Ok - so she only gets to walk around alone if she's in your immediate neighbourhood?
Look, I'm sure you're a good parent and everything - but frankly your suggestion that a woman should never be in a position where she can be raped is just victim blaming in disguise. A woman can be raped just about anywhere - up to and including being alone in her house.
I'm sorry, but that's a really idiotic question. If the human body, for the sake of argument, was to choose death rather than dip into its stores of fat, what does that have to do with thermodynamics?
Surely you could imagine that the point at which a starving body (because that's what you need the body to think is happening in order to burn up your fat) begins to use its fat stores differs from person to person? And that if that point was sufficiently close to the unpleasant end of the hunger spectrum, that it might be very hard indeed to shift that weight?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with thermodynamics, except insofar that the energy taken in must be expended. Thermodynamics doesn't really have much to say about how much of that might be converted into heat, how much stored as fat, and how much must be absorbed by the body performing its normal metabolic functions (which are of course, equally efficient in all humans), now does it?
Come to think of it, thin people probably have less efficient metabolisms, and waste more energy as heat than fat people.
notice something interesting in one particular simulation and you'd like to run it again to zoom on it,
If the thing you're zooming in on is dependant of the behaviour of floating point numbers, then it's not interesting from any point of view other than that. It certainly won't represent anything physically meaningful, which since we're talking about galaxy simulations I assume is the point.
You've made me ruin my moderation in this thread, but I can't let such wrong statements unreplied.
Well, that's no bad thing. Replies > Moderation, IMHO.
Wrong. Is not a special compilation step. Is the classic C preprocessor, which is as standard C++ as any other feature of the language.
Really? I thought that moc.exe was a special bit of magic that transformed your code around a bit, and generated 'moc' files (which are actual C++, of course). I didn't know it was just the C pre-processor, and by implication that all the magic is implemented as macros.
None of the reasons that Qt had for its own implementations of a whole bunch of stuff stand up anymore. And some of them, the copy-on-write semantics of the containers for instance, run contrary to some of the design principals of C++. Which are that you don't pay for what you don't use. You pay for copy-on-write because the container must be thread-safe, whereas it seems to me that one should use more explicit constructs such as smart pointers to achieve such things.
Qt just smells of a bit of Not Invented Here syndrome to me...
"You may notice that wxString sometimes has many functions which do the same thing like, for example, Length(), Len() and length() which all return the string length. In all cases of such duplication the std::string-compatible method (length() in this case, always the lowercase version) should be used as it will ensure smoother transition to std::string when wxWidgets starts using it instead of wxString."
Which shows that they at least appreciate that you should leave as much as possible to the language you're writing your toolkit in.
Write portable C++ code, write a UI layer using a portable toolkit. But don't let that toolkit get its tendrils into the bulk of your code, because at some point you'll wish you hadn't.
getting them out of bed, making sure they have their uniforms on (which you've cleared the previous night if they came home dirty). Making them a cut lunch, and ensuring that they have whatever happens to be required that day at school (sports days / field trips etc). Then getting them to school on time, and picking them up on time afterwards.
then to football,
Most of the above applies here too. They need clean sports kit to play it, and need to be taken and brought back. Not to mention the emotional support and encouragement that's implicit it sending your kids to sports.
then letting him play videos games,
A trickier one, but from the use of the term 'letting', you could infer that an allotted time has been allocated to video games. Video games are not evil.
eat dinner,
Which you've prepared, and let us assume is a healthy and nutritious meal. Actually we missed out breakfast in the first point, so let's assume that this has also been prepared for the kid and is healthy and nutritious.
and go to bed.
At a reasonable hour, and only after you've read to them, made sure they've brushed their teeth.
is NOT being a parent.
Actually, most of that IS being a parent. As some of the replies to your rant have noted, it seems highly unlikely that you have any kids.
But this is more or less orthogonal to your main point, which is that morality should not be educated. A peculiar idea. Morality, right from wrong, must be taught to children by their parents and their school. How could a school avoid teaching right from wrong? Would you expect a school to ignore lying, bullying, cheating, stealing, etc etc? Or would you expect the school to make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable?
I see what you mean, but nevertheless when editing Qt code, one sees additional keywords that do not appear in the C++ standard. The fact that these keywords are pre-processed by a special compilation step into C++ code does not make the code you actually edit standard C++. I think this is an important distinction.
Also, Qt has its own notions of strings and files and threads and what-have-you. Once Qt is in your code, you ain't getting it out.
Oh rubbish, of course it's fear. It's fear of what the gay will do to your society, your kids, your etc etc etc. Why else would you care? Disgust? Well, that's a form of fear too, and most people with phobias of other things (snakes, whatever) would probably agree.
And no it's not a shame that a person with poisonous beliefs be held to account for those beliefs. If Scott Card is in earnest about his opinions, then I have no interest in reading his work. If it were great art, perhaps I would differ, but since it's just some fairly pulpy sci fi written by a bigot. So, no thanks. I have read the short story, and it was pretty ordinary.
I'd hold up the screen adaptation of 'Trainspotting' as an object lesson in how to bring a book to the screen. There's probably about 10% of that novel up on the screen, and it was that ruthlessness that created the narrative success of the movie.
Like it or not, a film is a short-form drama.
However, I disagree with your examples. Blade Runner is not a short story, and you can't read it in a couple of hours. But it worth noting that a great deal was removed from the book in order to create the wonderful film that Blade Runner turned out to be. 'Minority Report' is a different example again, with most of the film nowhere to be found in the short story - described by Steven Spielberg as a 'Springboard'.
Point is, movies and books will never use the same narrative devices. When they try, they fail. Never compare a book and a film at that level, your enjoyment of both will be diminished.
I don't think that's what Entrapment really means. Entrapment covers the case where the accused wouldn't have committed the offences if it weren't for the actions of the officers and/or agents of the officers. I don't think that actually applies here.
Now the article isn't all that clear, but I infer from the language it used that the computer-generated girl logged onto chatrooms and was effectively propositioned by large numbers of men. We'd have to see the transcripts to know - and I for one have no desire to see them - but on the face of it I don't believe it's entrapment.
If an undercover cop dresses up as a dealer and hangs around on corners, then it's not entrapment to arrest people who try to buy drugs from them. And likewise, if the cops send kids into stores to buy alcohol, it's not entrapment either. I'm not suggesting that either of those cases represent effective law enforcement, and I don't believe either of them do, but I don't think that they're technically entrapment either.
This is the only comment here so far of any consequence. Hacking a car by plugging into the CAN bus is hardly rocket science, but remotely gaining access to the car's ECU's via bluetooth is a very different matter indeed. Securing CAN is pretty much a non-starter, but securing those wider area wireless networks that cars are increasingly supporting is something that should be taken very seriously indeed. And if Toyota's recent drubbing in the source code courts shows anything, it shows that car manufacturers don't make very good software houses.
I know that, it's just an unnecessary imposition of an implementation detail on my workflow. Why should I have to bother? Photoshop's layer's have never behaved like this, and neither have the layers in any image editing application I've ever used (Corel Paint, Paint.NET etc).
it's just another example of Gimp's problems, that it seems unlikely will ever be fixed. And I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which Gimp's fixed size layers would ever be anything other than annoying.
Did they ever fix the problem with layers not being unbounded? In photoshop, the size of a layer is effectively infinite. in the sense that it doesn't get clipped to the image extents. In GIMP, the layers are of a fixed size, and anything pasted into them is clipped to the image size.
Also, if I move a layer so that it's partially off the image, I now can't draw into parts of that layer.
Which, it seems to me, is a problem. Far better a system that cannot be any more complex than some threshold, and you work within it. We're only talking about launching processes and worrying about their dependant processes. How is that such a huge problem?
(this is just to get someone to jump in here and explain, because I'd sure like to find out).
Also, OSX uses Launchd, which seems like a great solution to me, and doesn't seem all that complex.
Re: It was already a dangerous site to visit ...
on
PHP.net Compromised
·
· Score: 1
Objective C pretty much does this. Functions calls look like:
Now I do appreciate here that the order isn't actually flexible, but I would argue that *is* a bad idea because it makes the code much harder to read. But what you do get is the named parameters part, which in my opinion is the more important part. This makes the code much easier to read.
... strictly due to marketing...have to sell it, support it, package it for hardware, and provide end-to-end application solutions.
None of those things are marketing. Advertising is marketing, and they certainly would need to do that too, but you didn't list that. You listed a whole bunch of software work, and a whole bunch of infrastructure to sell & support it. The reason we don't see desktop Linux is because of shit software.
Look, you do have to factor in the cost of the software when you buy an Apple machine. You don't just get the OS, you get garage band & iphoto & the funny little graphing too thingy. So it's not true that Mavericks (terrible OS name....) is free. It's obviously paid for by the hardware profits. And it's a smart move from a security and support perspective to get more people onto the newer OS.
And I don't get your other comments. What fanless computers? Other than the ill-fated and quickly-discontinued cube, all the Apple machines that need them contain fans. And they don't overheat or melt, unless you, you know, block the fans. And what B&W screens? Are you talking about the early B&W macs? How are they relevant?
Now glued together parts is a problem, and is the reason I didn't buy a retina macbook pro. The macbook pro I did buy isn't glued together, and neither is my mac mini. In fact, the first thing I did with the macbook was to swap the HD out with one from an older machine. Both the new & old machines didn't even break their stride when the hardware was suddenly changed underneath them.
any improvements they make to Steam/Linux will apply to anyone running a Linux desktop
I'm not so sure that this is true. It's more likely that a steambox will contain a relatively custom hardware combination, and much of the 'improvements' will circulate around better drivers for those specific bits of silicon. The thing's got to be cheap, and chucking a PC graphics card in there won't make it cheap.
Also, the statement that Linux is a better gaming platform that Windows isn't especially supportable. Obviously, from a margins perspective, a free OS inside your gaming console is a win. But on the desktop there's no evidence that it's better in any particular way. For instance, 'more easily customizable' doesn't equal 'less hassle for end users'. It equals more hassle for end users, and therefore more hassle for gaming companies. The combinations of hardware, driver architecture, and what-have-you is a much worse state for developers than under Windows, and much much worse than under OSX. I'd be very interested to see what Steam's numbers are for their sales on Linux vs. Windows vs. OSX, and I'd expect those numbers to be pretty low.
I'd suggest that the whole reason that Valve ported their Steam platform to Linux was to move in the direction of a console. And of course, once it becomes a console, the fact that it's Linux is mostly irrelevant from a users point of view - tech-heads who want to install other bits & bobs on their machines notwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok - so she only gets to walk around alone if she's in your immediate neighbourhood?
Look, I'm sure you're a good parent and everything - but frankly your suggestion that a woman should never be in a position where she can be raped is just victim blaming in disguise. A woman can be raped just about anywhere - up to and including being alone in her house.
[not] put herself into situations where she can be raped and there is no one around to help her.
You mean like walking down the street? That sure sounds like a fun life.
I'm sorry, but that's a really idiotic question. If the human body, for the sake of argument, was to choose death rather than dip into its stores of fat, what does that have to do with thermodynamics?
Surely you could imagine that the point at which a starving body (because that's what you need the body to think is happening in order to burn up your fat) begins to use its fat stores differs from person to person? And that if that point was sufficiently close to the unpleasant end of the hunger spectrum, that it might be very hard indeed to shift that weight?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with thermodynamics, except insofar that the energy taken in must be expended. Thermodynamics doesn't really have much to say about how much of that might be converted into heat, how much stored as fat, and how much must be absorbed by the body performing its normal metabolic functions (which are of course, equally efficient in all humans), now does it?
Come to think of it, thin people probably have less efficient metabolisms, and waste more energy as heat than fat people.
I love this kind of slashdot comment. If someone on slashdot hates it, it must be good.
notice something interesting in one particular simulation and you'd like to run it again to zoom on it,
If the thing you're zooming in on is dependant of the behaviour of floating point numbers, then it's not interesting from any point of view other than that. It certainly won't represent anything physically meaningful, which since we're talking about galaxy simulations I assume is the point.
This is the only answer so far that makes sense, which is a pity because
A) It's an AC
and
B) The point is moot, not mute.
But we all knew that, didn't we.
You've made me ruin my moderation in this thread, but I can't let such wrong statements unreplied.
Well, that's no bad thing. Replies > Moderation, IMHO.
Wrong. Is not a special compilation step. Is the classic C preprocessor, which is as standard C++ as any other feature of the language.
Really? I thought that moc.exe was a special bit of magic that transformed your code around a bit, and generated 'moc' files (which are actual C++, of course). I didn't know it was just the C pre-processor, and by implication that all the magic is implemented as macros.
None of the reasons that Qt had for its own implementations of a whole bunch of stuff stand up anymore. And some of them, the copy-on-write semantics of the containers for instance, run contrary to some of the design principals of C++. Which are that you don't pay for what you don't use. You pay for copy-on-write because the container must be thread-safe, whereas it seems to me that one should use more explicit constructs such as smart pointers to achieve such things.
Qt just smells of a bit of Not Invented Here syndrome to me...
From the wx docs:
"You may notice that wxString sometimes has many functions which do the same thing like, for example, Length(), Len() and length() which all return the string length. In all cases of such duplication the std::string-compatible method (length() in this case, always the lowercase version) should be used as it will ensure smoother transition to std::string when wxWidgets starts using it instead of wxString."
Which shows that they at least appreciate that you should leave as much as possible to the language you're writing your toolkit in.
Write portable C++ code, write a UI layer using a portable toolkit. But don't let that toolkit get its tendrils into the bulk of your code, because at some point you'll wish you hadn't.
Sending your kid to school,
getting them out of bed, making sure they have their uniforms on (which you've cleared the previous night if they came home dirty). Making them a cut lunch, and ensuring that they have whatever happens to be required that day at school (sports days / field trips etc). Then getting them to school on time, and picking them up on time afterwards.
then to football,
Most of the above applies here too. They need clean sports kit to play it, and need to be taken and brought back. Not to mention the emotional support and encouragement that's implicit it sending your kids to sports.
then letting him play videos games,
A trickier one, but from the use of the term 'letting', you could infer that an allotted time has been allocated to video games. Video games are not evil.
eat dinner,
Which you've prepared, and let us assume is a healthy and nutritious meal. Actually we missed out breakfast in the first point, so let's assume that this has also been prepared for the kid and is healthy and nutritious.
and go to bed.
At a reasonable hour, and only after you've read to them, made sure they've brushed their teeth.
is NOT being a parent.
Actually, most of that IS being a parent. As some of the replies to your rant have noted, it seems highly unlikely that you have any kids.
But this is more or less orthogonal to your main point, which is that morality should not be educated. A peculiar idea. Morality, right from wrong, must be taught to children by their parents and their school. How could a school avoid teaching right from wrong? Would you expect a school to ignore lying, bullying, cheating, stealing, etc etc? Or would you expect the school to make it clear that such behaviour is unacceptable?
I see what you mean, but nevertheless when editing Qt code, one sees additional keywords that do not appear in the C++ standard. The fact that these keywords are pre-processed by a special compilation step into C++ code does not make the code you actually edit standard C++. I think this is an important distinction.
Also, Qt has its own notions of strings and files and threads and what-have-you. Once Qt is in your code, you ain't getting it out.
Rot.
Read Octavia E. Butler for sci fi that actually brings a fresh perspective. And if you're looking for brutal, it's certainly got that.
Oh rubbish, of course it's fear. It's fear of what the gay will do to your society, your kids, your etc etc etc. Why else would you care? Disgust? Well, that's a form of fear too, and most people with phobias of other things (snakes, whatever) would probably agree.
And no it's not a shame that a person with poisonous beliefs be held to account for those beliefs. If Scott Card is in earnest about his opinions, then I have no interest in reading his work. If it were great art, perhaps I would differ, but since it's just some fairly pulpy sci fi written by a bigot. So, no thanks. I have read the short story, and it was pretty ordinary.
An insightful point, as reflected by moderation.
I'd hold up the screen adaptation of 'Trainspotting' as an object lesson in how to bring a book to the screen. There's probably about 10% of that novel up on the screen, and it was that ruthlessness that created the narrative success of the movie.
Like it or not, a film is a short-form drama.
However, I disagree with your examples. Blade Runner is not a short story, and you can't read it in a couple of hours. But it worth noting that a great deal was removed from the book in order to create the wonderful film that Blade Runner turned out to be. 'Minority Report' is a different example again, with most of the film nowhere to be found in the short story - described by Steven Spielberg as a 'Springboard'.
Point is, movies and books will never use the same narrative devices. When they try, they fail. Never compare a book and a film at that level, your enjoyment of both will be diminished.
I don't think that's what Entrapment really means. Entrapment covers the case where the accused wouldn't have committed the offences if it weren't for the actions of the officers and/or agents of the officers. I don't think that actually applies here.
Now the article isn't all that clear, but I infer from the language it used that the computer-generated girl logged onto chatrooms and was effectively propositioned by large numbers of men. We'd have to see the transcripts to know - and I for one have no desire to see them - but on the face of it I don't believe it's entrapment.
If an undercover cop dresses up as a dealer and hangs around on corners, then it's not entrapment to arrest people who try to buy drugs from them. And likewise, if the cops send kids into stores to buy alcohol, it's not entrapment either. I'm not suggesting that either of those cases represent effective law enforcement, and I don't believe either of them do, but I don't think that they're technically entrapment either.
This is the only comment here so far of any consequence. Hacking a car by plugging into the CAN bus is hardly rocket science, but remotely gaining access to the car's ECU's via bluetooth is a very different matter indeed. Securing CAN is pretty much a non-starter, but securing those wider area wireless networks that cars are increasingly supporting is something that should be taken very seriously indeed. And if Toyota's recent drubbing in the source code courts shows anything, it shows that car manufacturers don't make very good software houses.
I know that, it's just an unnecessary imposition of an implementation detail on my workflow. Why should I have to bother? Photoshop's layer's have never behaved like this, and neither have the layers in any image editing application I've ever used (Corel Paint, Paint.NET etc).
it's just another example of Gimp's problems, that it seems unlikely will ever be fixed. And I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which Gimp's fixed size layers would ever be anything other than annoying.
Did they ever fix the problem with layers not being unbounded? In photoshop, the size of a layer is effectively infinite. in the sense that it doesn't get clipped to the image extents. In GIMP, the layers are of a fixed size, and anything pasted into them is clipped to the image size.
Also, if I move a layer so that it's partially off the image, I now can't draw into parts of that layer.
Madenning.
They can be as complex or as simple as you want
Which, it seems to me, is a problem. Far better a system that cannot be any more complex than some threshold, and you work within it. We're only talking about launching processes and worrying about their dependant processes. How is that such a huge problem?
(this is just to get someone to jump in here and explain, because I'd sure like to find out).
Also, OSX uses Launchd, which seems like a great solution to me, and doesn't seem all that complex.
Objective C pretty much does this. Functions calls look like:
[myColor changeColorToRed:5.0 green:2.0 blue:6.0];
Now I do appreciate here that the order isn't actually flexible, but I would argue that *is* a bad idea because it makes the code much harder to read. But what you do get is the named parameters part, which in my opinion is the more important part. This makes the code much easier to read.
... strictly due to marketing ...have to sell it, support it, package it for hardware, and provide end-to-end application solutions.
None of those things are marketing. Advertising is marketing, and they certainly would need to do that too, but you didn't list that. You listed a whole bunch of software work, and a whole bunch of infrastructure to sell & support it. The reason we don't see desktop Linux is because of shit software.
Look, you do have to factor in the cost of the software when you buy an Apple machine. You don't just get the OS, you get garage band & iphoto & the funny little graphing too thingy. So it's not true that Mavericks (terrible OS name....) is free. It's obviously paid for by the hardware profits. And it's a smart move from a security and support perspective to get more people onto the newer OS.
And I don't get your other comments. What fanless computers? Other than the ill-fated and quickly-discontinued cube, all the Apple machines that need them contain fans. And they don't overheat or melt, unless you, you know, block the fans. And what B&W screens? Are you talking about the early B&W macs? How are they relevant?
Now glued together parts is a problem, and is the reason I didn't buy a retina macbook pro. The macbook pro I did buy isn't glued together, and neither is my mac mini. In fact, the first thing I did with the macbook was to swap the HD out with one from an older machine. Both the new & old machines didn't even break their stride when the hardware was suddenly changed underneath them.
the same exact parts
Like the machined case, best trackpad money can buy, best webcam also, thunderbolt connector? I don't think so.
Seems YOU are the problem here.
And they say Linux advocates are rude...
;-)
any improvements they make to Steam/Linux will apply to anyone running a Linux desktop
I'm not so sure that this is true. It's more likely that a steambox will contain a relatively custom hardware combination, and much of the 'improvements' will circulate around better drivers for those specific bits of silicon. The thing's got to be cheap, and chucking a PC graphics card in there won't make it cheap.
Also, the statement that Linux is a better gaming platform that Windows isn't especially supportable. Obviously, from a margins perspective, a free OS inside your gaming console is a win. But on the desktop there's no evidence that it's better in any particular way. For instance, 'more easily customizable' doesn't equal 'less hassle for end users'. It equals more hassle for end users, and therefore more hassle for gaming companies. The combinations of hardware, driver architecture, and what-have-you is a much worse state for developers than under Windows, and much much worse than under OSX. I'd be very interested to see what Steam's numbers are for their sales on Linux vs. Windows vs. OSX, and I'd expect those numbers to be pretty low.
I'd suggest that the whole reason that Valve ported their Steam platform to Linux was to move in the direction of a console. And of course, once it becomes a console, the fact that it's Linux is mostly irrelevant from a users point of view - tech-heads who want to install other bits & bobs on their machines notwithstanding.