I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple?
Some guy has a shitty patent that he thinks is actually patent-worthy. Apple sues Samsung over some shitty patent. Some guy becomes foreman on the jury and says, "I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent," and gives his own shitty perspective on patent worthiness, with gems like, "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."
I mean, what the fuck, any software developer knows porting something to a new CPU doesn't make it novel, and software as a general rule does not run on different processors unchanged unless the processors are designed for compatibility.
But I don't think that's as fundamental to the language as inefficient use of STL is. How many times have you seen a programmer introduce tons of heap allocations or copies without realizing it, due to un-careful use of STL? That's a problem that C has a lot less of.
How many times have you seen a C programmer forget to free or double free or free and use a heap allocation without realizing it?
Sticking to a simple language to avoid those issues doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, especially in a development model where people contribute from all over, and being able to quickly audit for bad practices is important.
In some cases C is too simple by giving very little help to the programmer, as with memory allocation and modules. In other cases it is too complex in some of its inconsistent or ill-defined rules, such as its declaration syntax or ambiguities in the order of evaluation, or the dangers of mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic.
That C is "simple" is a myth. Compared to C++ it is, but that's not saying much.
Not if you stop and read this first part (that you left out of your quotation) and think about what he's saying here.
That first part was already quoted without any context by a borderline troll. I provided the rest of the context that makes it clear that he's not proposing what you say he is.
He's making a case for restricting speech that offends any of multiple ethnic and religious groups.
You haven't made the distinction between condemn vs. outlaw. He explicitly said the US cannot and should not ban the video that insulted Islam's prophet.
Be very, very alarmed and concerned when politicians start talking about making any kind of speech illegal.
I will. Let me know when Obama does so.
History shows repeatedly that it invariably grows to include all kinds of speech and eventually to tyranny.
Funny, because Obama said the same thing in what I quoted to you. Yet you ignore it and force a certain interpretation to a statement that can be interpreted otherwise:
"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.
We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities."
The answer to speech you don't like or that offends you is more speech, not 6th-century jurisprudence by the sword.
Obama agrees with you. From the same speech: "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech"
And in context:
"We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.
(APPLAUSE)
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.
We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.
The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Please, show me the UN charter that gives each human the right to offend.
"Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Free speech needs protecting because of those who find your speech offensive and would persecute you for it.
But there's strong evidence that cigarettes are both addictive and unhealthy, so claims along the line of "I can quit any time, I just don't want to" are met with skepticism.
In fact I get preached to more by athiests than by any other groups
That's funny, because I've never had an atheist approach me on the street or knock on my door to preach atheism, but I've been approached many times by religious people looking to convert me. I look at television and there are entire channels centered around religion, yet none around atheism. I don't see buildings dedicated to atheism, but find churches everywhere.
We don't execute, torture, and imprison people for "blasphemy". Dogma can be challenged. Science like evolution is taught in schools. Our leaders don't claim divine right to rule as a dictator.
I'd say a lot has changed, and for the better. Of course in any society there's always going to be tension between individual freedoms and the good of society.
He is talking about all religions, not just Bible-based ones. You said: "The whole point of religion is to prey on fear." If you were specifically limiting yourself to the Bible-based ones, your phrasing was inaccurate.
It may surprise some of the readership of/. but there are a lot of us who can actually both be rational and have faith, and who would deliberately vote against someone like this being on a science committee.
Why should your belief in the zombie Jew called Christ and ancient Hebrew mythology be considered rational? You mock Broun, but his ideas come from the same place as yours.
I've never heard anybody say they liked the smell of cigarettes, nor the associated smell of objects exposed to cigarette smokers. On the other hand, it's quite common for people to express dislike for these smells. Fact.
While there may be tobacco products that don't suffer this problem, the common cigarette is not among them.
Seems to me the air was quite breathable in CA when children were playing outside and riding bikes when leaded regular and leaded premium gas still existed.
When you call me "stinky", I believe you're asking for it.
To be technical, I said the habit was stinky. I still remember the used computer I got from eBay that was clearly used by a smoker and stunk for months. My father, a long-time smoker, decided not to smoke in his new car because he liked it too much and didn't want to stink it up.
I keep my opinions to myself until someone asks.
That smoking is stinky or bad for your health is more a matter of fact than opinion.
There you go again.
Right, you're allowed to post a pro-smoking comment that glorifies it, but I'm not allowed to respond in an opposite fashion. You're quite the martyr.
Why are you climbing all over me over something that's got nothing to do with you?
It's a public forum. You're going to act all offended when somebody replies to you? In particular, your message is harmful to anybody who takes up smoking and thinks they won't have a problem quitting.
I'm not arguing or campaigning. I'm just stating my position.
Now you're really losing your credibility. Of course you are arguing. You're posting a contrary position on a political story.
The best expression of it I've heard of it was (yeah, yeah, I know) Ayn Rand's: "There is a spot of fire in a man's mind, and it is fitting that it be reflected on his fingertips."
That's a nice expression for a filthy habit that harms the lungs you need to breathe. I agree that smoking can be quite enjoyable, and I'd still do it if weren't for all the negative consequences.
Test passed. Yes, I smoke now, because I like to smoke.
Uh huh, "Test passed". So you actively took up a habit again that is bad for your health, stinky, and expensive because you like it, but no sir, you are not addicted in any way.
I used to smoke a long time ago, but before I managed to quit permanently I went through several stints when I quit much like you did. Yet I kept going back to it, especially when hanging around other smokers. Your argument amounts to the trite, "I can quit anytime, but I don't want to."
And although I cannot find the picture now, the image of a headless body with bloody tank tread tracks leading away from where the head should have been is something that deeply affected my young self and I remember it quite vividly.
I've never seen this image, nor heard of it mentioned, and I found exactly 4 results when I searched Google for: Tiananmen Square headless body
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't get the argument that because somebody has a patent it makes him biased towards Apple?
Some guy has a shitty patent that he thinks is actually patent-worthy. Apple sues Samsung over some shitty patent. Some guy becomes foreman on the jury and says, "I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my patent," and gives his own shitty perspective on patent worthiness, with gems like, "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa."
I mean, what the fuck, any software developer knows porting something to a new CPU doesn't make it novel, and software as a general rule does not run on different processors unchanged unless the processors are designed for compatibility.
Probably a little bit of both. "Mine, mine, mine!" and "Go away, you smelly nerd."
his tentative to create a Free BK client
I think you mean initiative.
Worse is Better
But I don't think that's as fundamental to the language as inefficient use of STL is. How many times have you seen a programmer introduce tons of heap allocations or copies without realizing it, due to un-careful use of STL? That's a problem that C has a lot less of.
How many times have you seen a C programmer forget to free or double free or free and use a heap allocation without realizing it?
Sticking to a simple language to avoid those issues doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, especially in a development model where people contribute from all over, and being able to quickly audit for bad practices is important.
In some cases C is too simple by giving very little help to the programmer, as with memory allocation and modules. In other cases it is too complex in some of its inconsistent or ill-defined rules, such as its declaration syntax or ambiguities in the order of evaluation, or the dangers of mixing signed and unsigned arithmetic.
That C is "simple" is a myth. Compared to C++ it is, but that's not saying much.
Linus was obviously performing his usual exaggeration routine to get his point across
"exaggeration routine" is too kind. Linus has admitted to being a bastard, and even a bit mystified as to why people think he's the opposite.
While I'm sure to be modded down for asking the hard questions
Nope, you included the magic charm to get upmodded instead. Good job playing the game.
Not if you stop and read this first part (that you left out of your quotation) and think about what he's saying here.
That first part was already quoted without any context by a borderline troll. I provided the rest of the context that makes it clear that he's not proposing what you say he is.
He's making a case for restricting speech that offends any of multiple ethnic and religious groups.
You haven't made the distinction between condemn vs. outlaw. He explicitly said the US cannot and should not ban the video that insulted Islam's prophet.
Be very, very alarmed and concerned when politicians start talking about making any kind of speech illegal.
I will. Let me know when Obama does so.
History shows repeatedly that it invariably grows to include all kinds of speech and eventually to tyranny.
Funny, because Obama said the same thing in what I quoted to you. Yet you ignore it and force a certain interpretation to a statement that can be interpreted otherwise:
"Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.
We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities."
The answer to speech you don't like or that offends you is more speech, not 6th-century jurisprudence by the sword.
Obama agrees with you. From the same speech: "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech"
And in context:
"We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them. I know there are some who ask why don't we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.
(APPLAUSE)
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.
We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.
The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence."
Please, show me the UN charter that gives each human the right to offend.
"Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Free speech needs protecting because of those who find your speech offensive and would persecute you for it.
But there's strong evidence that cigarettes are both addictive and unhealthy, so claims along the line of "I can quit any time, I just don't want to" are met with skepticism.
In fact I get preached to more by athiests than by any other groups
That's funny, because I've never had an atheist approach me on the street or knock on my door to preach atheism, but I've been approached many times by religious people looking to convert me. I look at television and there are entire channels centered around religion, yet none around atheism. I don't see buildings dedicated to atheism, but find churches everywhere.
Nothing has really changed
We don't execute, torture, and imprison people for "blasphemy". Dogma can be challenged. Science like evolution is taught in schools. Our leaders don't claim divine right to rule as a dictator.
I'd say a lot has changed, and for the better. Of course in any society there's always going to be tension between individual freedoms and the good of society.
Did you actually READ your bible?
He is talking about all religions, not just Bible-based ones. You said: "The whole point of religion is to prey on fear." If you were specifically limiting yourself to the Bible-based ones, your phrasing was inaccurate.
It may surprise some of the readership of /. but there are a lot of us who can actually both be rational and have faith, and who would deliberately vote against someone like this being on a science committee.
Why should your belief in the zombie Jew called Christ and ancient Hebrew mythology be considered rational? You mock Broun, but his ideas come from the same place as yours.
I've never heard anybody say they liked the smell of cigarettes, nor the associated smell of objects exposed to cigarette smokers. On the other hand, it's quite common for people to express dislike for these smells. Fact.
While there may be tobacco products that don't suffer this problem, the common cigarette is not among them.
Seems to me the air was quite breathable in CA when children were playing outside and riding bikes when leaded regular and leaded premium gas still existed.
http://google.com/search?q=la+smog
When you call me "stinky", I believe you're asking for it.
To be technical, I said the habit was stinky. I still remember the used computer I got from eBay that was clearly used by a smoker and stunk for months. My father, a long-time smoker, decided not to smoke in his new car because he liked it too much and didn't want to stink it up.
I keep my opinions to myself until someone asks.
That smoking is stinky or bad for your health is more a matter of fact than opinion.
There you go again.
Right, you're allowed to post a pro-smoking comment that glorifies it, but I'm not allowed to respond in an opposite fashion. You're quite the martyr.
You also have to consider retirement benefits, plus all the sin taxes collected on cigarettes.
Sounds like people and their cars.
Except that cars are immensely practical.
Why are you climbing all over me over something that's got nothing to do with you?
It's a public forum. You're going to act all offended when somebody replies to you? In particular, your message is harmful to anybody who takes up smoking and thinks they won't have a problem quitting.
I'm not arguing or campaigning. I'm just stating my position.
Now you're really losing your credibility. Of course you are arguing. You're posting a contrary position on a political story.
The best expression of it I've heard of it was (yeah, yeah, I know) Ayn Rand's: "There is a spot of fire in a man's mind, and it is fitting that it be reflected on his fingertips."
That's a nice expression for a filthy habit that harms the lungs you need to breathe. I agree that smoking can be quite enjoyable, and I'd still do it if weren't for all the negative consequences.
not letting the governent discriminate costs taxpayers money
It's been argued that people who lead unhealthy lifestyles end up saving taxpayers money by dying sooner.
Test passed. Yes, I smoke now, because I like to smoke.
Uh huh, "Test passed". So you actively took up a habit again that is bad for your health, stinky, and expensive because you like it, but no sir, you are not addicted in any way.
I used to smoke a long time ago, but before I managed to quit permanently I went through several stints when I quit much like you did. Yet I kept going back to it, especially when hanging around other smokers. Your argument amounts to the trite, "I can quit anytime, but I don't want to."
And although I cannot find the picture now, the image of a headless body with bloody tank tread tracks leading away from where the head should have been is something that deeply affected my young self and I remember it quite vividly.
I've never seen this image, nor heard of it mentioned, and I found exactly 4 results when I searched Google for: Tiananmen Square headless body
Memories are iffy things.
The problem is low level programmers who can't live with the fact people make a billion dollar without obsessing over pointers or garbage collection.
Facebook relies on C++ because PHP is too slow to use it for everything.