There are obviously lots of things in C++ that doesn't work in C, but there's also lots of stuff in C, especially from 1999 onwards, that isn't valid C++.
Back in the day, I discovered I could i) print over IR to our office's HP laser printer from my Psion organiser, ii) print control codes from the built-in OPL language to change the display message on the printer. I would occassionaly send messages like "insert coin", "too much paper", "grammatical error", etc. when colleagues were printing.
Have you been to an IMAX? Every seat can see the whole screen.
I don't understand this comment... Why do you think I'm implying that people can't see the whole screen from every seat? I don't see how it's related to what I said.
I was simply jokingly observing the irony of sitting at the back to reduce the size of the screen in your field of vision because you have difficulties observing a wide field -- a problem that is exacerbated by going to a larger screen in the first place.
So you pay extra to go to the largest screen possible, then sit as far away as you can to make it small enough for you to see? That seems... suboptimal.
Open source software is also notably lacking from the impact assessment documents, but I suspect this is because it was intended to not impact open source software at all. It seems the legislation intends to exclude open-source software, but doesn't clearly and unambiguously exclude open source software that is developed or contributed to in a commercial setting (e.g by paid contributors).
I think the wording seems clear enough to determine the intent, but the ambiguity surrounding the "commercial activity" part might necessitate trial (which nobody wants to risk), or might lead to poor implementation of this directive in the laws of member states. I think we should be campaigning to improve the wording, not reject it outright.
Ah, OK. So it seems it's a case of the spirit of the text not matching the precise technical wording used. IMO, the legislation clearly intends to exclude freely-distributable open-source software, but the issue lies with what constitutes a commercial activity. (I've not yet checked the rest of the document to see if it clearly defines "commercial activity" in relation to the legislation.)
TBH, it seems that what is needed here is a clarification and tightening up of definitions, not wholesale rejection of the legislation.
The legislation specifically excludes open source software. Has nobody in this discussion actually read the proposed legislation?
From the current proposal legislation text:
In order not to hamper innovation or research, free and open-source software developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity should not be covered by this Regulation. This is in particular the case for software, including its source code and modified versions, that is openly shared and freely accessible, usable, modifiable and redistributable.
There is also a clause that states those using open source software in commercial products must report any vulnerabilities found to the maintainer.
Firefox + uBlock origin, and reVanced for YouTube ad-blocking/other features.