Please do not follow this story. The last thing we need it periodic stories over the next year as the trial progress with fighting and uninformed commentary from the peanut gallery on criminal matters. It will be like having our our own little scott peterson case, which I'm sure we can all agree, would be a big fucking waste of time for everyone.
Maybe it's a free-electron laser? Those are tunable over a large range, IIRC. But the spectrum for the FEL is x-ray, again IIRC, so probably not. Put perhaps there is another widely tunable lasing device that you and I aren't thinking of?
It's clear that you will hold to your position until the day you die. It was clear to me and many others what the original poster intended: not that Stroustrup didn't understand C, but that his response was more in the spirit of C than the response provided by Torvalds. Ironic or non-sequitar or maybe just stupid, the original post was clearly making some kind of point you clearly missed, and then you proceeded to not only assume the poster didn't understand the design of C++ using C as a starting point, but also added the richly ironic comment at the end.
PYour position is untenable. You will die on your sword rather than concede an utterly worthless point on a nearly worthless forum. Perhaps English is not your first language? Or perhaps you're just one of those guys?
Right, but plastic isn't used because it's better, but because it's cheaper.
Spoken like a non-engineer. Sometimes cheaper is part of better. Discounting that, many more times that you want to admit....
Plastic is rarely a better material for any application; it's only cheaper. And for anything that may take some abuse (like something strapped to your wrist)
... plastic is an excellent engineering material. And this includes watches. My running watch is plastic with some other material (some metal in the case). It's completely functional, doesn't pick up odors or discolor my skin with lots of running, durable enough, and at an excellent price point. Plastics and other synthetic materials have a very large range of quality and choices for form factors.
, it's a downright terrible material selection, as it's known to break.
Such absolutes! You are obviously a very opinionated person. Lots of materials are known to break. In fact, just about all of them are.
Lastly, plastic looks cheap. Would you wear cheap polyester clothing? Or a plastic wedding ring? Or a vinyl jacket? If not, then why would you wear a plastic watch?
Lastly, why are you so concerned with how something looks? Yes, I wear synthetic fabrics to include polyester, rayon, goretex, blends, etc. You seem to be stuck in the 70's or something. Synthetic materials are absolutely indispensible in many types of clothing. Let's see if this parallel but opposite argument works on you: "do you wear a leather ski jacket? Metal rain shoes? Wooden contact lenses? Then why would you wear a leather/metal/wood watch"? Not very effective, huh?
PS. you can't just back out of your outrageous claims by throwing in a random "cheap" qualifier on your description of plastic. "Cheap", for whatever that is worth (clearly much to you), is largely orthogonal to material. You didn't compare "cheap" plastic watches with "cheap" metal watches, after all.
I'm pretty tough on watches, but mine usually last a year or so. Yeah, if you need a tougher material, plastic may not suite you. On the other hand, if the plastic watches are 10-100x less expensive than your metal rolex, then you can treat them as disposable.
(NOTE: My search automatically excludes anything made of plastic, anything non water-resistant or anything that has calculator buttons.)
...
but am I alone in thinking that it's peculiar that it's the 21st century and the majority of us are still reading watch dials that were invented 500 years ago?
...
but why is it that 98% of all non-plastic watches are still analog?
Let me get this straight, you want to use the modern technology when it comes to read-out, but you categorically exclude all watches made from the modern technology material (plastic)? You want a metal or wooden digital watch? But those materials were invented well over 500 years ago.
I have a nice plastic digital watch water resistent to 100m. It's a chronograph (stop watch / running watch) and relatively cheap, you can spend lots more on plastic digital watches with altimeters, heart rate monitors, integrated GPS, thermometers, compasses, etc. All modern tecnology when it comes to watches, including the material.
Ooh oooh! I sleepe with my watch on and I shower frequently, how do you think I keep my watch clean? Seriously, my almost never comes off, and it is loose enough so that my 2 or 3 showers a day clean underneath it quite well.
You are very wrong, almost without exception, the only roads with minimum speed limits are freeways where bicycle riding is not permitted anyway. Reall, you're wrong.
Question: what do you call someone who advocates violence or disrespect for a class of people based on the poor actions of a minority of members of that class?
Answer: a racist, bigot, jerk, and/or asshole, dependending on the identity of the class.
LOL, what a post. I think the problem is not with cycling but with you - you're just some kind of worthless fat ass who couldn't figure out how to cycle.
Of course it's not rocket science to say that. It is completely unsupported to say that. Where are your studies? How much more dangerous? I might believe it to be true, but what I don't grant you that is that the difference between the two activities is big enough to call one "dangerous as hell" while the other on is not. You can't just claim it, where are your numbers?
Also, assume you do come up with some numbers. Like say, to make some up, cycling on the roads results in 3x more fatalities per hour on the road than driving. Wow, that sound like a lot. But they're both so low that my *reasonable* expectation of dying from the activities is very low. Like, say I ride 1000 hour this year on the roads, and my resulting expectation of dying would still be super low, like say 1/5000 chance while only 1/15000 chance for the same driving. Also, maybe I cycle much less than drive. Or maybe I derive more than 3x the benefit (qualitative) from cycling than driving.
Anyway, these are all made up numbers, but hopefully, you get the point. You can't just claim that cycling is "dangerous as hell" implying that driving is not. I know that cycling accidents happen, and I've had a few myself (car accidents, too), but I don't personally know anyone who has died from cycling. That kind of puts an upper bound on what "dangerous as hell" means in my experience (anecdotally speaking, of course). With activities that are "dangerous as hell", the people I cycle with would be dropping like flies.
All of this is not to say that we shouldn't try to be safer on the roads, more aware of our surroundings, more cognizant of the rules and dangers, etc, whether cycling or driving.
News flash: driving in the roads is also dangerous. Are you willing to give up your life to make a statement about that? I mean that's the false dicotomy you've set up, either you are or you aren't. Reading your post, it would appear you think their are risk free activities about which one has to make no risk/benefit analysis (a less emotionally-laden way of saying "willing to give up my life to make a statement"). However, if there are such activities, cycling in the woods certainly isn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe there is some way you can pin the KDE naming problem on the Democrats?
No there isn't. Who let you decide what words mean?
Now if you said "good parent", you wou'd have a point.
Don't go all meta on me.
Thank you.
Maybe it's a free-electron laser? Those are tunable over a large range, IIRC. But the spectrum for the FEL is x-ray, again IIRC, so probably not. Put perhaps there is another widely tunable lasing device that you and I aren't thinking of?
P.P.S - I'm a big fan of C++.
PYour position is untenable. You will die on your sword rather than concede an utterly worthless point on a nearly worthless forum. Perhaps English is not your first language? Or perhaps you're just one of those guys?
P.S. don't be that guy.
Way to miss the complete point. Perhaps you should heed the advice of your own last line?
I seem to recall one of the tab extensions providing a tab "locking" feature, which may be similar to this "pin" feature you dream of.
RE: rough number of strategic nuclear warheads, I'm sure about it.
What's the going rate for a five digit sequential under 5000? LOL.
Spoken like a non-engineer. Sometimes cheaper is part of better. Discounting that, many more times that you want to admit ....
Plastic is rarely a better material for any application; it's only cheaper. And for anything that may take some abuse (like something strapped to your wrist)
Such absolutes! You are obviously a very opinionated person. Lots of materials are known to break. In fact, just about all of them are.
Lastly, why are you so concerned with how something looks? Yes, I wear synthetic fabrics to include polyester, rayon, goretex, blends, etc. You seem to be stuck in the 70's or something. Synthetic materials are absolutely indispensible in many types of clothing. Let's see if this parallel but opposite argument works on you: "do you wear a leather ski jacket? Metal rain shoes? Wooden contact lenses? Then why would you wear a leather/metal/wood watch"? Not very effective, huh?
PS. you can't just back out of your outrageous claims by throwing in a random "cheap" qualifier on your description of plastic. "Cheap", for whatever that is worth (clearly much to you), is largely orthogonal to material. You didn't compare "cheap" plastic watches with "cheap" metal watches, after all.
I'm pretty tough on watches, but mine usually last a year or so. Yeah, if you need a tougher material, plastic may not suite you. On the other hand, if the plastic watches are 10-100x less expensive than your metal rolex, then you can treat them as disposable.
Let me get this straight, you want to use the modern technology when it comes to read-out, but you categorically exclude all watches made from the modern technology material (plastic)? You want a metal or wooden digital watch? But those materials were invented well over 500 years ago.
I have a nice plastic digital watch water resistent to 100m. It's a chronograph (stop watch / running watch) and relatively cheap, you can spend lots more on plastic digital watches with altimeters, heart rate monitors, integrated GPS, thermometers, compasses, etc. All modern tecnology when it comes to watches, including the material.
Yep, that was my experience 15 years ago the last time I had as Fossile watch. Utter crap, fell apart if you looked at it funny. Nice styling though.
I love responses such as your to global warming (right or wrong) that completely miss the point. Keep up the good work!!
Make it a *big* island.
You are very wrong, almost without exception, the only roads with minimum speed limits are freeways where bicycle riding is not permitted anyway. Reall, you're wrong.
Answer: a racist, bigot, jerk, and/or asshole, dependending on the identity of the class.
+1 to parent for not knowing what the word "popular" means!
LOL, what a post. I think the problem is not with cycling but with you - you're just some kind of worthless fat ass who couldn't figure out how to cycle.
Also, assume you do come up with some numbers. Like say, to make some up, cycling on the roads results in 3x more fatalities per hour on the road than driving. Wow, that sound like a lot. But they're both so low that my *reasonable* expectation of dying from the activities is very low. Like, say I ride 1000 hour this year on the roads, and my resulting expectation of dying would still be super low, like say 1/5000 chance while only 1/15000 chance for the same driving. Also, maybe I cycle much less than drive. Or maybe I derive more than 3x the benefit (qualitative) from cycling than driving.
Anyway, these are all made up numbers, but hopefully, you get the point. You can't just claim that cycling is "dangerous as hell" implying that driving is not. I know that cycling accidents happen, and I've had a few myself (car accidents, too), but I don't personally know anyone who has died from cycling. That kind of puts an upper bound on what "dangerous as hell" means in my experience (anecdotally speaking, of course). With activities that are "dangerous as hell", the people I cycle with would be dropping like flies.
All of this is not to say that we shouldn't try to be safer on the roads, more aware of our surroundings, more cognizant of the rules and dangers, etc, whether cycling or driving.
It's spelled "boxes", asshat.