"doing donuts" is american english slang for driving on slick/snowing area (usually parking lots) and intentionally going into a skid, causing the car to skid in a tight circle (causing a "donut" pattern from the tires in the snow).
I believe homosexual acts are a sin.
Fine. Many people believe eating bacon is a sin.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
Fine. I don't think boxing should be promoted. Doesn't seem to stop them.
I oppose gay marriage.
Here is where it is not-so fine. If you are actively trying to suppress two consensual adults from entering into a mutually beneficial contract because of their gender, you are anti-gay. Maybe you're ok with civil unions; that makes you less anti-gay and just deluded in believing that separate-but-equal will work this time.
No, they're not. There are most systems use multiple hand-written checks and guards that are then augmented by automated diversity techniques (imagine all the transformations your compiler does, applied randomly and iteratively) so that each of those checks is a unique code sequence. Of course the cracker can try to de-obfuscate them, or look for "essential actions" ala virus detection, but it really is an arms race similar to detecting virii. And if you think the virus-checkers are winning or inherently have the upper hand, I have a bridge to sell you.
Technically, what has to be proved is "for all code paths we can identify if the value is not an int." And then it can provide a backoff/error handler case when the value isn't an int. The issue is that typically the the error handler is significantly slower than doing it the naive way. So there is a cut-off point where the optimization because a net win, and generally you need some amount of profiling/feedback to correctly identify that cut-off.
Reminds me of a friends facebook status: "At Genius Bar. I can think of at least two things wrong with that name."
First, the FSF needs to convince us average users need to have control. Why should average users have control over their computer? Isn't this what got us the virus nightmare in Windows?
Uh, because they bought the device? I think the burden is on the other side for taking away control.
I don't think Mac OS X will ever go away from giving you the control it does (and it is quite nice), but Mac OS X is not appropriate on a device like the iPad.
Why isn't OS X appropriate? What is the difference between this and an Air? I saw the presentation, the device sat between the iPod touch and the macbook. What is one OS appropriate and the other isn't?
In fact, I would compare the iPad to the upcoming yet-to-be-made Chromium netbook. The vision Google laid out for their device is pretty much exactly the same as Apple's vision of the iPad. Except that Apple is actually _less_ connected in to your device than Google would be.
"Google's doing it too!" is not a good argument.
Attacking Apple's products is one thing. Why not create your own open source tablet to compete, and let the marketplace decide?
Well, I'm sure it will: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthejoojoo.com%2F, though the market doesn't always act rationally, and perhaps the FSF is trying to raise awareness about the freedoms people are giving up for Apple's style.
"Can't you just gesture hypnotically and make him disappear?" "It does not work that way. RUN!" -- Hadji on metaphyics and Mandrake in "Johnny Quest"
