Tom wrote:
>>> http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
>> I doubt the reliability of your chosen source.
> 
> Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David
> for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt
> the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer
> /a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;)
> 
> -- 
> Tom;

Because I read the start of the article pointed at.
Actually, when I read far enough it began to be reasonable. (I didn't do that at first.)  So they're lying the way that newspapers usually lie.  Put the "shaping" lines early in the story, and then put the rest of the story on the jump sheet. If you call them on it they can say "See, we printed the real story!", but if you just read the first part, you get a VERY distorted impression.

So I don't trust them.  If I want to invest that much effort, I'll look it up where they don't first try to mislead you. (And when you DO read the entire article, it doesn't support the tale that people aren't responsible [partially] for global warming.  Or that global warming isn't happening.)

Dave wrote:
> For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions it would be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there is no dtor to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).

The problem is the monitor needs to be freed, too.

Tom skrev:
> 
> Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David
> for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt
> the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer
> /a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;)
> 
> -- 
> Tom;

From a quick Google search:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

For more: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22junkscience.com%22

"John Reimer" <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.tjowqrwv6gr7xp@epsilon-alpha...
> Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?  Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?

There was a report in Scientific American a few years ago regarding a study showing that increased CO2 levels did NOT result in more plant growth. I was quite surprised to read that.

L.

mmmmm...... you are talking about D?

Sorry, just remember where you are


"Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:op.tjpa5sn8usumhd@mist...
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:05:03 +0200, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> Kristian Kilpi wrote:
>>> And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish that information.
>>
>> Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails."
>>
>> Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge. Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care.
>
> When I was a kid, I'm glad that we were informed about the harms of smoking in the school. So I didn't start smoking. I 'dared' not to smoke.
>
> But not all know the hazards of smoking (or drinking). Any country that does not have a smoking culture developed yet, or in which children aren't educated so much, is free game for cigarette companies. And that's highly immoral in my opinion! They direct ads to young people (potential smokers) and send a message: if you start smoking, you will get rich and popular. And lets then sponsor some movie stars, racing drives, etc. so that they will advertise cigarettes.
>
>
>> I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health risks. They just don't care.
>
> That's a shame.
>
> I think something else could be more effective than telling about health risks (of course, one should also tell about health risks too). Using humour is one thing. To make them see how funny and/or stupid it's walking around and sucking a paper wrapper.
>
> For young adults I would create the following humorous TV ad (everybody, use your imagination):
>
> A young, cool guy and his babe are getting intimate in their bed room. The guy dumbs his cigarette, and the girl is laying in the bed, ready (lingeries still on of course, this isnt't a porn movie you know). The guy looks down (at his groin), but nothing happens. "C'mon!", he yells in frustation, "Don't fail me know!". But nothing helps. The camera transfers outside the department, and there is painful (and loud) "noooooo!" which fades in the night. In the screen appears: "Cigarettes cause impotence." And maybe after that: "That's why girls pick guys that don't smoke."
>
>
> Another thing that can be a worth of mentioning, is the need to smoke time after time. You will be a slave so to speak. Let's say you need to go smoking at every hour. Now, for example, when you're going to watch a movie in a local theather. You have to smoke before going in (for obvious reasons), and still you'll have an urge for smoking at the middle of the movie. If you can't resist, you will have to go to outside the theather to smoke. But if don't go, you'll be watching the clock the rest of the movie. And what if you can't smoke inside your house, etc.? I think it's very annoying to stop everything you were doing after an hour and go to out to smoke. Day after day, hour after hour.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:38:03 +0200, Txarli <basura@txarli.com> wrote:
> mmmmm...... you are talking about D?
>
> Sorry, just remember where you are

My apologizes.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Stack class variables, bug fixes.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Regarding bug #373 :
The only doc change I see is the FOO->Foo consistency change, which is not what this bug is about. Did you forget to roll more doc updates or was that just it?


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

Interesting but, lets not fall into some kind of argumentum ad hominem. The article is very informative by itself (at the most, people should discuss the arguments per se). Nevertheless I respect Charles distrust (towards the source) because of the reasons he explained.

In order to stop newsgroup "pollution" ;), I'll cease posting on the subject as well.

Kind regards,
--
Tom;

== Quote from John S. Skogtvedt (jss2k2@chello.no)'s article
> Tom skrev:
> >
> > Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer /a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;)
> >
> > --
> > Tom;
>  From a quick Google search:
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
> For more: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22junkscience.com%22

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Dave wrote:
> > For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions
it would
> > be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there
is no dtor
> > to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).
> The problem is the monitor needs to be freed, too.

Could that part be inlined (if there isn't a dtor)?

if (p && ((cast(void**)p)[1]) _d_monitorrelease(cast(Object)p);

Dave wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound@digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Dave wrote:
>>> For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions
> it would
>>> be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there
> is no dtor
>>> to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).
>> The problem is the monitor needs to be freed, too.
> 
> Could that part be inlined (if there isn't a dtor)?
> 
> if (p && ((cast(void**)p)[1]) _d_monitorrelease(cast(Object)p);

Yes, it could be, but it won't buy that much, because the real cost is that the release has to be set up in a finally block.