I can't count the number of times I downloaded some open source that didn't work out of the box, or had some bug, and when I went to fix it the compiler spit out pages of warnings... well, I don't roll like that, so I usually resolve all of those first. And the original bug is gone, like 85% of the time.
Of course, that means sending in a patch would be useless, but that is a whole different ball of earwax.
IME nothing creates a security hole faster than the programmer thinking that just choosing Virtuous tools will somehow protect them from making mistakes.
The reality is that mistakes flee the light, but you still make just as many, being human. Like trying to reduce crime by increasing the policing of places with the most reports; it is easy to push the criminals from one street to another street, but much harder to reduce the crime rate.
Only an approach where the programmer has increased knowledge at both high and low levels will actually decrease the rate of mistakes.
There are cases where it makes sense to try to chase the mistakes away from certain places; like the way Go-lang tries to make the nuts and bolts of concurrency easy. In the datacenter it makes sense to want to chase the bugs away from the infrastructure, make them hide in the application logic. But for a non-virtualized environment like a desktop OS, it doesn't make much difference where exactly they're hiding. You get more benefit just by fighting against new features, since bugs are introduced as a rate of mistakes in new code. The bug rate is normally much less than 100%, so fixing bugs tends to introduce less bugs than the original code had, but new features throws away that progress.
The amazing thing about your lack of reading comprehension here is that you said those words before, and I was already replying to them. You not only don't comprehend what I said, you didn't even comprehend what you said!
You seem to not really comprehend reproduction, or what the important elements are.
That is complete nonsense, you couldn't send anybody there for a long time, they had to exist first as farming colonies before you could expand them into any of that other stuff, and it took years.
Indentured workers were often not criminals, and if fact most workers who required transportation to the work site would be "indentured." It doesn't mean they weren't paid, it means they were paid a contracted rate, and were already contracted so they couldn't quit! In many cases they paid for their passage with multiple years of work on arrival, at a low wage.
Most employed farm labor in the UK would have been indentured. The term means you have an employment contract for a specified term, usually that cannot be canceled. It was absolutely critical to be able to plan your farm labor levels in advance, they didn't have pickup trucks to drive into town and pick up irregular workers every morning! So agricultural jobs were based on whole years of employment, with varied duties in different seasons. They were not seasonal or part time jobs.
In my experience, you can spot a human at the low end of the intelligence spectrum that much easier when they start bragging about how much smarter than other animals they are.
Pigs always have way more knowledge than whatever humans know that the pigs know. It is much easier to know something than to know somebody else doesn't know anything, and if you don't share a language, it leaves you mostly clueless about their knowledge.
Dogs are often smarter than their human companions, and pigs are usually smarter than dogs; though less willing to try talking to a human!
Well, you sure as heck don't want to use something like R for that, the class would be too easy. With the code in C, you'd have to actually implement the whole algorithm!
The exact same thing could be said about them wanting to switch to something new instead of learning C! In fact, if you're infected with NIHS you'd never be able to use an older generation of tools, you'd always need to adopt a new tool even when the old tools are better.
Like people who need to use an app from some company so they can communicate, because email is "old."
In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith included an appendix explaining why higher education does not result in a capitalism market. Not everything turns into a market. People don't choose a school based on cost; if one of the schools a student is accepted to offers a sale, or coupon, it does nothing. People choose the school with the highest reputation that they can afford, and that reputation is based on non-economic factors. So you can't make it capitalism, if you try you fail because demand is disconnected from price.
President Obama told that nation that it is everybody's patriotic duty to acquire some advanced education, but that doesn't mean everybody should go to college; for many this will mean technical training.
People are saying better things, in addition to what you talk about, but unfortunately not many of us are listening.
No, none of those are a commons. That would result in Tragedy!
You should really take a closer look at the language here, it is heartbreaking to read things so ignorant from somebody such as yourself.
If the road was a commons, that would mean everybody owns it equally and can just use it however they want. That's a commons. The whole point of understanding the "tragedy of the commons" is that in order to be able to share a common space, we can't allow it to become a "commons!" Instead, so that sharing can take place, we assign ownership to the government; and then we make rules that allow everybody to share it in certain ways, and to deny access to uses incompatible with the desired sharing.
Communism isn't an economic paradigm though. Did you get confused and accidentally use the line for "Socialism" on "Communism?"
Communism is about taking away personal freedoms, to be exercised for the benefit of the group, there is nothing economic about that part. Communism is a system of control that often claims to also be Socialist. Any economic part comes from the claimed socialism.
Politics is social technology. Trying to get the technology out while having more than one human involved is foolish and illogical.
And believing that such a thing is possible makes it very likely that you're being constantly manipulated by politics, because you're not willing to pay attention to what is going on around you, or learn how the tools work.
If BSD wasn't political, nobody would have every heard of the Apache 2 license other than webserver developers. I do agree there are apolitical licenses, but Apache 2 is the only one you listed.
This example seems to prove that trying to separate politics is foolhardy and just helps them to run rampant. Instead, we should assume that participants are political, and seek to actively remove political actions from decision-making on a perpetual basis.
Turn off the newsvertainment, you might still have a brain cell or two left to salvage.
And if you do manage an actual thought for a moment, consider that the views of your political enemies are probably not accurately explained to you on newsvertainment, leaving you just jousting at distant windmills.
People who don't want to "guard our borders?" Those are distant windmills that your favorite source of Newsvertainment is telling you are Liberaals. They're not. Find a Democrat and just ask them straight out if they support guarding the border, or not.
Gay people have always been able to reproduce, how fucking stupid are you anyways?
How do you even get out of bed in the morning and get your shoes on without falling over and hitting your head? You don't seem smart enough even for that if you didn't know that gay people can have babies naturally.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't count the number of times I downloaded some open source that didn't work out of the box, or had some bug, and when I went to fix it the compiler spit out pages of warnings... well, I don't roll like that, so I usually resolve all of those first. And the original bug is gone, like 85% of the time.
Of course, that means sending in a patch would be useless, but that is a whole different ball of earwax.
The secret to writing unsafe code in C that doesn't blow up in your face:
Use baby-C. Don't try to learn language features. Ever. Avoid becoming experienced; always code with the manual open.
Another tip: Stop whining and just type it out long-form. Stop wishing for shortcuts.
IME nothing creates a security hole faster than the programmer thinking that just choosing Virtuous tools will somehow protect them from making mistakes.
The reality is that mistakes flee the light, but you still make just as many, being human. Like trying to reduce crime by increasing the policing of places with the most reports; it is easy to push the criminals from one street to another street, but much harder to reduce the crime rate.
Only an approach where the programmer has increased knowledge at both high and low levels will actually decrease the rate of mistakes.
There are cases where it makes sense to try to chase the mistakes away from certain places; like the way Go-lang tries to make the nuts and bolts of concurrency easy. In the datacenter it makes sense to want to chase the bugs away from the infrastructure, make them hide in the application logic. But for a non-virtualized environment like a desktop OS, it doesn't make much difference where exactly they're hiding. You get more benefit just by fighting against new features, since bugs are introduced as a rate of mistakes in new code. The bug rate is normally much less than 100%, so fixing bugs tends to introduce less bugs than the original code had, but new features throws away that progress.
Looks to me like these people just want their "safe space" in the kernel, where nobody tells them off for having coded something stupid.
That exists. It is called Hurd.
Well, or really any microkernel.
Yes, by themselves, dipstick.
The amazing thing about your lack of reading comprehension here is that you said those words before, and I was already replying to them. You not only don't comprehend what I said, you didn't even comprehend what you said!
You seem to not really comprehend reproduction, or what the important elements are.
That's not at all what federalized means here. Not even vaguely close.
That is complete nonsense, you couldn't send anybody there for a long time, they had to exist first as farming colonies before you could expand them into any of that other stuff, and it took years.
Indentured workers were often not criminals, and if fact most workers who required transportation to the work site would be "indentured." It doesn't mean they weren't paid, it means they were paid a contracted rate, and were already contracted so they couldn't quit! In many cases they paid for their passage with multiple years of work on arrival, at a low wage.
Most employed farm labor in the UK would have been indentured. The term means you have an employment contract for a specified term, usually that cannot be canceled. It was absolutely critical to be able to plan your farm labor levels in advance, they didn't have pickup trucks to drive into town and pick up irregular workers every morning! So agricultural jobs were based on whole years of employment, with varied duties in different seasons. They were not seasonal or part time jobs.
In my experience, you can spot a human at the low end of the intelligence spectrum that much easier when they start bragging about how much smarter than other animals they are.
Pigs always have way more knowledge than whatever humans know that the pigs know. It is much easier to know something than to know somebody else doesn't know anything, and if you don't share a language, it leaves you mostly clueless about their knowledge.
Dogs are often smarter than their human companions, and pigs are usually smarter than dogs; though less willing to try talking to a human!
I use C pointers every day.
And I try hard not to accidentally learn to understand them. I've seen the code those people write.
Well, you sure as heck don't want to use something like R for that, the class would be too easy. With the code in C, you'd have to actually implement the whole algorithm!
The exact same thing could be said about them wanting to switch to something new instead of learning C! In fact, if you're infected with NIHS you'd never be able to use an older generation of tools, you'd always need to adopt a new tool even when the old tools are better.
Like people who need to use an app from some company so they can communicate, because email is "old."
If we had just let the market work
In Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith included an appendix explaining why higher education does not result in a capitalism market. Not everything turns into a market. People don't choose a school based on cost; if one of the schools a student is accepted to offers a sale, or coupon, it does nothing. People choose the school with the highest reputation that they can afford, and that reputation is based on non-economic factors. So you can't make it capitalism, if you try you fail because demand is disconnected from price.
President Obama told that nation that it is everybody's patriotic duty to acquire some advanced education, but that doesn't mean everybody should go to college; for many this will mean technical training.
People are saying better things, in addition to what you talk about, but unfortunately not many of us are listening.
Duke Nukem has Megadeath, though.
If I play another round of freeciv, do I get an award or certificate?
No, none of those are a commons. That would result in Tragedy!
You should really take a closer look at the language here, it is heartbreaking to read things so ignorant from somebody such as yourself.
If the road was a commons, that would mean everybody owns it equally and can just use it however they want. That's a commons. The whole point of understanding the "tragedy of the commons" is that in order to be able to share a common space, we can't allow it to become a "commons!" Instead, so that sharing can take place, we assign ownership to the government; and then we make rules that allow everybody to share it in certain ways, and to deny access to uses incompatible with the desired sharing.
Communism isn't an economic paradigm though. Did you get confused and accidentally use the line for "Socialism" on "Communism?"
Communism is about taking away personal freedoms, to be exercised for the benefit of the group, there is nothing economic about that part. Communism is a system of control that often claims to also be Socialist. Any economic part comes from the claimed socialism.
Politics is social technology. Trying to get the technology out while having more than one human involved is foolish and illogical.
And believing that such a thing is possible makes it very likely that you're being constantly manipulated by politics, because you're not willing to pay attention to what is going on around you, or learn how the tools work.
If BSD wasn't political, nobody would have every heard of the Apache 2 license other than webserver developers.
I do agree there are apolitical licenses, but Apache 2 is the only one you listed.
This example seems to prove that trying to separate politics is foolhardy and just helps them to run rampant. Instead, we should assume that participants are political, and seek to actively remove political actions from decision-making on a perpetual basis.
Turn off the newsvertainment, you might still have a brain cell or two left to salvage.
And if you do manage an actual thought for a moment, consider that the views of your political enemies are probably not accurately explained to you on newsvertainment, leaving you just jousting at distant windmills.
People who don't want to "guard our borders?" Those are distant windmills that your favorite source of Newsvertainment is telling you are Liberaals. They're not. Find a Democrat and just ask them straight out if they support guarding the border, or not.
Like that dog that helped prove how the lung works! Dogs always get the good stuff first.
https://www.drlindseyfitzharri...
... successfully used CRISPR to correct the genetic defect responsible for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in four beagles ...
The Planet of the Apes movies suggest this will not end well.
If it was beagles we could at least hide in the trees.
Gay people have always been able to reproduce, how fucking stupid are you anyways?
How do you even get out of bed in the morning and get your shoes on without falling over and hitting your head? You don't seem smart enough even for that if you didn't know that gay people can have babies naturally.
Get back in the pile! They tuk er jerbs!!!!!
From the Greek: Don't do what they did to Socrates!