Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Good questions - interesting answers (Score 1) 86

by swillden (#47717073) Attached to: Interviews: Bjarne Stroustrup Answers Your Questions

Maybe that's the problem? Can't we have the power of the sharp kitchen knife without the four years of training from Tibetan monks?

Sure. What we can't have is the power of the sharp kitchen knife, plus the compatibility with existing code and libraries without the four years of training.

I can teach a novice to use a nice, pleasant, safe and very powerful subset of modern C++ in a fairly short period of time... as long as the novice is only working on code written in that subset. If the novice starts looking at and modifying other code, though, all bets are off until he's done his years on the mountain top.

The way I see it, C++14 is a very nice language with a bunch of baggage you should just ignore... except when you have to use because you're working with code that already does. This means given a clean, modern codebase you should be able to hire a bunch of smart novices and get them productive fairly quickly. Just keep an old salt around who can answer their questions when they step outside of the nice subset.

Comment: Re:It's not a kernel problem (Score 1) 309

by swillden (#47716485) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

The problem is the GUI. People don't like X

Non-sequiteur. X has nothing to do with the GUI, at least not any part of the GUI users care about. X is merely the tool used to draw stuff on the screen; it says nothing about what gets drawn. Everything users care about, including what windows, buttons, fonts, etc., look like, how applications interact with one another, and whether or not all of the above is nicely integrated and looks like it belongs together has nothing to do with X.

Comment: Re:which turns transport into a monopoly... (Score 1) 203

by swillden (#47715307) Attached to: Helsinki Aims To Obviate Private Cars

count me out... this sort of stuff just makes me want to live on a remote tropical island and spend my days fishing.

Do you also insist on owning your own elevator?

I insist on living and working in locations where I don't need an elevator... a remote tropical island would work well for this.

Comment: Re:or they could just NOT do it (Score 1) 132

by swillden (#47714911) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

The DMCA doesn'y say anything at all about search results. It's about hosting allegedly infringing material.

Courts in the US have held that linking directly to infringing content constitutes contributory infringement. Linking to another site isn't infringement just because the other site doesn't want you to link and benefit from their material (Tickemaster v Tickets.com established that), but linking to infringing material on another site does.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor am I a Google spokesperson.)

Comment: Re:Google should be wary (Score 1) 132

by swillden (#47714817) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

While that may be true, the shareholders would riot in a damned hurry if the stock price were to tank because Google becomes less relevant.

Which would be relevant only if Larry, Sergey and Eric decided to allow it to be. As long as the three of them stay united, they outvote the rest of the shareholders combined.

Comment: Re:Google should be wary (Score 2) 132

by swillden (#47714799) Attached to: Google Receives Takedown Request Every 8 Milliseconds

These monopolies have billions in cash reserves to run them profitless for a very long time. Like decades.

Aside from the rather questionable assertion that Google is a monopoly, the company's cash reserves are nowhere near that large, or, rather, the company's expenses are much larger than you believe. Last I heard, Google has cash reserves of ~$60B (which, note, aren't actually cash; you don't leave that much capital sitting idle), and annual operational costs of about $40B. How long Google could continue to operate with hugely decreased revenues depends on just how far the revenues declined, and how much economizing the company could do, but I strongly doubt that it would be "decades". If all advertising revenue derived from the search engine disappeared and Google didn't economize at all, it would be bankrupt in maybe three years.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't speak for Google. Everything in this post is derived from public information.)

Comment: Re:Its been done (Score 1) 459

by swillden (#47714525) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

Yes. Traffic jams happen because interchanges/intersections get saturated.

Actually, the study in question was on freeways, and it didn't necessarily have anything to do with interchanges, which are all rate-controlled in the area. One spot they found regularly jammed was just a rise in the road. The partially obstructed vision was enough to cause a few drivers to slow just a bit, which snowballed and then created a jam which moved backwards from the rise at a fairly constant rate of precession, two or three mph, IIRC. So after the jam moved away from the rise, there was *no* cause for it. It just self-sustained as drivers bunched up when approaching the jam.

There was a /. article on it. It was fascinating.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 680

by squiggleslash (#47712491) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I wrote my bullet points because I really couldn't believe you wrote what you just did. If I'm interpreting your response correctly, you either are embarassed by what you wrote and are trying to walk it back in a way that doesn't admit you made the mistake at all, or you're trolling. You certainly haven't attempted to clarify how my interpretation is incorrect.

You said: "every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response". This is ludicrous hyperbole, an attempt to foster moral panic.

No, it's a reasonable depiction of the current environment. You, thus far, have claimed it isn't because (1) you claimed only Valenti was getting the threats, and then, when it became clear that wasn't true, that (2) it was only "feminists" who were getting them (and somehow implied this isn't a problem then.)

I'm leaning towards the "I'm being trolled" hypothesis when it comes to your commentary. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but at this point I'd like you to start by:

- Agreeing that it's not just Valenti getting the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That NOTHING Valenti has said justifies the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That it is actually misrepresenting someone to post a picture of them wearing what's obviously a joke T-shirt and imply that it isn't a joke, rather than address directly what they've written.
- That the subset of threats of physical and sexual violence I've pointed you at directly were unjustified
- That Feminists do NOT deserve threats of physical and sexual violence.

Once you say, explcitly, the above, I'll respond. But based upon how you've commented thus far, I'm not interpreting it as anything other than how I've described, and I'm concerned you're not arguing in good faith.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 680

by drinkypoo (#47712321) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'm a different AC, but I think you made his point. "You are unlikely to see another human being for days" in those hundreds (is it really thousands?) of square miles precisely "because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there."

Yes, I did. I also made the point that his point is irrelevant. We're talking about a minuscule proportion of the population. It's not that their wishes should be ignored, exactly; I believe that creation and protection of rights is a valid pursuit. But "It is virtually impossible for people to not run into each other," is still a completely valid statement. Virtually nobody lives in a situation where they won't see other people. Someone always turns up, if only for a sample of something. Maybe you. And frankly, there really is nowhere like you describe in the USA, either. There's a number of large private ranches of thousands of acres; those guys often have stories of trespassers. And a large portion of the country is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which regularly portions big sections of it off for military and police training, and which patrols it regularly and investigates fires, target shooters in hunting season and hunters out of season, and the like. Then there's the big state parks, which are full of state park rangers on horses and in Jeep of various types, and IIRC Chevy trucks. They manage to cover quite a bit of ground.

So yes, it is virtually impossible to not run into people. You have to go to significant lengths, especially since people are actually looking for people in those supposedly empty places. Sure, you could get lost in the asscrack of some mountain somewhere, but even getting there is beyond the reach of many people. Only a tiny slice of the world population even lives away from someplace where you can avoid seeing people for more than a few minutes at a time.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 680

by squiggleslash (#47711885) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'll bullet point what I'm reading and you can tell me what I'm misunderstanding from your post, if anything:

- The women receiving rape threats are, in your view, Feminists, and so it's not an issue. You don't explain why it's OK if Feminists receive rape threats.
- Michele Malkin has never retweeted numerous death and rape threats despite widespread coverage when it happened. (She's probably a Feminist too, amirite?)
- Valenti has made a career of demonising men, as can be evidenced by one joke T-shirt, which is totally not misrepresenting her views because she wore it in public and even showed a picture of it online which nobody ever does with a joke shirt.
- You bringing up male suicides in response to someone complaining they're seeing more PCism because women online keep getting rape threats is not deflection. Me pointing out that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is.

Correct?

Here's the truth, which you appear to be completely unable to comprehend:

1. No, Valenti does not hate men, nor has she made a career of demonizing them. I've actually read some of Valenti's stuff, and while she says a lot of nonsense, most of the idiots complaining about misandry are the ones who respond to "Wouldn't it be nice if men didn't ${badthing} women" with "Not all men ${badthing}" despite the fact the sentence was never "It's terrible that ALL MEN ${badthing} women, it should stop!"
2. No, Valenti is not the only one getting rape threats.
3. Sorry to bring up Valenti again, as this issue has nothing to do with her save for her being one of the numerous victims, but asking about the existence of subsidized tampons should not result in you receiving threats of physical and sexual violence, including rape.
4. Thinking it would be nice to have Jane Austin on a banknote does not mean you deserve to be threatened with physical and sexual violence, including rape. Jane Austin is fucking awful, but that is a disproportionate response. BTW, that wasn't Valenti. Valenti is not the receipient of all or most of the rape threats.
5. Even hating liberals should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence.
6. Politely asking men not to hit on women in public spaces like cons should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence. In fact. Rebecca's request was an entirely reasonable one regardless of your views on women.
7. Actually, pretty much no action should result in you getting those threats. None. Not even over-reacting to men making sexist jokes behind you in a way that gets both one of them and yourself fired.

Comment: Re:Just let the investigations complete (Score 1) 4

by squiggleslash (#47711591) Attached to: What they want you to think

That is interesting, and it'd be interesting to see a version of events that explains both the injury and the eyewitnesses apparently not noticing anything that would explain it. The only thing that springs to mind is that reportedly Wilson opened his car door in such a way that it hit or came close to Brown, whereupon it slammed back (either pushed by Brown or bouncing off him) into Wilson.

Still, that's a lot of damage for a door "bouncing".

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...