So strlen is "perfectly safe to use", except when it isn't. It's just yet another example of a C's error-prone approach to programming.

Handwaving at Godel is a very poor argument. Now you introduce the qualifier "might". The original (and incorrect) statement was: "If you think you can make something hack-proof purely out of software, let me introduce you to Kurl Godel."

Experience and common sense tells me that very little effort is spent trying to write software that is provably secure. It is entirely possible to prove properties about programs.

A bad tradesman uses poor tools.

You don't know what you are talking about. Godel's theorems were specifically about mathematical axiom systems, consistency, and completeness. It does not say it is impossible to write hack-proof software.

I'm not really sure what your point is. You can read the history of Poland on Wikipedia just as well as I can. Like many countries and territories, it was ruled over and conquered by different countries, and at various times gained independence. What does any of this have to do with Poland conquering Russia, as was claimed?

Which says nothing different than what I already summarized in my last post, per "least favorable view" and "most favorable". Still don't see any evidence that Poland was out to conquer Russia.

The American settlers fought wars and drove the native Americans off their land onto reservations. But they were no more exterminated than were the Tatars.

Maybe you mean if I was indoctrinated into a specific school of thought, in particular the Soviet Union era? And perhaps modern Russia, too? I don't know what they teach in their history books, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was one-sided.

You screwed up your link, but it seems you were trying to point here. Note it does not support the view that Poland was trying to conquer Russia. It explicitly says it wasn't:

"On the other hand, Poland had no intention of joining the Western intervention in the Russian Civil War[16] or of conquering Russia itself.[37]"

In the least favorable view of Poland, it was trying to do a land grab alongside its borders. In the most favorable view, they were trying to secure their country from an imperialistic Russia that was going to invade them anyways when the opportunity arose. It's all in the Wikipedia article.

I'm not assuming either right or wrong. What I am assuming is that he clearly moved to Las Vegas to avoid paying California taxes. Whether it was legal or not is one thing, but it's a shady tactic either way.

Pardon me if I don't take your biased word on any of this.

Annexed into the Russian Empire, then became independent, and then conquered by the USSR.

The native Americans weren't exterminated. Since we're talking about Crimea, you can draw parallels to the forced deportation of the Tatars.

When did Poland ever try to conquer Russia? It's the other way around. They've been subjugated by Russian rule numerous times.

Sorry, your word on this is meaningless.

If you mean most Russians were against it, that wouldn't surprise me. If you mean the people in the countries being subjugated to rule from Russia, you're clearly biased.

Under dispute. Actually, he eventually lost his patent, but not until after he managed to extract millions in licensing fees from it. An anti-Hyatt page.

Whether he owes them or not is still not settled. He won money from California on the basis of a Nevada jury for California's auditory process. The bottom line is that he moved to Las Vegas to avoid California taxes from his license windfall.

From the article: "While some of Hyatt's patents predate or are contemporary with those granted to executives at Intel and Texas Instruments Inc., those companies made products that changed the world, Bassett said.

"I respect Gilbert Hyatt's work -- the process of engineering is difficult," Bassett said in a telephone interview. "But innovations are more than ideas. The broader context matters. If Gilbert Hyatt had never existed, I believe the microprocessor would have developed in the same way that it did.""

I'd rather not see a pro forma comment.

Remember when their used to be one link to The Fucking Article? (If you don't, get off my lawn.) Is there any reason for three links, when one is the real story, and the other two are fluff pieces glossing the story?

Sorry Valve, that one has to be signed in blood.

Why do you care that I care? Are you bitching just because you feel like bitching? Is it unreasonable that language should be used meaningfully and not stupidly?

No, I just copy and pasted snippets blindly... Of course I did! The question is why you lack reading comprehension to pick up on the contrast I made a point to include in each snippet. What's really either willfully ignorant or dishonest on your part is to then quote only the parts that don't talk about the landline.

For example:

As pay phones and landlines disappear, we might be moving toward a wireless future. [..] While some people still use their landlines for their Internet access, "dial-up is antiquated," one of his co-workers said in the background.

and this is one:

Ready to cut the cordsnipping your landline could save you some serious cash, it's not for everyone. [..] Hanging on to your solo landline solely for the Internet connection? Be sure to weigh the costs of other Internet options, such as cable modems.

It's stupid easy to find the same kind of pattern in the rest of the examples. I'm really tired of arguing with obstinate assholes on Slashdot who will say anything to avoid admitting when they are wrong, especially after I do all the work to put the evidence right in front of their face. Fuck off.