Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Subtle attack against C/C++ (Score 1) 189

Modern C++ is a lot more coherent than you suggest. Its main problem is the initial compatibility with C, and attempting to be compatible with bad decisions made along the way (long has to be 32-bit, so we need "long long"?). I have no idea why you think binary literals are all that much more useful than octal or hex. Macros aren't type-safe, but C++ templates are. Name mangling is an implementation detail, and there's lots of variation between compiler output that isn't name mangling. Standardizing it would accomplish very little, and there's no need for the runtime to know the mangled name.

Comment Re:Subtle attack against C/C++ (Score 1) 189

FWIW, Linux started way back when C++ was nonstandard (1990?) and didn't have many advantages over C for kernel development. At that time, C was definitely the right choice, and making it a mixture of C and C++ isn't real attractive. Nowadays, I'd recommend C++, as it can do pretty much everything C can and more besides, and standards-conforming compilers can be found everywhere (pity about Visual C++).

Comment Re:Subtle attack against C/C++ (Score 1) 189

No, C++ is a separate language from C, and far more expressive. It never was a preprocessor for C; Cfront was a genuine compiler that used C as the target machine, and fairly soon became inadequate for compiling C++.

If you think it's basically C with more libraries and a fancy pre-processor, you're using it wrong.

Comment Re:The problem is that too much of it is state bas (Score 1) 135

Um, how the hell did you get from what I said to what you said? I was, and am, advocating drugs that have a definite positive affect, without side effects that are too bad. That's basically what the FDA is looking for when they allow a drug onto the market.

I also fail to see the magical thinking. If the FDA requires evidence of safety and effectiveness before putting a drug on the market, then a drug on the market can be expected to be actually useful, without any consequences too dire (or the FDA will rescind its approval). What this has something to do with a guy named Knut who wanted to show he wasn't all-powerful escapes me.

Pharmaceutical companies concentrate on drugs they can legally sell, for some odd reason related to making money or something. If they're prevented from selling useless drugs, they'll try to make useful ones. They don't develop drugs at random, you know.

Comment Re:The vessel matters (Score 1) 588

So the average lion prefers to eat people with weak immune systems? I'm not getting this.

Now, suppose we stopped inoculations, and people started dying of these preventable diseases in large numbers. Would this make the species healthier, or just resistant against threats we've already got handled? Would this select for strong immune systems, and possibly kill people after reproduction age with autoimmune disorders?

If you want me to go along with killing large numbers of children that we could save, you're going to have to have something more specific than "increasing the average health of the herd".

Comment Re:Netflix makes bad choices (Score 1) 328

I disagree... for one thing that charge probably couldn't be put on the bill without additional clarification. For another thing netflix doesn't know exactly if you have comcast or not. Its an internet login. You could be in a comcast system on day with your laptop and not in another.

So its hard to say whether someone is in that zone or not.

Simply don't pay the fee and if comcast users complain tell them that their ISP is intentionally slowing down the traffic.

Comment Re:The problem is that too much of it is state bas (Score 1) 135

by this logic we should make illegal all drugs that don't have a huge impact on the ailment in question.

Maybe we should ban all drugs that don't cure a disease outright... then they'll only come out with drugs that are cures!

You are using magical thinking. You are assuming that what the government legislates becomes reality.

This is as absurd as thinking that old English king could cause the tides to come in and go out at royal decree.

The pharma companies will produce lots of drugs. If you make many of them illegal to sell then you've simply limited your options. Nothing more or less.

Comment and they want Jessica Biel wearing whipped cream (Score 1) 433

> of course you conveniently ignored that manufacturers do not even want a liability with an upper bound at the sale price.

Of course they WANT no liability. They WANT Jessica Biel, wearing nothing but whipped cream, too. Neither of those is reality, so I don't know how that's relevant.

Yrs, under current law in India, anyone providing any products or services to a can be held liable. Anyone includesanyone who sells them batteries for their smoke detector. If something scary were to happen, the lawyers may well sue everyone and see what sticks. It's clear you don't run a business. The most worrisome thing isn't that you actually screw up and ARE liable. Most if the cost is that someone sues you and you have to spend millions s prove that you aren't liable, then hope that the jury doesn't decide "someone needs to pay".

Comment Re:we don't know what happened AT ALL (Score 1) 582

This is like asking "In the USA, am I free to get married to whoever I want?", and then complaining that you were lied to because Angelina Jolie didn't want to marry you.

In the same way that it was (maybe incorrectly) assumed the person who wanted to get married to "whoever he wanted" was really asking "Am I prevented from marrying anyone that I want provided they also want to marry me?"...

It is also common to assume that when someone says "Anyone can verify open source software to be secure and non-malicious", they are saying "No one is prevented from verifying open source software", rather than "Anyone (regardless of their software engineering ability) will find every single bug in a piece of open source software."

If you thought that it was claimed that every piece of open source software was bug free (contingent upon being "verified" as such), I'm sorry to tell you that you were misinformed.

Not only is both open source not able to be verified with 100% certainty. It is impossible to prove that software in general (open or closed) is bug free as a corollary to Alan Turing's proof that no solution exists to the halting problem.

Comment Re:Ukraine's borders were changed by use of force (Score 1) 304

You don't just ban it, you migrate away from it while providing solutions to the massive hole left in the labour sector.

No, you ban it. The people that then lose their ill-gotten plantations can go pick cotton. They can consider themselves lucky that they aren't punished more directly.

The north had just spent a whole lot of money on other conflicts, and needed the resources.

The north even had slavery at an earlier point in history. Plenty of blame for slavery all around.

But the Civil War still boils down to slavery.

Slashdot Top Deals

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.

Working...