Re^3: Utter FUD!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Utter FUD! by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 25, 2010 at 15:27 UTC
See Tye's buried node No point in even looking. It'll just be more uniformed, unfounded FUD based on nothing more than supposition and rumour. Yup! Just as I suspected. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. RIP an inspiration; A true Folk's Guy	[reply]
Re^5: Utter FUD! by Anonymous Monk on Oct 25, 2010 at 16:18 UTC
So, agreeing with you in principle is FUD. Duly Noted.	[reply]
Re^6: Utter FUD! by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 25, 2010 at 16:53 UTC
The third and fourth & fifth sentences: a) are hardly tacit agreement; b) show a profound misunderstanding about the way threads works. There are no "copies" of shared variables, only aliases to them. Threads do not emulate fork (). There is no attempt to have the spawned thread continue from the fork point of the parent. ()Though they can be used to do so. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. RIP an inspiration; A true Folk's Guy	[reply]
Re^7: Utter FUD! by ysth (Canon) on Oct 25, 2010 at 19:19 UTC
Re^8: Utter FUD! by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 25, 2010 at 20:22 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


Just another Perl shrine
	PerlMonks