Saturday, October 8, 2016

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 4 topics

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Oct 08 03:02PM -0500

"US judge: end software patents, copyright is sufficient"

http://www.osnews.com/story/29432/US_judge_end_software_patents_copyright_is_sufficient
 
Finally.
 
Lynn
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 02:31PM -0700

Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "US judge: end software patents, copyright is sufficient"
 
> Finally.
 
We will never truly be free until all copyright claims are also
abolished. It is enough to require acknowledgement
of the originating authors and those of derived works, but we
must all be completely free to build atop the works of others,
as God has given unto man, through man, separately and
distinctly, so we would work togethetlr, with our goals being to
work together for our mutual benefit and growth.
 
We are one race, one blood, one family of man. We must work
together to solve our problems and meet our needs. It is the
only way that will endure, and it is the way and teaching of Jesus
Christ: mankind unity through truth, through Him.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Oct 08 04:47PM -0500

On 10/8/2016 4:31 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Christ: mankind unity through truth, through Him.
 
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
 
Are you saying that software companies should not be able to sell their
software ?
 
Lynn
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>: Oct 08 11:06PM +0100

On 08/10/2016 22:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin
 
> Are you saying that software companies should not be able to sell their
> software ?
 
He doesn't want coders to earn a living from their software. He doesn't
want painters to earn a living from their paintings. He doesn't want
sculptors to earn a living form their sculptures. He doesn't want
authors to earn a living from their books. He thinks we should all be
beggars as if God's grace is enough for anyone. The guy is a
hypocritical bigoted fuckwit.
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 03:50PM -0700

Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Are you saying that software companies should not be able
> to sell their software ?
 
The Bible teaches us that we are to be paid for labor, for a service we
provide. A software app takes time to develop. Recovering that
investment is appropriate, in that it cost $10K in labor to create,
and you expect to have 10K people use it, sell it for $1 per copy,
and once you've recovered your investment, switch to a donation-
only model.
 
Software (and digital media in general) is also different than other
things. A person can spend a year accomplishing development
on some product, to then achieve the final form. They then, becauss
of the properties of digital media, give copies to every person with a
computer on the entire planet, and still have theirs too. This is
not true with chairs, or plates, or ties, or dog collars. It automatically
places software / digital media into another realm which must be
recognized for what it is, a preview of Heaven:
 
(1) Use without consumption (Moses, burning bush was not
consumed).
(2) A pattern and prompting of how to be: creating, having,
and sharing / giving.
(3) Does not degrade. Only the media it's on degrades. A
software program written in 1960 would still run the
same today on equal hardware. No rusting, no aging,
but rather it is how things will be in Heaven.
 
The enemy of this world twists God's gift in this area to try to be like
worldly things, when it shares none of the fundamental attributes
with them save one: our involvement in creating new things.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Oct 08 06:38PM +0300

On 8.10.2016 13:24, JiiPee wrote:
> via the base class pointer or via the derived class pointer? So the
> undefined behaviour has nothing to do with deleting the objects memory
> block?
 
In practice, probably yes, AFAIK the common memory allocators are able
to release memory blocks by the address only, without the need to
provide the size information (and consequently, many memory allocators
even provide a function for returning the (effective) size of an
allocated block by its address).
 
So in practice the memory will probably get deallocated correctly, but
the destructor of the derived class and its members are not called. In
case of your original example this does not matter because the int
destructor is a non-op anyway. However, this is still formally undefined
behavior (and may easily become a source of real bugs when something
more interesting is added in derived classes).
 
Cheers
Paavo
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 08 05:11PM -0400

On 10/8/2016 6:24 AM, JiiPee wrote:
> via the base class pointer or via the derived class pointer? So the
> undefined behaviour has nothing to do with deleting the objects memory
> block?
 
That is true. You have one object, not two. The derived class object
can be considered simply an extension of the base class object.
 
And the memory routines don't know even the size of the object. All it
knows is the size of the block of allocated memory, which is at least
the size of the object (and can be larger - but that's another story).
 
When an object gets deleted, either via delete or going out of scope,
the C++ compiler generates the code to call the destructor. If the
destructor is not virtual, the call will be to the apparent type of the
object (Shape, in this case). Destructors in any base classes will
still be called, but not destructors in derived classes.
 
When you have a virtual destructor the destructor is called for the real
type (Circle in this case) instead of the apparent type. And, of
course, destructors for all base classes will still be called.
 
And, of course, it is the responsibility of the class destructor to
destroy any objects which require destruction.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>: Oct 08 09:20PM +0100

US Judge: "Software, however, is akin to a work of literature or a
piece of music, undeniably important, but too unbounded,
i.e., too "abstract," to qualify as a patent-eligible invention."
 
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1769.Opinion.9-28-2016.1.PDF
 
This is huge.
 
/Flibble
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Oct 08 03:59PM -0500

On 10/8/2016 3:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1769.Opinion.9-28-2016.1.PDF
 
> This is huge.
 
> /Flibble
 
Yes, this is huge. For instance, should Amazon get patent protection on
the "one-click" button ? Nice feature, I think not.
 
And this is not off-topic. I worry constantly about my competitors
suing me for software patents for things that we invented decades ago.
Software engineers should not have to worry about software patents.
 
Lynn
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 08 08:21AM -0700

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> Just seek the truth. God will do the rest. All yoiu have to do
> is set your full focus on the truth, honestly desiring to know
> it, even if you don't know what it might be.
 
Additional info:
 
http://biblehub.com/kjv/1_john/5-4.htm
 
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and
this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
 
We need God to overcome. We need Jesus Christ to make us free.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>: Oct 08 04:25PM +0100

On 08/10/2016 14:07, Öö Tiib wrote:
> David or Solomon living in Jerusalem nor their kingdoms and conquests.
> So it may be there were no such kings. That does not mean that Jerusalem
> does not exist.
 
The Bible isn't the only source for determining the existence of
Jerusalem: we can fly to Israel and actually visit it. The Old
Testament is the ONLY source for the existence of people related to Adam
and Eve: Adam who was magically created out of dust and Eve who was
magically created out of Adam's rib.
 
There is absolutely no evidence CONTEMPORARY to Jesus's supposed
existence of his existence, none.
 
/Flibble
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 08 11:59AM -0700

On Saturday, 8 October 2016 18:26:25 UTC+3, Mr Flibble wrote:
> magically created out of Adam's rib.
 
> There is absolutely no evidence CONTEMPORARY to Jesus's supposed
> existence of his existence, none
 
AFAIK some independent scholars of first century (for example Titus Flavius
Josephus and Publius Cornelius Tacitus) do mention Jesus in their writings.
We may doubt how high quality evidence it is but "absolutely no evidence"
is incorrect.
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>: Oct 08 08:15PM +0100

On 08/10/2016 19:59, Öö Tiib wrote:
> Josephus and Publius Cornelius Tacitus) do mention Jesus in their writings.
> We may doubt how high quality evidence it is but "absolutely no evidence"
> is incorrect.
 
Their writings are not contemporary: they were made many years AFTER
Jesus's supposed death. So I am correct in what I said: there is
absolutely no evidence of Jesus's supposed existence, none.
 
/Flibble
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)