rmind

> It's not the same. When you are born in California, your citizenship is "US". When you are born in Bulgaria, your citizenship is Bulgarian, not European. If that happens, of course it'll be more difficult to prevent people from a single country to move freely.

Not exactly. As already explained in some posts below, the EU has a legal concept of "EU citizenship". So, from the legal point of view, Bulgarians in your example are both the Bulgarian citizens and EU citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Un...

> This is one of the biggest differences between United States and EU. USA is one country, Europe is not.

Sure, but how relevant is that? At least in this case, I think the difference is more of a technicality.

By the way, EU is already more than a confederation, since it actually has many properties of federation (for example, if you will compare the political systems of EU and Switzerland, you will actually find quite a few key similarities). Although European politicians do everything they can to avoid these words. So, while EU is certainly not a country, it made quite a lot of steps towards becoming one. It's just a fact, regardless whether you are pro-federation or anti-federation.

> I am European, however this comment makes me laugh. USA can literally crash EU in a couple of weeks, if they want to.

.. inflicting huge damage to itself with very major repercussions to the US national security. This world is really not as simple as that. Is US much more powerful than the EU? Yeah, sure. Although even in terms of raw power it's not as dramatic (economy: EU is already of very similar weight as US in terms of GDP; military: combined EU forces would be very comfortably the second largest military in the world, both in terms of quality and quantity). Anyway, this is rather theorethic. There are many more complex aspects which matter in reality with a very subtle palance of powers, so "they can crash us" doesn't mean much.

> This answer from the EU is just a show off, utterly useless, and obviously being two months before the elections it tells me something - we want to protect our borders from the USA? Finally we won't have anymore terrorists coming from USA. Thanks EU, I feel safer now. :)

This was actually planned and made public years ago, at least as far as 2016, so nothing to do with the elections. As pointed out by others, it is not targeted explictly at the US. It's something what's going to be applicable for many other countries.

It might be a valid point to some extent, but there is an imporant aspect here: we are talking about _different_ requirements.

Even though those four EU countries are not in the Schengen Area, their citizens can freely travel (without visa or any authorisation) anywhere in the EU. They just go through the border control. In other words, the requirements concerning the free travel are already met. Now, in the context of EU-US travel, do other (internal EU) requirements matter? I would argue that they don't.

Poland is in the Schengen Area. Cyprus is divided since Turkish invasion, so it is somewhat a special case. Other countries joined the EU relatively recently. However, all four countries are legally obliged to join the Schengen Area, they just have to fulfil certain requirements. Without going into all details.. don't you think it kind of makes sense? If you want to join an area without border controls, then for example you should first harmonise the rules on how you secure the external border, immigration control, customs control, etc. It is not as simple as you think.

I do not think it is hyprocritial to require new EU member states to go through certain transition period. A bunch of other European countries went through that process too. At different speeds, but they made it. We are talking about contries; it's not the same as joining your local tennis club, it's a longer and more complex process. If there is anything to blame, then perhaps its your own government which is lagging behind on the necessary reforms. And meanwhile, EU is trying to make it easier for you to travel to the US. So, what are you complaining about?

Just a few points:

- Tit-for-tat response is a geopolitical reality. Regardless whether you think it is pre-school model or not, this is what pretty much all countries do, as it is a perfectly rational way (and sometimes even the only way) to defend your interests. By rational I am talking about the Game Theory kind of rational. :)

- You suggest to look at each EU country individually (just also keep in mind that there are no border controls beetween the EU countries in the Schengen Zone). In such case, should we also look at each US state individually (because they are also not uniform, e.g. some are much poorer than the others)? EU as a whole has much greater weight and leverage. The point I am making here is that it is another geopolitical reality: countries use their weight and, for example, US uses its weight to exert its influence pretty much all over the world. Well, so does the EU in this case, whether the US likes it or not.

- Your point about the citizens of those countries being disproportionate overstayers is not true. As a matter of fact, the overstay rate of these countries is lower than some of those which are already in the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), e.g. compare those fives countries with Spain, Greece, Hungary, etc. So, if there is some kind of threshold they cross, then it should apply to the current VWP countries to, shouldn't it? Please the see offical US Homeland Security report as a reference here:

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/fiscal-year-2017-entryexit-o...

ETIAS does not affect freedom of movement within the EU in any way whatsoever. It is about non-EU cizitens travelling into the EU (well, the Schengen Zone).

The barriers between the EU and other countries already exist, just to a different degree. There are certain benefits of ETIAS, especially concerning the security and illegal migration, as explained by a video linked in a neighbouring post. US is already imposing ESTA on EU citizens: why should EU give in and not apply the reciprocal measures?

The article mixes two seaparate issues:

- EU is introducing ETIAS, an electronic authorisation system which is pretty much modeled after the US ESTA system (used by visa-free nationals). It will apply to all countries which currently enjoy the visa-free regime with the EU and that includes USA. So, technically it is not a visa, but your details will be pre-checked and it will cost €7 (compared to $14 for US ESTA). Ironically, after Brexit, this requirement will also apply to UK.

- There is a separate dispute between EU and US, because US imposes visas on five EU states (Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Romania and Cyprus). According the EU law, all EU countries should be treated equally or otherwise reciprocal measures should apply. There have been calls within the EU to respond tit for tat and impose EU visas on US citizens, if the issue does not get resolved soon.

As an EU citizen, I can just add that I support both initiatives.

Concurrency:

http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/thmap_lookup_80_64bit_keys_inte...

http://www.netbsd.org/~rmind/thmap_insert_80_64bit_keys_inte...

This is because certain coding standards are designed to be idiot-proof. Unfortunately, that can result in tasteless code and sometimes undesirable workarounds (e.g. using "goto" have one exit path for errors is a perfectly valid use).

When Dijkstra wrote his famous essay "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" (1968), it was a manifesto against unstructured programming i.e. the spaghetti code. However, the use of "goto" per se does not imply unstructured programming. Donald Knuth wrote a wonderful essay "Structured Programming with go to Statements" (1974) to make this point.

Availability of "goto" in C merely gives us more flexibility, but it does not mean that we should start writing unstructured code.

In fact, we have more words for death. For example, "stipti" or "gaišti" ("šuo nugaišo" - "the dog has died"). However, it is true that people say "bitė mirė" -- the human death, rather than the animal.

> I'm continually surprised by how often people insist on putting struct definitions right in their header files, defeating the whole idea of type abstraction.

In general, I totally agree with you that it is best to keep the structure definition in the translation unit (the .c file) and opaque structure declaration in the header. However, there are some cases when it is not very practical, e.g. when you you want to embed the structure into another (for performance reasons or cases like on-disk structures, etc) or when you want to separate out some logic into another .c file (think of separation of concerns), instead of having one massive .c file.

When there is such need, I generally create two headers files, e.g. foo.h (for the public API) and foo_impl.h (structure definition and related stuff), with something like:

    #if !defined(__FOO_PRIVATE)
    #error "foo_impl.h should only be included by the internal foo modules"
    #endif

brew install sylpheed

It is compiled and linked using the native X libraries on OS X, so it looks quite decent. There are versions using XQuartz, but I have had problems with the font rendering.

It is worth to point out that the Lithuanian statehood started in XIII century. Way way earlier than the US statehood. It was once a largest country in Europe. Also, in XVI-XVIII centuries, together Poland it formed a union state with a progressive political system and the first codified constitution in modern European history.

So, I would not underestimate the centuries of cultural identity. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the Baltic States are doing so much better than any other countries in the former USSR.

Well, back in 1980s, Microsoft had its own UNIX system called Xenix. It was not BSD, but it incorporated some programs from it.