Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: This isn't a question (Score 1) 406

by euroq (#49762675) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Being against so-called "spousal rape" was but one in a long line of attacks on Christian marriage (being that consent is given once and forever), and therefore, Western Civilization as a whole.

Very bad logic there bud. Being against Christian marriage is not being against Western Civilization as a whole.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 406

by euroq (#49762661) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues.

Straight parents also push their social agendas onto their (likely) straight children. The Duggar family comes to mind. Poor kids are so sexually and intellectually repressed.

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 406

by euroq (#49762653) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

"Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.

Can you give an example of a negative outcome? There has already been many changes to marriage in recent history, such as the affirmation of women's rights, the ease of divorce, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc. I don't see any negative outcomes via "family" law; for example, the protection of children. (Note that I'm not saying there are not unintended consequences of such changes; I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage)

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 406

by euroq (#49762631) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission) .

Eh, no. Well you're a little correct, because sometimes there could be cases such as not getting married during lent... but think about what you're saying. The priest marrying them would already know if they were violating church laws.

The main reason they were asking was if they were related and didn't know it. People used to live in small villages and they didn't have email. They also married young and didn't have a long courtship; young people would typically be chosen to marry by their families. Weddings were the rare instances of people leaving their ~5-mile radius where they lived. So the line "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married" was not "does anyone here have beef with these people and want to make a politically motivated attack against one of these people", it was an authentic question of "do these people who don't know each other have a reason not to get married such as they are too closely related, or this guy who nobody on the girl's side of the family was a murderer in another village and the bride's family from this village doesn't know?"

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1) 406

by euroq (#49762605) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

It's not the state getting into your "business", it's your business getting into the state. Marriage predates nation-states by millennia. And as a practical matter, I'm glad I didn't have to get a lawyer and sign a 500-page contract in order to get married, and I'm glad that other people don't need their own lawyer to go over such a contract in order to recognize my marriage.

I understand your opinion, but the modern question of same-sex marriage is not about your business getting into the state. Modern marriage laws focus on mundane but important laws such as making medical decisions for your spouse, special protections (in the U.S. there is a constitutional provision that the government cannot coerce spouses to testify in court against each other), automatic inheritance of the estate, and lots and lots of tax implications. I'm sure there's more, but in any case I'm certain that there's no laws forcing procreation.

With these laws, it really is a contract that shouldn't be easily broken by one of the participants. I'm not saying you need a lawyer, but I do believe that with laws that have such significant on a person's life (and beyond), there should be government protection and a bit more than a handshake to establish these special protections.

Comment: Re: This isn't a question (Score 1) 406

by euroq (#49762563) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.

When you say "special rights" I think of inequality and favoritism. In reality, gay marriage isn't that (or at least I don't expect it to be that). The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them, inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets, the ability to make decisions for our children, and... well I think that's it. I don't consider these natural rights, I really just consider them a government recognition of companionship. This has nothing to do with fucking.

Comment: Re:Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score 1) 148

by euroq (#49729401) Attached to: Rust 1.0 Released

What I mean with that is that the language was designed with certain safety mechanisms involved. However, in order to do something as simple (maybe simple isn't the right word, but common) as the printf function, you have to break the standard safety mechanisms. Hence the printf function is a macro, and underneath the hood there is a whole lot of ugliness.

Now, taking a step back further, I think that it's good that ugliness is hidden behind the scenes. My point is that, if one has to get ugly to do the things that need to be done in a printf function, then I expect that it will actually become common and necessary to "do ugly things" in order to get stuff done in real-world applications.

And maybe I'm wrong, who knows?

Comment: Rust made a mistake in going C++-syntax (Score 3, Interesting) 148

by euroq (#49700277) Attached to: Rust 1.0 Released

They could have made the same simple concepts without going C++ style. This is obviously just aesthetics, but I don't think the language looks nice compared to lots of newer languages (Swift, Ruby, Kotlin, and even D).

The :: scope operator is ugly and redundant.

This match syntax is just ugly and hard to type:

    match header[0] {
                1 => Ok(Version::Version1),
                2 => Ok(Version::Version2),
                _ => Err(ParseError::InvalidVersion)

The following is ugly and is not obvious:

use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
use std::thread;
use std::sync::mpsc;

fn main() {
        let data = Arc::new(Mutex::new(0u32));

        let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();

        for _ in 0..10 {
                let (data, tx) = (data.clone(), tx.clone());

                thread::spawn(move || {
                        let mut data = data.lock().unwrap();
                        *data += 1;


        for _ in 0..10 {

A simple printf function has to be a macro, because the techniques it uses are unsafe which is a main feature of the language.

OK a lot of these gripes are trivial; I guess I'm getting at the fact that they went an academic route about how to deal with pointers and memory allocation safely, and then built everything around that. It was so academic and engineering-like and they didn't think or try very hard about the design and aesthetics.

Comment: Re:Yeah.... (Score 1) 193

by euroq (#49583669) Attached to: Massachusetts Governor Introduces Bill To Regulate Uber, Lyft

My half brother is one of those doctors who quit because of being sued and didn't want/couldn't continue practicing. It hurts my family very much. But let me tell you, it's not because of "liberals" it's because of many factors. I suppose a completely conservative or completely liberal government could fix it (in a manner disagreeable to the other side), but just like our tax system, the problem won't be solved not because of liberalism or conservatism, it's because of our shitty democracy.

Comment: Re:Yeah.... (Score 1) 193

by euroq (#49583651) Attached to: Massachusetts Governor Introduces Bill To Regulate Uber, Lyft

You're so fucking wrong. Your quick googling sounds like you just googled "climate change science is wrong". Taxis are not monitored by anyone, Ubers/Lfyts/Sidecars are.

I don't want to say this because anecdotal evidence is stupid, but I'm going to because I'm mad that I read your post. I've personally known two people to have been robbed by gunpoint by taxi drivers, and there's no way to track them. There's NOBODY who's ever been assaulted by Uber/Lfyts/Sidecars who haven't been able to have been tracked.

Comment: Re:Most-loved or Most-infatuated? (Score 1) 181

by euroq (#49534005) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

Of course, good code is 99% due to the person producing it and only 1% (if that) due to the language used

I agree that it's at least a majority of the person producing it, but I wouldn't say 99%. Good language design, in the right and appropriate circumstances, do indeed help. For example, Java (which you mention as bad) actually makes it MUCH harder for software to crash. For example, I lead a mobile team with Objective C (iOS) and Java (Android). The number of users experiencing crashes on the iOS app is around 2.5%, while the Android app is a perfect 0%. I don't think the Android devs are any better than the iOS devs - I am certain it's the language.

For the record, I have nothing good to say about C++ :)

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming