So you plagiarize too?

..and by asking those questions you've trashed the original question.. so when the person asking does know their stuff the end result of your involvement is that you just fucked their thread over. At the very very best you've delayed any meaningful response by literally days because now everyone else is waiting for you to be answered.

Day 1, you ask: "Have you tried to [blah blah] your [woo hoo]?"

Day 2, you ask "Have you gotten all the latest [goo mo]?""

Finally day 4 or 5 comes around and you finally admit that you can't help (something you actually knew on day 1), but now the thread is pushed down, off everyones radar, and is filled with complete crap initiated by you. All because when you didn't know the answer, you decided that you must get involved anyways.

Do everyone in the world a favor and don't get involved when you don't know the answer. Don't pretend to be more than you are. The feel-good moment you get when you click "post" is a sham - you are harming the other person, not helping them.

Its stated quite specifically already so when you then go and ask that, you are of course doing exactly what I said you would do, proving my initial response that it really isn't helpful to describe in excruciating detail what is being tried.

The important specifics are already there: I need my generic class library to enforce a constructor contract on 3rd party code that calls my library.

Maybe you imagine that there isnt a need for it, but thats just proving the GPPP's point also.. that you think you know what other people need better than they do.

So you just proved us both right, showing that literally everyone else in the world would be better off if you didnt open your mouth when you dont know the answer but want to fish for a different question that you actually can answer (which is just self serving shit, harmful to the discussion as signal to noise goes righrt into the toilet .. your the noise.)

i was the proud owner of a Gravis UltraSound, but "potential" isnt what it had.


The GF1 and later GF2 chips were basically the END of an era, not the "potential" beginning of one. By the time the Pentium rolled in, software mixing of 32 channel 16-bit stereo with 32-bit internal mixing was down to single-digit percentages of CPU power.

MSDOS users simply didnt notice what was going on elsewhere. The Gravis was much better than an SB16 for sure, but the SB16 was just a 16-bit stereo DAC packaged together with a Yamaha OPL3 FM synthesis chip, so the bar in the DOS world was set so low that when the DOS world finally caught up with the times it looked like innovation to DOS users but was actually just the final incremental improvements to what clearly was on its way out. The DOS demo scene was already doing 32 channel software mixing on 386 computer several years BEFORE the first Gravis UltraSound.

Not only was software mixing the true "innovation" -- it was driven by the vision of complete software synthesis, which came within the same decade that the UltraSound was released. Cards that did hardware mixing offered no advantages over simpler DACs in the new era.

It really isn't.

A ran into a fine example of why you are wrong just last week.

I was looking for a way for a .NET library developer to specify a type contract that included a non-default constructor with a specific prototype/signature. Now for some this may sound like an Interface, but others will argue that Interfaces should not specify implementation details and they (rightly or wrongly) include constructor prototypes as an implementation detail and argue that this is why interfaces should not (and do not) define constructor prototypes. The questions that appear throughout the internet (on msdn, stackoverflow, etc..) always involved the use of generics and so did the usage I had intended, so of course generic type constraints also came up. Quite specifically my need (and many others) is to develop a library which can construct generic types, however there is another related class of problems dealing with operator overloading that also spawns a similar set of questions based on the same framework limitation.

It did not matter how accurately anyone had described their need to define a constructor signature contract. Every discussion devolved into the same lesson about why interfaces shouldn't specify constructors or any other static functions and methods.

Every single time it was suggested that the person asking the question include a non-static method in the interface which could then construct the type. When it is pointed out that that would require an instance of the type to begin with, it then occurs to these people you suggest coddling, "have you tried the factory pattern?"

Isnt that what they are trying to implement? sigh...

So then the discussions devolve into these people devising more and more complex contortions to defend their belief that interfaces should not ever under any circumstances leak any implementation detail so therefore the questioner is wrong about needing a constructor contract, as if one actually led to the other. Quite remarkably they suggest alternatives that leak far more implementation details the other direction.

They just cannot imagine the need and no amount of explaining will get them to acknowledge that there really is one, therefore its all about something unimportant like the philosophy of interfaces rather than an alternative method of enforcing a constructor contract in the setting of a generic type constraint.

The GPP is 100% right when he says "Just because you don't understand their needs doesn't mean you need to step in and try to change what you think they need. (Ever think they just MIGHT be smarter than you or know their needs better?)"

You sit here defending that behavior on the grounds that you also default to the position that you understand the questioners needs better than they do, and I know why.

You learned that you shouldnt pretend to have answers that you don't have... but you've not handled that knowledge correctly. The proper course of action is to acknowledge to yourself that you don't have the answer, rather than attempt to alter the question so that you do have the answer. When you try to alter the question, it stops being about you helping the questioner and starts being about you helping yourself look smarter.

Learn to read, chief.

Specifically, * equivalently - stacking multiple flow control branches to simulate the singular GOTO is not the same.

Also true is that any sane attempt to calculate the color of a pixel is not embarrassingly parallel...

...never the less, GPU's prove that the problem being solved is indeed embarrassingly parallel.

Your problem is that you know just enough to fuck up the basics.

..and as a matter of fact, C has GOTO.

I'm not sure than any language exists that can truly* replace GOTO through the use of other flow control sugars.

* equivalently - stacking multiple flow control branches to simulate the singular GOTO is not the same.

The government doesnt have the right to do so. The fact that it sometimes (more and more frequently these days) does things that it doesnt have a right to do is not an excuse.

There is a process where the federal government can be granted new rights. This happens only when the States approve a modification to the constitution.

Hobby Lobby denies neither, proving that you are one of those hyper-reactionary liberals that doesnt know what went down. The employees of Hobby Lobby continue to have the liberty to consume drugs such as Plan B. What they dont have is the liberty to force their employer to pay for their Plan B.

Lots of things arent part of an employees compensation package. Even such necessities as food and shelter, but somehow in the liberal mind Plan B is so much more important than food and shelter that employers must pay for it specifically.

Shows us where the liberal priorities lie... the murder of what they have unscientifically dehumanized is top priority. I guess if the liberty of the unborn human isnt important, than why should anybody elses liberty be important.

..or how many accident happen because "fuck it! I'm insured!"

How many tailgaters would continue to tailgate if it was as simple as slamming on the breaks to ruin them financially...

I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

There is no issue with risk pools being fine-grained. The issue is that low-risk (and even no-risk) things are included.

Are you at "risk" of a yearly physical?

The point of insurance is supposed to be that if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, that you arent out the cost of that unlikely and expensive thing. There is value in knowing that you will not have to sell or lose your house if something unlikely and expensive happens to you, enough value in it that a middle man can also profit. Its win-win in these cases.

Its not win-win when you have to pay that middle mans cut for non-risky things like that yearly physical. This is true when the middle man is an insurance company, but it is also true when that middle man is a government or some powerful government-corporate hybrid entity that can force you into giving them a cut.

In the case of auto-insurance, if you own your vehicle then you are only forced to get insurance for unlikely and expensive things, and only when those things can happen to other people while you are driving. Routine maintenance simply is not mandated because it used to be that people were smart enough to know what insurance was for and wouldn't let the government pull that sort of shit.

Translation: Everyone pays more because you eat too many ice cream cones.

Thats not how it works.

Increasing the number of insured people is meaningless to the premiums needed unless the amount of risk associated with the "new" policies is as-a-matter-of-fact less than the amount of risk associated with the "old" policies. Now if thats true AND both "new" and "old" are in the same pool, only THEN would the cost of policies change.

What you have done is taken an argument from another situation (perhaps the liberal justification for getting everyone on health insurance), and then misapplied it to this one. The reason you misapplied it is because you never understood it to begin with.

Whats worse is even if you understood the argument, you probably still wouldnt understand the injustice of it (which is that less risky people are forced to subsidize more risky people if you force them into the same risk pool.)

Yeah.. I know.. understanding the money is hard, which is why you don't.

...says the national socialist.