their command line tools off and that's okay.
But it's not a particularly steep learning curve, and if you bother to sit through it you become way more productive because things like intellisense let you churn out code way faster than you can manually type it.
But despite this, Microsoft actually provides a ton of documentation about it's command line tools (the same was VS utilises) and VS project/configuration files so you can work exactly as you like to with VS projects and command line tools if you really must. Microsoft mainly provides them for automation purposes though because it's silly to develop that way in this day and age.
That's because the author is a first class idiot. Slashdot for some reason seems to parrot his views all the time now, in fact, I think he's even employed by them.
The problem is he also has no idea what he's on about, because every one of his opinions that have been posted to the news page recently have been based off of lack of knowledge or outright wrong.
For example, he tried comparing a simple servlet against an MVC page for his Java vs. .NET performance test claiming they were equivalent but this is utterly nonsensical as an MVC request does an awful lot more (it has to route the request for one, as well as run any action filters etc.).
The guy is just completely clueless, he has really no idea of what he's on about. I can't help but wonder if Slashdot employed him knowing how inexperienced and lacking in knowledge he was just to stir up page hits with his articles that basically amount to trolling.
I suppose it depends how slowly you type. Eclipse has always been too slow with it's intellisense for it to offer me any value. In contrast Visual Studio's works excellently because it's fast and can keep up with the speed at which I type and hence autocomplete for me on time and speed me up even more.
So sure even if Eclipse's is more intelligent (I don't think it is anyway) then what use is that if it's too slow as to be of any benefit unless you hen peck the keys at a grandad rate?
"I can only conclude, you don't have any â" but aren't man enough to admit it."
And that making of excuses, rather than a simple Google search, is why you will remain wrong. It's known as wilful ignorance, and you're engaging in it. Here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=saddam+show+trial
"When the alternative to killing is letting the target escape, killing is justified."
So why is it wrong that Obama's drone strikes are deep in Pakistani territory that that's the case? Why was Bush's killing of Zarqawi acceptable given that the fucking bombs were guided in using laser painters from ground based troops? You still can't explain any difference between the Obama and Bush programme because there isn't one. You're clutching at straws because for every example of a killing where there could've been a capture under Obama there is one under Bush.
"Did you skip the high-school debating exercises or something?"
We don't have them here which seems to be an excellent thing given that all it seems to teach you is that if you can't be arsed to perform a 5 second verification of something for yourself then it's okay to just demand that it must be wrong even when it's not. Given the absolutely pathetic level of political discourse in your country it obviously hasn't done much for debating in your nation as a whole either. All it's taught you and your fellow Americans is how to be wrong and demand that you're right, even when you're not. No wonder your nation has such a reputation for being thick as pig shit - you teach ignorance and tactics for defending your wilful ignorance in your schools.
You know you don't have to type multiple paragraphs going off topic to admit that you were wrong to claim it's the UN's job to punish countries for not adhering to US ideals. Just the first paragraph would've done it.
I don't know why people like you find it so hard to admit you were wrong because that's exactly what you've just done in a rather long winded way.
Ah, I see, so you're just horrendously bad at your job then because anyone actually doing rescuing would need to be compassionate and would recognise the value of saving pets in keeping people calm and comfortable in a tragic situation.
"Actually, by joining the UN you generally agree to follow a lot of US-Style rules."
That's not how the UN works, the UN has a number of areas and you join them separately. For example, you join the IMO to engage in defining and implementing international standards on maritime issues.
There are declarations that define how the majority of the UN would like things to be but again, they're non-binding.
The USSR under Stalin abstained from voting on the UDHR FWIW.
Have a read of what it actually says. Just about all those clauses talk about governments having the right to monitor/snoop on their own national sections of the internet (i.e. what Prism does).
Unfortunately that news article masks that fact because it's written by an over-reactive emo-hipster who doesn't understand what she's reading.
The first part of the document simply tries to clarify terms because getting agreement on terms itself is a nightmare. Section 31a just largely defines what already happens albeit with more focus on international agreement, 31b already happens in terms of numbering, and naming is what I referred to in terms of bringing ICANN under international control, 31c is about being able to regulate the internet nationally, and 31d and 31e already happen.
If that's as damning as it gets then it's not very damning really is it?
What is the "UN" declaration of human rights? I'm assuming you're referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
If that's what you're referring to then it's non-binding and is primarily just a framework. Implementations include things like the European Convention on Human Rights which EU member nations implement and the European Court of Human Rights enforces. Also, said members haven't all agreed to it anyway, there are around 203 countries, and only 48 voted for the UDHR with 8 abstaining.
It seems a bit rich though for you to bring that up and suggest that America is the guiding example of enforcing it and others should be punished for not doing so. I'd ask that you actually read the articles contained within it, specifically have a look at articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and ask yourself if given the context of Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and waterboarding you still believe the US is somehow doing better on this document than many other member nations? If you look at all the articles it doesn't take a second's thought to recognise that the US has succeded in maintaining even half of them and has violated most in the last 10 years alone.
I think you're on weak ground here because you have a rather ethnocentric view but seem oblivious to the fact that the very nation you cite as the shining example other nations should be held to account for not reaching has been one of the biggest violators of the document you cite.
The reason the US has gotten away with it is precisely because it is non-binding and although it has breached it's own laws that implement sections of it no one internally is holding the nation, government, or military to account over violations. If the US can't even hold itself to account when breaking it's own binding laws then how can it expect to hold anyone else to account over a non-binding agreement?
Sounds like the biggest mistake they made was rescuing you not the animals as you apparently don't have anything valuable to contribute to society whilst pets at least provide their owners with comfort.
The infrastructure isn't even in discussion though, really the debate is only about ICANN and domain name assignment - i.e. should the US really have the final say on who can and can't have gtlds and who can and can't have international domain names?
The problem is that the argument has been blown out of all proportion and context. I suspect this is in part by vested interests who want to maintain the status quo. By framing it as an argument about freedom of speech, civil liberties, access to and spying on the internet they've successfully diverted away from the real issue, and that's that internet naming could probably be done in a more neutral manner if a less US-centric party was involved. Look how long internationalised domain names took to come about for example - it was 2009 when they finally arrived, this is because it just wasn't a priority for the English speaking ICANN with it's ethnocentric view of the world.
Similarly nations like Antigua have valid complaints that the US has abused it's control of international domain registry to seize DNS entries for perfectly legal international gambling sites. What the US should've done is had the debate about internet censorship internally if it wants to prevent it's citizens accessing legal overseas online gambling sites but those behind it knew they'd lose that argument so they instead abused their control of international TLDs to censor these legitimate business globally instead.
I'd be the last person to give control of the pipes and endpoints to China and Russia, but making domain name assignment and management fairer internationally and less-US centric? I'm quite okay with that because there's only so much harm the "bad guys" could do even if they did somehow manage to hijack the entire domain name system. It's really quite valid and innocent, but try telling that to the likes of Fox News when the word "China" is involved such that they instead started conflating it with general ITU disputes about charging for usage of international telecomms transit routes and so forth. I think the US has abused it's control of ICANN enough and the maximum amount of harm from making management of ICANN more international small enough to make it a fair proposal.
You may be right, but without accurate documentation, how do we know :) ?
"That aside, the US still does have one of the best freedom of speech while the UN doesn't seem to have any desire to enforce or even go after member nations that are hostile to freedom of speech."
Huh? That's not the UN's job, or are you suggesting the UN should exist to impose US was of life on the whole world against their will?
I'm not even sure what you say makes any sense, "the UN doesn't seem to have any desire" - why would it? It's composed of the very nations you're saying it should go after, whatever "go after" means, war? economic sanctions for not adhering to the US way? What action do you think the UN should take exactly if it even could?
It almost sounds as if you don't want nations to be heard at the UN unless they adhere to your whims... that sounds an awful lot like censorship to me. One of the downsides of the US' freedom of speech laws you cite as being an example of "good" is that yes, sometimes it means you have to listen to the Phelps too as distasteful as most people find that but that's the price you pay for that freedom. The UN is no different, stop trying to suggest your will should be imposed on everyone else like a little fascist.
"First, it's something to show off if you know how to circumvent net nanny and the like"
Exactly, and even more so, because porn is contraband they can show off if they have it too. So creating a veil of pretending that it's some majorly dangerous contraband just means they'll be more inclined to seek it out.
Kids more so than any other age group are constantly battling to increase their standing in their social groups at school and so forth, and the more you pretend porn is taboo, the more lucrative a thing it is show off in your social group to increase your standing and the more likely it is that kids will hence find a way to access it. As the say goes, where there's a will there's a way, and prohibition creates an ever stronger will.
That's the problem though, it's not a majority of voters. Polls to date are overwhelmingly against a default filter:
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/80-percent-against-default-porn-filter-91476
80% of parents are against it, yes parents, not lone single adults, actual parents. Factor in the rest of the population including those without kids and it'll sway even more against it.
I'd wager at most 10% of the population support a default filter. This is a fascist minority who want to impose their will on the vast majority of the population and The Daily Mail and Claire Perry are the figureheads of the campaign.
Or just fight it because if Snowden's leaks have told us anything in the UK it's that even when the government pretends to be transparent it's not.
For example, they claimed they needed the Interception Modernisation Programme to be able to keep up to date with modern spying requirements. Two successive governments involving all three main parties in fact have pushed exactly this but each time the public has said no way.
It turns out GCHQ has been doing it anyway and the so the legislation was being pushed to legalise what was already being done illegally.
So given that, why would we trust them on filtering? Even if they said it's going to happen and offer transparency on what's blocked we can't trust that they wont block anything else as they've already proven themselves untrustworthy. Better to fight the law altogether and even produce and distribute tools that make it a one click operation to bypass the filters (very easily done).
Ironically though if you read TFA you'd see that it's actually not going to happen anyway, basically Claire Perry the retard behind this along with her ultra-religious hard right media fanaticists like The Daily Mail has been defeated but is asking ISPs to pretend that she hasn't by pretending what they're offering is something that it isn't.
"the real question is, does it make things better - and how much? And what do we understand by better?"
Right and we know the answers to these. No it doesn't make things better because kids will always find porn, even if they don't find it at home someone will bring it into school. They may even just use one of the trivial methods of getting around the block at home though, because it's that easy for a kid - as soon as one kid at school gets told by their older brother how, then every kid at school will know. They'll always find it and there's absolutely no getting away from that.
"and they don't want to have to learn something they find difficult. And this scheme doesn't affect the freedom of those who want it - they just have to make a bit more of an effort. What's not to like about it?"
So your argument is that some parents are too lazy to set up a filter so they shouldn't have to go out their way to do so and instead everyone else should have to go out there way to remove it?
Why when the default is that the lazy parents have to expend effort should we reverse that exactly? What have they done that warrants everyone else having to dance around them because they can't be bothered to be parents?
So effectively you're arguing that everyone else should have to go out there way to expend effort because some parents are too lazy to parent and instead want an ineffective mechanism that allows them to pretend to be parenting. That's what's not to like about that - it's a waste of everyone's time, money, and effort for literally zero benefit.
He's probably already seen it.
All it takes is one kid at school to have unfiltered access at home, to have an unfiltered mobile phone, to find a page 3 lying around and by the end of the next day every kid in school will have seen it.
When I was a kid we used to go and dick around at a building site sometimes for new homes, the builders always left a ton of porn just lying around though I'm not sure if we were more interested in that or the big fuck off tools and sharp things that you could throw like a ninja and watch them stick into the breeze block walls.
It's not like I even had a deprived childhood or anything, my parents and friends were of all wealth backgrounds and we all did that sort of thing and this was before the web was even a thing. By the time I was 14 the web was an actual thing and we had access at school, it was filtered but it didn't matter because once one of the 16 year old kids brought in some hot Sandra Bullock pictures amongst others on a floppy disk it was all around the network hidden in the depths of Windows system folders and so forth, usually alongside a copy of Doom that we played multiplayer at lunchtime when the teachers buggered off for their lunch. We all knew where to find it all even if the teachers and admins never did.
It's even easier for a kid to find and stumble across it now, have no illusions, even if they haven't already they will long before you think they will.
"Can't we just have a language that gives us both and stop shoving one or the other down our throats? As in, the language has a built-in keyword/feature that allows one to dynamically bind function/program/thread/whatever-level to your memory arena (GC or non-GC) of choice?"
Doesn't .NET's CLR do exactly that with C#/C++ and the ability to jump out to unmanaged code?
Alternatively if you prefer unmanaged by default you can just implement a garbage collector in C++ and use it when you need to, avoid it when you don't.
I don't really see what's surprising about all that. The mobile GC does more to prevent itself hitting memory constraints, doing more is always going to cost more than doing less so of course the mobile GC will perform worse than the desktop GC.
But I don't think he's saying it performs worse than the desktop one would when it hits memory constraints of the device and that's really the key.
Optimisation is often about the trade-off between between memory/storage and processing. If memory/storage/bandwidth is tight then you can increase CPU usage to take the strain off the memory/storage/bandwidth limitation - compression being the obvious and common example. If CPU is tight and memory/storage/bandwidth is plenty then use big fat pre-processed lookup tables or whatever rather than calculating dynamically as an obvious example in that case.
There's no free lunch, on mobile the constraint seems to be memory more than anything else so it makes sense to use just a little more CPU to prevent hitting the boundaries of that.
I just don't really see the problem. There doesn't seem to be anything new here.
I think what he's saying is that the DOM is poorly designed and that's partly because of and partly contributes to poor documentation.
The net result is a clusterfuck with many other clusterfucks built on top of it and we all know that clusterfucks stacked on clusterfucks are especially slow. Or something.
No seriously, I think there's some merit in the point, that if it's not well designed and everyone and anyone has just thrown their own bits and pieces in and much of it isn't well documented then it becomes hard to optimise. It may be that we could achieve speedups by removing obsolete parts, but if they're not documented then how do we know if they're definitely obsolete? Even if removing obsolete parts themselves doesn't offer a speedup, it at least results in a cleaner code base that is then easier to optimise.
Fixing documentation in itself will have no impact on performance, but it'll definitely help in putting developers in a better position to do things that will achieve performance gains. It would be quite sensible to start looking at how the DOM can be improved by looking through the documentation to see what is and isn't relevant still, and what is and isn't a candidate for improvement, but that becomes a far harder task if documentation is wrong or out of date.