Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


evildictaitor evildictait​or Devil's advocate
  • Can VS create a visual graph of typical high performance code?

    , androidi wrote

    I confused the point it seems.

    What I meant had nothing to do with profiling or *getting* high performance. It was just an observation based on having seen a bunch of open source code. I'm not saying that performance has anything to do with this but my feel from having seen a lot of code is that those projects that have good performance tend to come in C-style code and have either "meaty/large" method bodies or many smaller methods in single file. Perhaps there's no classes being used at all (C) - so my point was - what good is "Code map" if it can't create a map of the kind of code that really needs some sort of map? (eg. 200k .c file with no classes). IDA Pro can create such maps with assembly code, so creating such maps with source should be no problem.

    My experience of having worked with compilers is the exact opposite. Bloated C files and huge functions are much slower than modular code that is much easier for the compiler to optimize and inline.

  • Do you use Linux?

    Professionally? Yep.

    As a hobby? Nope

    Dual boot? Main OS? I now always boot from flash drives. I have a Windows stick and a BackTrack stick. My machine's main OS was written by me, so it's not Linux or Windows or anything really.

    What distro(s)? BackTrack

    What are your specific interests in Linux? None particularly, although I do occasionally dive into driver code to see how various bits of hardware work.

  • Seems like metro on the desktop is a done deal

    , BitFlipper wrote

    And MS is 100% to blame for this, as they should be.


    I actually think that most of the features of Windows8 are a good thing: more asyncronicity, better app isolation, explicit per-app permissions, getting developers to move away from the Win32 API, better touch capabilities, a central app store, and UI that is DPI-scalable and based on a small number of fixed formats (which compels decoupling of the UI from the functional code) are all great things.

    Look at any one of those things and you have to concede that it, introduced on its own into Windows7, would have been a good thing.

    The problem wasn't what was introduced, but how it was introduced. One new feature is an improvement. A million new features, which are so new they require developers to develop in entirely new ways (async), in new languages (JS), abandon all of their existing libraries (incompatible) and specialist knowledge (APIs), was a horrific mistake.

    Compound on that the dual killers of giving people the opportunity to continue developing as before (with the language, APIs, libraries and institutional knowledge they have learnt over decades) and the direct business reasons not to upgrade (Win8 apps only work on Win8, Win7 apps run on both, oh and by the way we'll take 30% of your profit), and you don't need a crystal ball to tell that Windows8, as released, was always going to fall flat on its face.

    The tragedy is that Microsoft are a bunch of techy people who just don't get developers or users.

    Traditionally Microsoft knew about developers. it killed OS2 and Linux in the 90s because all of the developers developed for Windows. And so users used Windows because thats what all of the apps needed to run.

    Apple knows about users. All of the users want an iPhone. The dev experience is awful but developers suck it up because if you want to make money, you need to go to where the users are.

    But Microsoft is in a dangerous new place where it seems to not really get either developers or users. Metro, but also Silverlight and XNA signaled really serious problems at Microsoft with understanding what developers want, and probably did more in those three things than the entire of the rest of the open-source community in getting developers to abandon Microsoft in favor of "open" standards that weren't going to die for no reason because of an organizational shuffle in Redmond.

    And Microsoft also doesn't get users - excepting possibly Xbox. People queue up outside Apple stores overnight to buy $600 phones that are virtually identical to the ones in their pocket. It's easy to meet people who are proud to have a Mac, or who boast that they run Linux. But when was the last time someone boasted that they ran Windows?

    It reminds me of back in the day I dogfooded an early pre-release build of Win8, and struggling to find the hibernate and logout buttons when I went home one night. The next day I went and spoke to one of the guys in the Windows UX team and said "I want to hibernate my machine, but I can't find out how to do it".

    He showed me on his screen: "Oh, you swipe here and click here and click here".

    I remember saying to him: "No. You don't get it. I want to turn my machine off, and I can't find out how. If you have to tell me how to find a feature that I want, your UI is broken".

    Needless to say, that conversation clearly didn't lead to a fix, and eighteen months later, Microsoft got smashed in the press for having a UI that's hard to use because people couldn't find out how to do stuff like turn the machine off, or open the not-retarded non-metro Internet Explorer on the Desktop.

    That's the problem with Microsoft. It always has been. Their senior engineers are technically smart, but people in Windows just OMG suck so hard at understanding how users behave, or what they actually want out of a UI, and they are alienating developers by not understanding what they want either.

    If Microsoft is to survive and get past the mental-block that is Windows8 and Metro, it needs to go back to basics and get developers to want to develop for it, and to fix their UI so it works without having to be told how it works.

    If it can do that, Microsoft will have a long future ahead of it. If it doesn't, the days of Windows are numbered.

  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , cbae wrote

    You're missing the point. It's not about my moral objection about "women being told" anything. My point is that HL, by having to provide contraceptive benefits, isn't compelling anybody to actually partake in those benefits. It's a decision made by the beneficiary. IOW, I disagree that HL is experiencing any "burden" on their ability to exercise their religion by not receiving this exemption to deny this coverage, and I feel the same way about religious non-profits that do receive the exemption. But this case isn't about whether or not religious non-profits should receive the exemption. It's about whether HL should.

    They cover that in the majority opinion. Go read it.

    I'm not sure how the decision pertains to specifically to a methodology of obtaining contraception. It had more to do with HL gets cover under the RFRA to disobey a law, whether it was unlawfully enacted or not.

    SCOTUS said women can get contraception via other means. It doesn't say how that must happen, because that's executive privilege, and outside of the sphere of the judiciary to decide.

    I'm sorry, but what legal principles are being upheld when the decision pertains only to "closely held for-profit corporations"?

    The legal principles as set out in the Law of corporations. Closely held corporations are run directly by the shareholders, in contrast to publicly traded corporations, which are managed by a board of directors who are law-bound to act in the best fiscal interests of the shareholders.

    This means that closely held corporations are strongly affected by the religious views of the owners - the owner runs the company - but that is not the case with publicly run corporations where the board, not the owners run the company.

    The case effectively is stating that when the owners directly run the business, they can't be compelled by the government to put aside their religious views when running the company, and that the religious beliefs of a majority owner of a company are not less valid than a company that is explicitly religious.

    Consequently, if a Catholic school is allowed to opt-out of paying the contraceptive mandate because the organisation is Catholic, then Hobby Lobby can opt-out of paying for it too, because its majority owners are religious.

    If the government wishes to compel Hobby Lobby to pay for the contraceptive mandate, it needs to do so by compelling all organisations to do so. It cannot assert that the religious beliefs of an organisation like a Catholic school give it opportunity to opt out of a mandate, but that the religious beliefs of the owners of a closely held business cannot take advantage of the same opt-out clause.

    You're glossing over the fact that Justice Alito's opinion was narrowly-scoped to "closely held for-profit corporations". IOW, if a company has more shareholders than whatever arbitrary limit Alito had in his head when he drafted the opinion, he doesn't believe that the RFRA protection applies.

    I'm not sure 50% is an arbitrary limit, but even if it is, it's a limit by Congress as defined in the Law of Corporations, not by the Supreme Court.

    If this were truly about the SCOTUS believing that the Executive branch overstepped its bounds, there wouldn't have been 21+ instances of the term "closely held" in the decision, and it would have been a far more sweeping judgment.

    It's pretty sweeping, given that it covers 90% of companies in America.

  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , ScanIAm wrote

    The fact that this decision, like many, many others, seems to magically fall to the same group of people says that this isn't just careful reading of the law by 5 people and sloppy retarded incompetence by the other 4.

    I didn't say the other four were incompetent, or that the five in the majority formed the majority because they were "better" at reading the law. Cases don't get to SCOTUS if there is an obviously "correct" answer, because it would be decided by the lower courts. Cases get to SCOTUS if they need constitutional guidance to settle non-obvious issues of law.

    The majority held that HHS couldn't overrule the religious viewpoint of the owners of Hobby Lobby, not because they agree with Hobby Lobby, but because they believe the government shouldn't be compelling businesses with religious owners to do things that religious organisations are not compelled to do - namely fund contraception.

    The minority disagreed - but not to "champion women's rights" or because "contraception is great", but because they worry that this ruling opens the possibility of courts being asked to adjudicate on whether a religious view is sincerely held.

    Those viewpoints are both valid - and more importantly, both about law, not about women or contraception, who are largely bystanders in the case. Unlike lower courts, SCOTUS isn't about deciding who wins the case, but who wins the precedent.

    This is a political issue and the decision came down along political lines.

    It split along ideological lines, but you don't have to look far to see justices voting in a way that clearly opposes their political standpoint. In Riley, all of the conservative justices voted against the FBI's right to search a phone during arrest. In the ACA case, Roberts - a Republican voted to uphold ACA - certainly the most hated bill by Republicans in eight years.

    Similarly when it comes to protesting at abortion clinics, Sotomoyer, Ginsburg and Kagan all voted to strike down a law forbidding it within 35-feet of the clinics in Massachusetts.

    And it misses the point that of the 72 cases decided this year, 65% of them were unanimous - more than any other year for decades, on issues including whether the President can appoint people during the Senate's recess, congressional power and shareholder lawsuits.

    SCOTUS does vote on ideological lines from time to time. But claiming that their votes are partisan, and done for narrow party-political reasons, rather than genuinely held ideological differences with a view to sincerely upholding the law and the Constitution is just pure cynicism at its worst.

  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , cbae wrote

    Look, you came here suggesting that hardly anybody (but yourself) actually read the Supreme Court decision and implied that, had we read the decision, we wouldn't have made the comments that we did. My point was that even the dissenters on the Supreme Court made the same comments. I don't care if these comments were "assertions", "beliefs", or "moral judgments".

    Dissenters didn't make the same comments you did. They claimed that HL should have no case because of fear of the court system potentially having to adjudicate on religious issues, not because of fear that women might not get contraception.

    That is fact. It's not a "belief" or "moral judgment".

    It's an assertion. It's cited not to make a moral claim ("women can chose to buy their own contraception, so it's not so bad for HL to not pay for it"), but to dismiss an important legal claim by the HHS ("If women can't chose to buy their own contraception, then voting for HL would infringe women's 1st amendment rights").

    I don't know why you keep bringing up morality. I never uttered that word in any of my posts.

    Because you keep on thinking that this case is about women or contraception. It isn't. The Supreme Court votes based on the constitutionality of the case, not based on whether they think Hobby Lobby or the Department of Health and Human services should "win" based on some kind of objective "Dept of Health have a good point, women should get contraception and Hobby Lobby are just being dicks" mentality.

    My opinion on HL is based on my belief that any religious objection to paying for a health care benefit that is OPTIONAL for the beneficiary to claim is bullshit since nobody is compelling the beneficiary to partake in the benefit. I had this opinion before the SCOTUS decision, and I was hopeful that the SCOTUS would have agreed that the mandate didn't violate the RFRA on this basis alone. And that's independent of my belief that there should be no exemptions of this mandate for religious non-profits either.

    That's great. SCOTUS' opinion on HL is based not on your moral objections to women being told what to do by nasty male employers, but based on the constitutionality of the Executive branch choosing to impose a mandate on for-profit companies, but not on religious non-profit ones.

    And no, I didn't read all 95 pages. Did you? If so, good for you.

    I originally only read the majority opinion (dissents aren't usually very informative so I usually skip them), but after you quoted bits of it at me, I went and read the whole of Ginsburg's dissent as well.

    I knew before reading it, of course, that I think women should be (morally) entitled to free contraception. But as the SCOTUS decision shows in detail, the way women get that contraception is wrong via an executive mandate explicitly not backed up by Congress. They should get it either directly from the government (via an act of Congress), or Congress should mandate all companies to provide it.

    That's why I have what might look, on face-value, as a contradictory opinion, namely that SCOTUS was legally right to vote in favor of HL, but that women should get contraception as part of their insurance (or directly from the government) if they want it.

    That's my objection to your (and many other commentators') analysis. SCOTUS aren't there to vote for outcomes you agree with. They are there to vote for legal principles that uphold the constitution.

    The executive having a mandate that overrules a statute forbidding discrimination on the basis of religious belief is unconstitutional, even if they are doing it for a "moral good", like giving women free contraception.

    It's not SCOTUS' job to vote for the morally superior outcome. It's job is to vote for the constitutionally superior one, which is why 99% of what's been said about SCOTUS in the media over HL is uninformed BS.

  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , cbae wrote


    But that's not what SCOTUS did. They didn't reject the policy. They essentially decided that the policy also applies to religious for-profits.

    That is for the Executive to decide. Strictly speaking the only thing they decided was that "the contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA", and hence the Executive cannot apply it without first seeking a legislative change to RFRA.

    I think the bench knows as well as everybody else that there's a ice cube's chance in hell that Congress eliminates the religious exception altogether.

    The bench doesn't care. Their job is to uphold the Constitution. Not to set policy or set laws, and that is what they have done.

    The mandate violates the RFRA, so either the mandate (the Executive) or the legislation (Congress) need to change for it to continue, and that's POTUS' and Congress' problem, not theirs to resolve.

  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , cbae wrote

    Obviously. Did I make any claim otherwise? I was simply pointing out that this wasn't a slam dunk decision that you essentially implied with your original post.

    Yep. When you started claiming Ginsburg's opinion to constrast my analysis of the majority opinion. I never claimed that it was a slam dunk decision. I just looked at how the majority decision was reached.

    The reason you dissent is because you disagree with the majority opinion, and you set forth why you disagree with assertions. I don't see how you can separate the two.

    No - SCOTUS justices disagree based on law, not based on beliefs and moral judgements.

    Ginsburg believes her assertions to be true (which is why she asserts them), but she is not using them to morally disagree with the majority - rather she is using them to draw lines between the current case and previous case law. It is based on the previous analogous Supreme Court decisions that she is disagreeing with the majority as a matter of law, not based on the fact that she morally objects to the decision.

    In fact, you can tell this pretty much by her final remark in her dissent: She worries about making the court system have to decide on religious sensitivities of complainants.

    This is why SCOTUS judges often vote for things that they actually disagree with. Like how Scalia voted that ACA was constitutional, despite being openly critical of it. "Stupid but Constitutional" is a thing - as is "Sensible but unconstitutional".

    Ginsburg didn't dissent in HL because women deserve the right for employers to pay for their contraception, or any vain and nebulous quasi-moralistic reasoning, like journalists want you to believe. She, rightly, is concerned with the courts and the constitutionality.

    That's a valid opinion. But it's also not the majority opinion. If it's not part of a binding Supreme Court majority opinion, the dissent is little more than an opportunity to posit an alternative view. Lower courts must uphold the majority, and never the dissenting opinion.

    I don't read Mother Jones. I just posted a link to the quotes because it was convenient

    Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about whom I "outsource" my thinking to.

    Did you come to your opinion on HL before or after you read the SCOTUS opinion? And when you read it, you read it thoroughly, right? You didn't just skim-read it for the quotes that agree with your previously held opinion?

  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , cbae wrote

    @evildictaitor: Maybe Justice Ginsburg didn't read Justice Alito's majority opinion either. She expressed some of the same concerns expressed here:

    So (1) only majority opinions matter, since they are binding. Dissenting opinions do not bind lower courts.

    (2) those quotes are assertions used to discuss a legal issue, not reasons for her dissent. The Supreme Court doesn't decide that one side wins because of which side is "right". It decides whether a legal principal applies.

    (3) Ginsburg dissent wasn't because she agrees that corporations should pay for contraception. She dissented because she worries that the majority decision might lead lower courts to make judgements based on the merits of a claimed religious belief or not.

    My favorite Supreme Court quote comes from Scalia (who I disagree with on lots of issues, but whom I have a lot of respect for):

    If a state enacted a law permitting flogging, it is immensely stupid, but it is not unconstitutional. A lot of stuff that's stupid is not unconstitutional.

    He's also stated before on record that he's voted for stuff that he deeply disagrees with (including the Affordable Care Act, which he ruled to be constitutional, even though he strongly disagrees that it's something the US government should be doing).

    That's what the Supreme Court is for. They don't decide whether something is morally or socially right. That's what the Congress is for. The Supreme Court is there to rule whether something is Constitutional. That's what was at stake here. 

    Posing the Supreme Court as having a bunch of dunderheads voting to prevent women getting contraception because their evil male employers decide how their women serfs should live, whilst four brave and noble justices stuck up for women is a great headline. But it's completely far from the truth.

    The majority voted that the regulations were unlawful, and the dissenters dissented on grounds of law - specifically that the new judgement could open lower courts to having to adjudicate religious objections - not on grounds of whether contraception in some objective sense should be covered by employers.


    Maybe instead of outsourcing your critical thinking to motherjones.com, you should read the opinion yourself and come to your own conclusions.

  • creepy corps(e) for June 2014

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Corporations are not people. I don't know how anyone thinks otherwise, but 5 judges do. 

    Again, you betray the fact that you didn't read the opinion:

    As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA's definition of "persons". But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends.

    An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.

    For example, extending Fourth Amendment protection to corporations protects the privacy interests of employees and others associated with the company. Protecting corporations from government seizure of their property without just compensation protects all those who have a stake in the corporations' financial well-being.

    And protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.

    It also helpfully points out that the fact that Corporations are legally persons isn't because of the Supreme Court saying so. It's because Congress says so:

    Under the Dictionary Act, "the wor[d] 'person' ... include[s] corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals".


    Read the opinion (it starts on page 7). Take breaks every page or two if you have to, and follow the links to cases you disagree with, or don't understand. It's surprisingly readable.

    Quickly you'll realize the Supreme Court aren't the bunch of Constitution hating imbeciles the media sometimes likes to pretend they are, and the rulings they make are often to do with a key principle in the case, not who they think should "win".

    That's why here, the Supreme Court ruled that burdening a non-religious for-profit with legislation that doesn't apply to religious non-profits isn't lawful.

    Stop reading and believing whatever crap journalists want you to think. Read their primary sources and think for yourself.