Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It produces performance like C++ (Score 4, Insightful) 217

by ralphbecket (#46655603) Attached to: .NET Native Compilation Preview Released

"After all, the chief advantages of C# isn't really C#, but the .NET libraries."

You can't be serious! C is *substantially* lower-level than C#; you should only use C as a portable assembly language. I've spent decades writing assembly, C, and higher level languages and I'd pick C# over C in an eyeblink for anything that doesn't require access to the bare metal (well, personally I'd pick a functional language, but these days I work in industry...)


Scientists Build Three Atom Thick LEDs 54

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the smaller-better-faster dept.
minty3 tipped us to news that UW researchers have built the thinnest LEDs yet: a mere three atoms thick. Quoting El Reg: "Team leader Xiaodong Xu, a UW assistant professor in physics and materials science and engineering, and his graduate student Ross, have published the technique in the latest issue of Nature Nanotechnology. They report that the LEDs are small and powerful enough to be used in optical chips that use light instead of electricity to shuttle signals and data through a processor, or they could be stacked to make new thin and flexible displays."

Comment: Re:Interesting Math (like there's another variety) (Score 2) 545

by FooAtWFU (#46446531) Attached to: Meat Makes Our Planet Thirsty

Good luck trying to convince people to not have children, especially the Bible Belt people who literally believe it's their God-given right to litter the Earth with their offspring.

It's not just the Bible Belt -- the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) declares that "men and women of full age ... have the right to marry and to found a family." It's pretty totalitarian to suggest otherwise... which you really should try to be more aware of, lest it damage your pitch...

Comment: Re:First blacks, (Score 1) 917

by FooAtWFU (#46341301) Attached to: Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation
It is no longer strictly a private affair. However, if the government decides to make certain laws that substantially burden some individual's ability to exercise his religion, such as by limiting the conditions under which he may operate a business, then those laws may be found unconstitutional -- something about "congress shall make no law" blah blah blah.

Comment: Re:First blacks, (Score 3, Insightful) 917

by FooAtWFU (#46341225) Attached to: Apple Urges Arizona Governor To Veto Anti-Gay Legislation
I think it's not as simple as that and we're being confused by the proximate issue. I know that a typical case is "is it okay for a business run by some fundamentalist Christians allowed to refuse service to bake cakes or provide flower arrangements a gay wedding." Let's use different groups here to make the issues clearer. Is it okay for an event-planning business run by a Buddhist to refuse service to plan a KKK rally? To refuse to bake a cake that says [insert offensive thing a KKK member might want on a cake here]? How about just to refuse to provide services to a KKK member? Refuse to provide sale of goods?

If the answer is "no" to the Christian baker's refusals and "yes" to the KKK rally refusal, what are the differences between these hypothetical situations? If relevant, what are the differences between the rally and the general sale of goods? What are the differences between these hypothetical situations and the law(s) being proposed?

Comment: Re:Oh, the irony (Score 1) 523

by bogjobber (#46071227) Attached to: RNC Calls For Halt To Unconstitutional Surveillance

Sort of. The Patriot Act is simply too large to have been drafted in the timeframe allotted, so we can start with the obvious truth that whoever really wrote it had it on the shelf awaiting an opportunity. That is chilling, and under-reported, enough.

Well, it is certainly true that the intelligence agencies have always hated FISA and the ECPA, and they used 9/11 as an opportunity to push for changes that would never have been allowed in other political climates.

But they didn't literally have it sitting on the shelf, unless you have some sort of evidence to show otherwise. It was a little over a month between September 11th and when the first draft of the PATRIOT Act. That's a reasonable amount of time to bang out 120 pages of legalese, the majority of which were pretty banal reforms.

The problem of governments using crises to rush anti-democratic legislation is horrible enough without making up conspiracy theories.

Comment: Re:...but if you want free software to improve... (Score 1) 1098

by bogjobber (#46065989) Attached to: FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'
I agree with your general argument, but it's also true that for hobbyist programmers the most popular way to license your code is with the GPL (and anecdotally/IMHO the more useful projects almost always are). I'm sure if more small projects were licensed with the BSD, the prevalence of corporations forking the code and not giving back would be much higher.

Again, I'm not so sure that is the worst thing in the world (and the existence of the GPL for those that want that protection makes it moot anyway) but I absolutely understand the sentiment of people who do not want the code they write to be used by for-profit corporations without any protection for the community. If I'm going to write proprietary code for Apple and Google, they damn well better be paying my salary.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.