The C pre-processor. The whole thing. The CPP is without a doubt the biggest WTF in language design. Hey, this C language is neat and all, but how about if we make it so that before you compile it you have to run it through a whole separate language processor with different syntax designed to do string substitution? And let's use that language to implement comments. And hey, how about using it to import common files? But since it's really just a string substitution, the import really just dumps a verbatim copy of the common file into the one being processed. If you have two identical include lines you get two copies of the common file inserted. Wouldn't that be *great*!?

Okay, I understand the historical context and why it made sense at the time. I really do. But from a modern perspective it's definitely not in any way the sane way to do it.

And for an honorable mention, how about the use of leading whitespace in Makefiles? Not only is leading whitespace significant, starting a line with spaces has a different meaning than starting a line with tabs!

I have a phone with a 3.5" screen. It's just about useless for e-reading. Also, the idea that if all the troubled youth were just given books they'd read them is bogus. They *can't* read and if they could they still wouldn't want to.

I know I'm a dinosaur, but I was reading ebooks on my Palm III with its grayscale 160x160 pixel 3.3" screen. It's certainly not a "useless" form factor. I even preferred it to reading paper books, just because I could carry more around with me. Of course, I like to read. I agree that there's no way a crummy ebook reader is going to convince non-readers to hit the books.

It's clear that Russia has weapons of mass destruction. The US has no choice but to invade and force a regime change before Putin can totally destabilize an already volatile region. Who's with me?

I just heard Phil Plait talking about coronal mass ejections wiping out satellites and the power grid, and possibly small electronics as well. That's my current favorite non-asteroid doomsday scenario. No direct danger to life or limb, it just takes out everything that makes modern civilization work. Hilarity ensues.

When buying something expensive (like a home solar array) the salesman wants a credit check up front to know that you actually have some chance of paying for it. If you can't afford it he's not going to waste his time talking to you. If you can afford more he knows to push hard for an upsell. It's a shitty way of doing business, but that's how it's done.

The world's going to perish in fire when we finally get full adoption of IPv666.

I have both Apples to Apples and Cards Against Humanity, and I prefer Apples to Apples. The gameplay of both is essentially the same but CAH derives most of its humor from being as scatological, gross, and kinky as possible. I understand why that appeals to people, I just generally prefer the tamer "good clean fun" version that can be played with kids and grandparents.

Or you can mix the two and play Apples Against Humanity.

It's such a shame that humanity lost both electrical fuse and seatbelt technologies sometime between the 21st and 23rd centuries.

Is it just me, or does it seem like a bad idea for an artificial intelligence project's web site to so prominently feature graphics with circles labeled "HAL"?

The article is pointless. Okay, Google is trying to replace the current "controlled" road test with a simulator. The article goes on to say how wonderful simulators are. So what? It says *nothing* about the current regulations. What are they intended to test? Are they done once per model? For every firmware revision? Every individual vehicle? Are they meant to be fully exhaustive or are they more on the order of the driving test a person must take to get a license? Without knowing what the current tests are there's no way to judge whether a simulator is an adequate substitution.

Pure personal speculation: I suspect that the main goal of the testing requirement is to give a warm fuzzy feeling to a non-technical person. It lets them see a tangible object responding to tangible threats. It probably puts the car through a series of common scenarios and some uncommon but easily imagined dangers, so the non-technical human can see the car dodge obstacles and walk away confident that the robot responds like a human would. If that's the case, a simulator will never be sufficient since it's not really a test of the car's performance, but a test of the human's confidence in the car.

Don't worry, I'm sure it will regenerate soon enough.

For complex uses... it depends on the niche. Certainly for software development, Linux wins for basically everything except native and .NET Windows apps. For other uses, I will grant you, the professional-grade applications are not available (even if they run in Wine). But I'm not an artist. I'm a developer.

I agree that you should use whatever OS runs the apps you need. Here's some anecdotal evidence to throw into the discussion:

I work in a software shop with probably 100-200 developers. Our software runs on Linux, but on specialized hardware so far removed from the desktop that you might as well consider it an embedded system. Compilation and debugging is all done on the target machines. Some people do their edits on the target machine, others prefer to edit locally and copy to the target to compile. We have no IDE and no particular reliance on office suites or anything like that. As long as you have an ssh client you're golden.

So, the choice of desktop OS has absolutely no bearing on development here. Everyone gets a laptop. You have your choice of Apple or Dell hardware (both with pretty similar specs) and any OS you want. Of the entire population of developers, roughly 75% use Macs with OSX; 20% use Dell hardware with Linux or (Open|Free|Net)BSD; and 5% use Dell hardware with Windows.

There you have it. For one small sampling of developers where the desktop machine is purely personal preference, the desktop environment of choice is OSX.

If you approve of something, then you cannot tolerate it because tolerance implies disapproval. It's part of the definition.

tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with without interference

It's not our fault that you can't read a dictionary, or refuse to accept the meanings of words. Look inward.

Look inward yourself. You missed a very important word in that definition: "necessarily". The definition says that it's not necessary to like or agree with something in order to tolerate it. Your approval is not needed to tolerate something, but it's not prohibited either.

After all, it's not our fault that you can't read a dictionary, or refuse to accept the meanings of words.

When you ask for meaningful evidence of misogyny on slashdot (or wider society) you only underscore your blindness to the problem. You shouldn't need anyone to point out examples, because an intelligent person would be able to find a discussion and skim it.

Wow, did you really just say that? Because that sounds exactly like the stereotypical line used by a woman when she is mad at her boyfriend/husband: "I shouldn't have to tell you why I'm mad! You should know why I'm mad!"

The response, "I shouldn't have to tell you the problem, you should already recognize the problem." never helps advance the discussion. If you don't tell someone what's wrong and why it's a problem how can you ever expect them to change their behavior?

Well of course they sound the same. That just proves that your speakers are crappy. You need audiophile speakers, a tube amp, monster cable, and a wooden volume knob to really appreciate the difference. Go buy all that, then come back and tell me you can't hear the difference. And if that doesn't work, burn the clips to a CD and color the edge with a green marker. That'll do it for sure.