libnethack is distributed with the game, as part of it, and I think it is even linked in statically by default. Yes, it was written as a highly-generalized support library, so that it *could* be used by other projects if desired and could probably even be made a dynamic library. But if all you want to do is build and run NetHack 4, that doesn't matter.
But in any case the original question from the Dev Team is about what to do in the vanilla codebase that may eventually lead to a new vanilla release (with a number yet to be announced, but 3.6 is probable; the number 3.5 will not be used for reasons explained on nethack.org). The vanilla codebase does not use libuncursed and in a number of additional ways is far more similar to 3.4.3 than it is to NetHack 4.
Although, the NetHack 4 devs are probably following this thread as well and may also implement Unicode in a larger way. (Unicode graphics for map display are already supported there, but things like player names, fruit names, object names, and level annotations are still treated as ASCII, I think, the same as in 3.4.3.)
Another thing not mentioned in the post is that the Dev Team is known to have already implemented some Unicode support, using wchar_t, which you can find in the leaked code (a tarball made from the tip of the dev team's internal repository from a few months ago now), if you hunt down a copy of that. But apparently they have not entirely settled on that implementation as the final solution.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
This is anti-First Amendment, is it not? Free Speech *requires* the ability to 'slander' the superstitions of any group - Mohammed being no exception. The Supreme Court has ruled on this again and again and again. Obama is not only wrong, he is a danger to Free Speech (which is probably why he let Hillary Clinton push the disgustingly pro-Sharia UN HRC 16/18 criminalizing criticism of Islam for the citizens of all UN signatory states - unbelievable that a sitting US Secretary of State would do this - but hey, she is a disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky so not unexpected).
Are you one of those who believe Charlie Hebdo "deserved what they got" because they "had it coming" ? this is Obama's position in the speech you give. Do you think that is moral? or serves the causes of Free Speech and Liberty?
“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” -- George Orwell
Which side do you think President Obama and his administration are on? which side are you on?
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
This is anti-First Amendment, is it not? Free Speech *requires* the ability to 'slander' the superstitions of any group - Mohammed being no exception. The Supreme Court has ruled on this again and again and again. Obama is not only wrong, he is a danger to Free Speech (which is probably why he let Hillary Clinton push the disgustingly pro-Sharia UN HRC 16/18 criminalizing criticism of Islam for the citizens of all UN signatory states - unbelievable that a sitting US Secretary of State would do this - but hey, she is a disciple of Saul Alinskly so not unexpected).
In Sharia "terrorism" is unlawful warfare. Jihad is lawful warfare, and any counter-terror operations against Muslims are considered unlawful warfare, aka "terrorism".
In Sharia "innocents" are Muslims (only). Non-Muslims cannot be innocent, ever - our very existence is "oppression of Muslims" and affront to Allah. This is why the last non-abrogated commandment in the Koran is Sura 9:29 which commands Islams to take over the World and convert or kill all disbelievers (I don't make up the rules of abrogation, I'm just reporting them for you).
The problem is that people who demand Muslims condemn violence actually don't care what Muslims have to say. It's just posturing.
No. The problem is Islam (which is a totalitarian ideology). Stop blaming the victims of jihad, you are enabling evil.
Do you understand the "kitman" deception? Please let m explain:
When a Muslim leader condemns "terrorism" against "innocents" we lap it up, right? We praise them for not wanting to kill us - because we know about 50% of Muslims agree with parts of the Sharia (Islamic law) - at least according to a 2012 Pew Survey. What most don't understand (even Slashdotters) is that the definition of "terrorism" and "innocence" comes from Sharia (Islamic Law).
In Sharia "terrorism" is "unlawful warfare". Jihad is lawful warfare and combating jihad is unlawful warfare. Condemning "terrorism" means condemning the countrer-terror forces of the West, who are trying to save our lives. They understand how you will misinterpret this, and this is permitted for them to deceive because it advances the cause of Islam (after all, the Koran states many times that "Allah is the Greatest of Deceivers").
In Sharia "innocents" are Muslims. All Muslims are always innocent and all kafir (non-Muslims) cannot ever be innocent. Our act of disbelief is a crime under Sharia. Our act of existence is an affront to their Allah (who, if you do the research cannot be YHWH the God of Abraham as they claim, but must be the Nabatean God Dushara based on Koran 53:19-20 - of course none of these ghosts in the sky exist, but it is worth knowing the details so you can defeat their superstition).
So, lets put that back together. A Muslim cleric condemning "terrorism" and the harming of "innocents" is actually saying, "I condemn Western counter-terror forces who are harming Muslims".
Islam is very specific in is wording (it is a totalitarian, theocratic poltiical system with some badly plagiarised superstition on top - it is NOT a personal faith as we understand religion to be).
The only acceptable phrase a Muslim can use is:
"I condemn jihad and the murder of any civilians"
but they NEVER do this. Ever. They are relying on a deception to advance their agenda - which is your submission to Islam and you living under Sharia.
More details about kitman and the other *obligatory* forms of lying in Islam:
http://www.islam-watch.org/aut... (currently offline as it is under DDoS by pro-Sharia groups)
The political ideology called "Islam" is truly evil and deceptive and verifyably false (based on historical evidence). Slashdotters need to educate themselves about it so we can fight for Liberty by discrediting it. Are YOU prepared to fight for Liberty? we have to attack and discredit that ideology, and we can only do that if you understand the enemy.
Pro-Sharia folks always mod be down when I point things like this up. They mistake telling the truth about Islam for some form of "racism". This is crazy. Stop censoring those to tell the truth about Islamic ideology (and who are not condemning the slaves trapped in the evil system, called "Muslims"). Please mod me up so my karma recovers and I can share more and more about the ideology of Islam and its deceptions - there is a whole lot more to tell you guys so you are armed for the ideological battle against Islam (which is an existential struggle between 21st Century Enlightenment Civilization and 7th Century Sharia barbarism).
(I exaggerate. Slightly. I believe we actually had a 6.something once, back in the eighties, and people up to eighty or ninety miles from the epicenter claimed afterward that they felt it.)
Ohio is only seismically active in the technical sense. You generally need an actual seismograph to detect said activity. I'm sure it's fascinating, but it has little practical significance.
Furthermore, engaging in political "discourse", as you call it, with morons going on about irrelevant garbage on social networks would do absolutely NOTHING to help me know how to vote. Having an actual intelligent conversation about a real political issue would be a different thing. I might actually be interested in that. But listening to the kind of idiots who like to talk about news and politics on social networks drool about talking points they don't even understand that they heard on television is NOT my idea of good discourse.
> The French love sharing news and politics on social networks
If I had to choose between sitting through a hundred hours of nonstop stupid cat videos or thirty minutes of news and politics on social networks, I'd take the stupid cat videos every time. It's clearly the lesser of those two evils.