It is called static because it is statically allocated

That's a circular argument. What does statically allocated mean? Is it called "static" because its kind of the opposite of dynamic? I checked two thesaurus that don't make that connection... they suggested 'fixed' or 'stable' or 'permanent'. Those make at least as much sense as 'static'.

. It is a compiler concept which became an OO concept due to being somewhat similar.

Even you have got to realize that is pretty weak. Could have just as easily called them shared, or something more directly applicable.

It is called void because it returns nothing

So void is nothing, and its not to be confused with a void* which is a pointer to absolutely anything, right?

But ultimately the issue is that a variety of decisions were made back when C was written, and there is absolutely a sort of logic to it all, but if you don't know C they don't make a lot of sense, especially when you encounter them in quasi "somewhat similar" roles in modern languages.

Like why are they in dart? Nothing is statically allocated in a language that compiles to javascript to run in a browser. And there are any number of ways of writing function/method declarations to communicate return values or lack thereof without invoking the 'ghost of C' void keyword.

hell simply

method_name [return type] (params)...

or perhaps the more verbose:

method_name (params) returns (return type|nothing)

I mean, if you are designing a new language... the advantage to re-using old keywords from C is that it makes it easier for people coming to the language from C and its descendants. But its needless complexity and confusion for new programmers.

The static keyword has very well defined meaning in every language it is used in.

I think his point was that that static doesn't map semantically very well. They could have just made the keyword "ketchup" and defined it the same way and it would be no better or worse.

You are damn right I want a void return type

But why call it "void" and why call it a "function" if it doesn't return something?

To be honest, I kind of see his point.

If anyone ever comes up with a smart gun system that's 99.8% accurate, that will, no doubt, be good enough.

Except the debate we are having today would repeat itself.

The people responding here aren't looking at what can actually achieved today, or achieved in the future. Its just knee jerk rejection.

. Especially if you think that somebody is going to replace a critical piece of equipment with a - as you note - 99.8% success rate with one that is, at best, an order of magnitude lower

The glock 17 is an exceptionally reliable piece. There are other rock solid pieces out there too. But many are less reliable. And more complex weapons can be an order of magnitude less so. Many of the cheap pocket pistols are not well regarded; and there is a whole cottage industry of "reliability upgrades" for the 1911.

Yet people put their "life on the line" with them.

) It's rare to see any biometric ID system exceed 80% in real world conditions.

80% of what? The only metric that matters to the "life on the the line crowd" on a smart gun is the false reject rate. That is what percentage of the time is it going to falsely reject an authorized fingerprint? That's the number that has to be super low, so they can still get that 99.8% reliability.

Now you can dial the looseness of the fingerprint matching down as far as you like. The loose it gets the less likely that it will reject an authorized fingerprint, and the more likely that it accepts an unauthorized one.

Most biometric systems are dialed in the other way; where its far far more important that it reject an unauthorized user, and its ok if an authorized user has to swipe 3 or 4 times and occasionally even do a manual override.

But you could dial it out the other way, and make it loose enough that it practically never falsely rejects you. Sure by doing so it might let 30% of unauthorized users fire the gun.. but think on that for a second, even if the false accept rate was THAT colossally bad, it would still prevent 70% of unauthorized firings.

Many accidents would still be prevented.

That's the big question, if you dial the false reject rate to loose enough that you get 99.8% reliability; how bad is the false positive rate going to be? Even a terrible false positive is still potentially a big improvement to gun safety,

For all you know, our high costs are due to the fact that Americans are far more unhealthy/unfit than the rest of the world and therefore more expensive

Its appropriate that this is in the 97% of climate science papers agree thread. Because this argument here, is exactly the same kind of nonsense that climate science faces.

Plenty of studies show that healthcare costs more in the states even when broken down by procedure or otherwise controlling for such theories. (Not to mention the lack of healthcare is one of the reasons people get sicker in the first place, and end up needing emergency care for things that would be taken care of earlier in other countries.)

Bull. The free market exists in utilities

You listed off a set of heavily regulated oligopolies as examples of the free market ideal? Are you for real?

Simply not true. My mother had brain surgery to have a tumor removed. The surgery date was scheduled nearly 3 months out from the discovery of the actual tumor. Even in many reasonably dire situations, you're frequently delayed a fair length of time before an actual remedy is applied.

Missing the point again. 3 hours or 3 months isn't the issue. She is not in a position to negotiate. That is the antithesis of the free market. She needs what they are selling in a way that makes rational cost analysis impossible. How much is your life worth to you?

And those are the cases that insurance should be for (the exact way _all_ other insurance works).

Nope its different from the way all other insurance works in that society feels no obligation to replace your car if it breaks down on you, or you drive it into a pole.

But we aren't going to leave you in a ditch with a broken leg no matter what.

That difference is everything. Its why 'insurance' doesn't work. Society isn't going to leave you broken in a ditch even if you don't have broken in a ditch insurance. So we're going to cover you anyway and that means healthcare is mandatory, and if you can't cover the cost of all possible healthcare scenarios then insurance is effectively mandatory too.

If its mandatory its not a free market, and we should stop trying to contort to pretend that it is or can be.

Yet neither property insurance or car insurance are socialized and seem to work just fine in not wiping out the middle class.

What is your car worth? That's an easy number. What is your house worth? That's another easy number. This is worth X$, therefore I need insurance for X$. And the cost of the insurance is proportional to the value of the asset. If I can afford the asset I can generally afford the insurance. If not, I can sell the asset and buy something within my means.

What is the value of your life? Not an easy number. And the insurance you will require has no relation whatsoever to what you might write down on a balance sheet of your net worth either.

because even 99% isn't good enough

The Glock 17 9mm regularly used by police forces is rated at having less than 20 malfunctions in the first 10,000 rounds; that's 1/500... which is 99.8%

So, you are correct that 99% isn't good enough, but 99.8% is.

Thus if someone were to release a smart gun tech that kept its false negative rate (preventing legitimate fire rate) low enough that the gun retains its 99.8% effectiveness rating, then it would be good enough.

Police unions, representing working cops on the streets will be unalterably opposed to it, because even 99% isn't good enough when your life is on the line.

This old chestnut. "your life is on the line". Its life or death, and we have to do everything we can possibly do to ensure a positive outcome.

That's why police have an annual proficiency review. Remember their life is on the line. A few hours once a year is good enough to ensure they are in top shape, right?

And what's more that proficiency test has the very high standard of 70% to get a pass. Remember their life is on the line, or the life of their partner... or perhaps even your life. You want to know the gun he's holding is going to fire when he pulls the trigger right? That's paramount right? That he's proficient with the firearm, well, 70% is "pretty good" right?

Funny how 99% isn't good enough for the gun, but 70% is good enough for the guy holding it.

After all, if it's easy to change the prints, it's still easy to steal and use the weapon.

Its easy to defeat bike locks too. But locking your bike stops casual impulse / opportunity thefts from everyone not wandering the streets with a bolt cutter.

In this case, the gun will not fire when your kids have the neighbors kids over and they pick it up and do something stupid like pull the trigger while pointing it at your kid, or their own leg, or whatever.

The difficulty of changing the prints, even if its pretty easy, will be a high enough threshold to ensure that accident never happens.

There are plenty of perfectly legitimate complaints about smart guns without resorting to nonsensical arguments. The fact that someone dedicated enough will be able to change the prints is pretty much irrelevant. It would clearly be useful to stop plenty of other scenarios.

I'll never understand how that's relevant or how you seem to think that's the government's doing.

I doesn't matter whose doing it it is, the reality stands as evidence that socialized healthcare can be cheaper than the american system.

We have one of the least "free market" healthcare systems in the world: consumers have little freedoms, competitiveness is non-existant, costs aren't determined by actual market forces but instead by some secret negotiating coalition of "government cronies in medicare", "insurance cronies in the private sector", and "a chargemaster hospital crony in the service industry".

That's what the "free market" does; it coalesces into oligopolies.

We desperately need free market mechanics introduced into our healthcare system.

The free market can't exist in healthcare. It has all the characteristics of a public utility -- everyone needs it to some degree, much of the infrastructure is fabulously expensive, some people need a lot of it (due to there genes, or due to an accident). In many cases you can't do without it.

And to top it off it its often purchased under duress. "I see you've had a heart attack, you probably won't make it to the next hospital... so lets discuss what surviving the day is worth to you?" Yes, that's an exaggeration, but the point stands -- health care isn't something you are necessarily in a position to make a "rational, informed cost analysis" of; frequently your "purchasing products or services" while doubled over with pain, nausea, vomiting, cramps, bleeding, delirium, or your facing something terminal ... they might as well literally have a gun to your head for the amount of 'freedom' the consumer has.

Moreover the free market, even when it works, is about the efficient allocation of resources from the sellers to the buyers. Its about efficiency. It isn't efficient to cure a poor person who can't even cover the cost of their procedure, never mind allow the seller turn a profit on it. The free market abhors that situation.

But that's what society wants. Society doesn't want the poor turned away at the hospital to die in the streets. Society doesn't want its middle class wiped out by car accidents and skiing accidents. Society wants socialized health care.

The US just can't admit that to itself.

You make the same mistake as another commenter.

No idea who you are referring to but I disagree that I made any mistake at all.

the harry potter book was being read in the background while someone explained the narrative devices being used, commented on quality, explained the subtext, etc

then the work is not attempting to copy/imitate the original, it's providing something else entirely.

a) Something else entirely? Its entirely a derivative work that not only uses all the content of the original, but also which could not exist without the original.

b) That's why movies don't have to license the songs they use for the soundtrack, right? Because the movies not even about the song. Its something else entirely, and any song could be used in the background; its not even dependant on that particular song because its just, you know, playing the background. Oh wait, they do actually have to license them, even then.

For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch,

Why would someone you met at a conference send you a picture of their lunch?

The tradeoff with facebook is not what you think it is. It's not about making the content you consume from others less obtrusive, it removes the burden to them of figuring out who to share things with.

In other words, I'm saying life is not better when someone posts every piece of crap online without thinking and relies on their "friends" to sort out what they want to see.

To me, anyone who does, is saying they are too lazy to even think about who they want to communicate with.

That interesting person from the conference, if he was required to think about it, would never decide to send you photos of his lunch in the first place. So the burden of deciding whether or not to see it has been shifted off him entirely and onto you.

They want to know how "ClassicGamingFan34" plays Super Mario Brothers 3. You really can't compare creating a movie from a book to creating a gameplay video because the primary merit of the book or movie is to reveal the plot.

And? I want to see how Peter Jackson directs the hobbit, and how Ian McKellan brings Gandalf to life... I'm not interested in an Uwe Boll production of the same thing starring your grandpa.

To suggest that the director, cast, and crew of a film production bring nothing to the table except to "reveal the plot" is absurd.

If the official video makes just as much money via ads as the fan created videos then they can rightly claim that the fans added nothing of value to the game content.

Nobody disputes that the fan productions add real value. But so what? They still need permission.

They had a search warrant for financial data regarding one former employee, and they took tens of millions of medical records too, which they weren't entitled to.

So they took a hard drive that contained that employees information along with some other database and didn't remove and leave behind the ceramic platter that contained the other database?

. They stepped over the line, despite being warned. How is this confusing to you?

The question is really what did they actually take? Did they haul out all the filing cabinets on 2 floors full of printed records? Or did they take a single file server that contained what they were looking for, and which also had some other stuff on it too.

I assume they will be passing that money to affected Americans?

Suing the government for massive amounts of money, in terms of society as a whole, is about as productive as sending yourself a wire transfer. A bunch of fees and no net gain.

Any money the IRS would pay out, would simply have to be collected back from the people.

"I created a video of how I played X game and narrated it" is very very different than "I made a movie based on your book"

In that making a movie requires a LOT more original work to accomplish? You have to write a screenplay, direct actors, each of whom delivers an original interpretation of the part, then theres lighting, sound, sound effects, soundtrack, CGI, props, sets, costumes.

Your right that's a lot more work than pointing a camera at a TV and playing a video game while you jabber on about it.

The act of playing a game is unique to each player,

Yes, and reading a book into a microphone is a unique performance as well, (maybe you do silly voices, maybe you read fast then slow, then fast again...) but you can't read the harry potter books onto youtube and expect the author to have no say in the matter.

To me it's fairly clear that 29.21 applies - especially "the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter"

Yes it applies, but that's not enough. For profit uses are more likely to be ruled infringing than non-profit uses - if you sold your walkthroughs as game guides that'd even more likely to be reuled infringing, but non-profit uses can still infringe. Its just a factor taken into consideration. Moreover, these youtube videos were generating advertising revenue... so there was a profit result whether that was the primary purpose or not.

And Nintendo's move was just to claim the ad revenue. Which at the end of the day seems like a reasonable move.

Nintendo would have no right to that revenue because a) the medium is different b) how a game is played by a particular user is an original work c) any additional content (audio explaining stuff about the game) is more than likely original. The only thing is that they would have to make sure to credit Nintendo but no more than that.

That's why in Canada you don't need film rights to make a movie out of a book, because

a) the medium is different
b) how the film is shot by a particular director is an original work
c) any additional content (audio soundtrack) is more than likely original.

You just have to give the author credit.

No.. wait... that's all completely wrong... even in Canada.

I don't know where you got your information, but its seems entirely wrong. I honestly don't know what a game playthrough would be ruled as in Canada, but its definitely a derivative work. Whether it falls under Fair Dealing or not I couldn't say. Its one thing to include some screenshots or animation as part of a review... but a complete play-through from start to finish really is something else entirely.

You do realize medicare/medicaide is more expensive than private insurance, don't you?

Are you living under a rock?

Canada, UK, and other 'socialized medicine countries" pay less per capita for healthcare than American's do.

Sure, you may not pay for it up front when visiting the doctor or paying for your drugs, but you do pay for it in taxes, along with everyone else.

Yes, and it still costs less.

American's pay more per capita and more as a percentage of GDP, than any country with socialized medicine.

It baffles me that anyone would argue for privatized health care. Unless you are the 1% private healthcare its not "better" healthcare. Its not cheaper healthcare for society as a whole.

I really don't object to the 1% wanting to spend their money on private health care (because they aren't really buying "insurance" they are just buying the healthcare they need directly, as needed, when needed -- they are "self insured"). I can see why they want that, and if I was in their position I'd want it to. Its their money, and they can decide how little or how much of it they want to spend on their healthcare.

But I can't figure out why the other 99% wants private for profit insurance companies managing their healthcare, when it just costs them more and provides them less. Its counter to their own interests.