|
I have to agree that they succeeded in making him look 'Artificial,' although they didn't have much work to do for that...
|
|
|
|
|
The Commerce Department opened up its application process for companies vying for a share of chip funding to boost US competitiveness with China. The Executive Branch is responsible for creating chips?
Things you never learned in Civics class...
|
|
|
|
|
Just the next step on our (USA) relentless march towards socialism. 
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, we've been on that march and have accomplished much with socialism since the inception of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
Dude… I use the actual definition of Socialism - “public or collective ownership of the means of production and the central planning of the economy”. I have no idea what definition you might be using…
We agree that the US has accomplished much since its inception. Since the US is closer to free market capitalism than socialism - capitalism must be the reason, right?
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's not the only reason. The U.S. has always been a combination of capitalism and socialism, even by your definition.
Today, out of control, unregulated capitalism and corporate greed is creating a society that depends more and more on social support to survive.
|
|
|
|
|
We’ll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that - otherwise we risk getting too political for CP forums.
|
|
|
|
|
fgs1963 wrote: I use the actual definition of Socialism - “public or collective ownership of the means of production and the central planning of the economy”.
What we have is not socialism, as there is no public or collective ownership. What we have is much closer to an oligarchy, as the rich people will have much more say in what goes on in those companies, and the distribution of any profits, than the government ever will. Always remember, our current government has been paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Always remember, our current government has been paid for.
And this is different to other countries... where?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know. Maybe Venezuela - I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
As you said, it's an active partnership between those companies and government, and both political parties play the game. Each with different motives but desire the same outcome.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: The Executive Branch is responsible for creating chips?
Buffalo chips, perhaps? 
(They do produce a lot of them)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Everybody and their grandpa knows (the meme title of) Dijkstra's Letters to the editor: go to statement considered harmful (submitted under the title: A case against the goto statement), but most forget the context of the 60s in which it was written, things we take for granted were a novelty back then. GOTO fight-time
|
|
|
|
|
I just say: They should try to program something in Assembler or in a PLC without the JMP instruction...
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Arguing along the same lines: We all use GOTOs, all the time. The brace closing the loop is just an alternate syntax for 'GOTO [start of loop]'.
|
|
|
|
|
The If has a goto jumping the else when it match
the else is the target of a goto when the condition didn't match.
The problem is not the tool, is the incorrect use of the tool.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
So use assembler JMPs in the same, structured way as high level language compilers generates them.
Even if the assembler gives you a lot of freedom to make JMPs that are not well disciplined and structured, resist the urge to use JMPs that way. Stick to the structured mechanism. Code them the way a compiler (or let us say: an ideal compiler) would do.
|
|
|
|
|
I never minded a GOTO that went backward in the code. It was the forward GOTO that bothered me.
The switch statement is really a controlled GOTO, Shh.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: The switch statement is really a controlled GOTO, Shh.
Yeah, that goes FORWARD. Which "bothers" you. ??? Try / catch is the same -- a controlled goto on error.
A goto that goes forward to the end of the block or to an "error block" I think is fine.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that the switch has GOTOs going forward but it is controlled. I was referring to some code I encounter a LONG time ago, before 1999. The function printed out to more than 20 pages of greenbar paper. Why did I print it? Because the last bug fix caused it to blow up the Microsoft 5.1 C compiler. Too many nested if levels. I got to refactor the thing, the term didn't exist back then, so I rewrote it to break it into functions so it would compile. I guess it was "technical debt" (sorry Kent I used the term)
True spaghetti code.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I've seen code like that. Still do. Functions with 2,000+ (yes, two-thousand) lines in it. No gotos, but lots of nested if/while/for/switch/etc... statements. Truly awful. It didn't start life that way. It grew organically for over 20+ years as features were added to the product and bugs fixed. Nobody thought, hey, let's add small function with the necessary logic and call it from here. NOOOOOO. Gotta put it all right here. Gaaaaaaaaaaah! Amateurs.
Now imagine a whole file with 20 such functions in it. I don't have to imagine. I've seen it.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: Because the last bug fix caused it to blow up the Microsoft 5.1 C compiler. Too many nested if levels.
Some time around 1980 there was an article, I believe it was in SIGplan Notices (SIGplan - the Special Interest Group for programming LANguages of the ACM), with a title "The rightward migration of source code". I wish I had saved a photocopy of that article! (That is: If you have got a copy of it, please tell!)
I make frequent use of 'break' and premature 'return' to avoid having to make printouts in landscape format (or today: so that the source code display won't require two screens side-by-side). I also repeatedly present my thoughts about extended flow constructs: A major justification for them is to reduce nesting levels, and to remove the few last traces of gotos. No one seems to have any interest in those ideas (with the exception of those having had access to them in the (proprietary) Planc language  ).
|
|
|
|
|
If you are programming in C++ using Microsoft tools, you can use the traditional Visual Studio compiler. Or you can use LLVM as a front-end (ClangCL). Clang, clang, clang, went the compiler
Sorry, but that's what always goes through my head when I see something about the Clang compiler
|
|
|
|
|
Move over artificial intelligence, say hello to "organoid intelligence" (OI). "Uh, would you mind telling me whose brain I did put in?"
|
|
|
|
|
That might be useful...
Depending on whose brain they use, that will make a step back of several years  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
