Can't say I've seen an instance of this happening, but I admit I've not been keeping an eye out for it.
Anyway, the solution is quite obvious: to prove you're not a Wiki-vandal asshole, always link to a snapshot of the article from a couple of days ago. Wikipedia stores every (non-deleted) article's history in its entirety, after all.
Errr... the UK still has an reasonable approximation of a well-functioning court system. That the police say something is illegal isn't enough to get you thrown in jail.
the Ministry of Defence has said that removing Trident to the English coast would be extremely difficult and abhorrently costly. Great Britain has thus staked out its position as having no fallback, arguing that even if one did exist, it would be a logistical and financial nightmare. This would be all well and good—if the Scottish government was not especially clear that it will remove the weapons as quickly and safely as possible after independence. With Scotland at that point an independent state, the remaining United Kingdom would have no legal authority to prevent this from happening.
Interesting. I would've thought diverse sites would be part of the strategy from the get-go with this sort of thing. Eggs in one basket, and all that
But it wraps it away in macros. That's the whole point. I agree that it might be a good way to learn OOP to first learn C and then learn vtables etc, but I imagine you'd be best off having the student develop such a system themselves, not have them dig through GObject's implementation.
GObject has the advantage that it's what GTK/Gnome use, and it's what Vala compiles to, so it's not quite a 'random macro library'. Also, it does the tedious work for you.
As crazy and awful as it is, there are advantages to using C. Small, simple language, easier to parse/analyse/compile/build an IDE for, etc.
I'm not sure how portable GObject is, though - if it's easy to use outside the Unix/autotools world. For instance, my understanding is that GTK on Windows is a 'go and install mingw' affair - how simple it is to use Visual Studio instead, I don't know.
I use ADSL over copper owned by BT, but my connection is through another provider.
(For non-Brits: BT are required to allow other ISPs to make use of their copper, for a reasonable price. Yes, there's kinda a monopoly on the infrastructure, but as a customer I deal with my ISP, not with BT. The actual connection to the Internet is handled by the ISP, not by BT. The scheme generally works pretty well.)
I have no complaints at all, but I accept it's not perfect all over the country.
The Government is basically the worst possible nightmare-scenario giant monopoly evil corporation you can imagine.
Here in the UK, our government has taken steps to prevent there being a monopoly ISP. They didn't start a government-run ISP, they just regulated things to prevent a monopoly. And... it worked. Not all government intervention means shifting things from the private to the public sector. If anything, I imagine there are now more ISP jobs than there would be with a monopoly.
Also, we don't have to suffer truly godawful ISPs, the way you do in the US, which is nice.
But no, you'll go on believing all that government does is evil (that might not be such a worry if it weren't for that your system allows payments that would be classified as bribery in damn near any other country, btw), and that there's no better way to run a country than by letting corporations screw over the average person.
Me qualifying my comment with a nod to that I'm about to discuss a non-C++ language doesn't, in itself, make me an irrational zealot.
I even pointed out that C++ beats D if you're after a "zero-cost abstractions only" language. I had hoped that would be enough to prevent your sort of waste-of-space comment.
I do all my real programming work in C++, by the way. That's mostly because C++ is a more mainstream language than D, but the superior integration with C code is also nice, as is the far superior tooling.
I think we should think more about isolating unsafe code in a program than to eliminate it. Putting the necessary unsafe code into a different language limits our control of it, limits what can be communicated to it, and typically imposes overheads.
Precisely why D has a safe subset and the @safe and @trusted attributes.
Of course, D doesn't have compatibility with old C++ code, or even with old D code (that's why there's the ancient-but-stable D 1.0 language).
By that preposterous understanding of 'basic freedom', a technical committee which requires members to submit their real names must also be an infringement on your freedom.
I'm talking about an idea for a forum (and perhaps playing a little devil's advocate), not overturning the First Amendment.
What if we trade-off not monetary price, but anonymity?
Typical trolls neither pay to post, nor have to reveal who they are. If there were a real-names policy (an actual, checked, real-names policy, not bullshit like what Google tried to pull), one would surely see less trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the whole military/industrial/prison/media-complex thing.
Can't say I've seen an instance of this happening, but I admit I've not been keeping an eye out for it.
Anyway, the solution is quite obvious: to prove you're not a Wiki-vandal asshole, always link to a snapshot of the article from a couple of days ago. Wikipedia stores every (non-deleted) article's history in its entirety, after all.
There is no written law because writing laws about watching the video, is a crime.
You joke, but that's not far off the thinking behind the First Amendment.
(To pre-empt any smart-assery: yes, I'm aware there's no First Amendment in the UK.)
Errr... the UK still has an reasonable approximation of a well-functioning court system. That the police say something is illegal isn't enough to get you thrown in jail.
Or you could actually read the article and learn that they didn't just stupidly fail to think of that.
'least intelligent', indeed. You ACs, really.
the Ministry of Defence has said that removing Trident to the English coast would be extremely difficult and abhorrently costly. Great Britain has thus staked out its position as having no fallback, arguing that even if one did exist, it would be a logistical and financial nightmare. This would be all well and good—if the Scottish government was not especially clear that it will remove the weapons as quickly and safely as possible after independence. With Scotland at that point an independent state, the remaining United Kingdom would have no legal authority to prevent this from happening.
Interesting. I would've thought diverse sites would be part of the strategy from the get-go with this sort of thing. Eggs in one basket, and all that
Government-mandated censorship is a totally separate issue from a broken, monopolised, non-competitive ISP market.
But it wraps it away in macros. That's the whole point. I agree that it might be a good way to learn OOP to first learn C and then learn vtables etc, but I imagine you'd be best off having the student develop such a system themselves, not have them dig through GObject's implementation.
GObject has the advantage that it's what GTK/Gnome use, and it's what Vala compiles to, so it's not quite a 'random macro library'. Also, it does the tedious work for you.
As crazy and awful as it is, there are advantages to using C. Small, simple language, easier to parse/analyse/compile/build an IDE for, etc.
I'm not sure how portable GObject is, though - if it's easy to use outside the Unix/autotools world. For instance, my understanding is that GTK on Windows is a 'go and install mingw' affair - how simple it is to use Visual Studio instead, I don't know.
And compile-once-run-anywhere, and garbage-collection, and memory-safety...
But yes, they certainly both have their pros and cons.
Ah, the familiar cutting wit of the common Slashdot AC.
Are you a moron in real-life too, or do just adopt the persona for anonymous trolling?
Really? You'd rather teach this pile of macros than Java?
The boilerplate's so bad they built Vala, a whole new C#-like programming language, to escape it.
If there's a good reason they didn't just go with C++, I'd be interested in hearing it.
That whole thing about 'necessary complexity'...
Does that really count as a popped bubble?
Totally irrelevant, but yes, it is a cause for concern.
I use ADSL over copper owned by BT, but my connection is through another provider.
(For non-Brits: BT are required to allow other ISPs to make use of their copper, for a reasonable price. Yes, there's kinda a monopoly on the infrastructure, but as a customer I deal with my ISP, not with BT. The actual connection to the Internet is handled by the ISP, not by BT. The scheme generally works pretty well.)
I have no complaints at all, but I accept it's not perfect all over the country.
Counter Con: What makes you think the rules will be applied to corporate persons or political entities?(who are the drivers behind most astroturfing.)
...because the forum wouldn't be run by a corrupt government. Forum rules are not the same as law.
The Government is basically the worst possible nightmare-scenario giant monopoly evil corporation you can imagine.
Here in the UK, our government has taken steps to prevent there being a monopoly ISP. They didn't start a government-run ISP, they just regulated things to prevent a monopoly. And... it worked. Not all government intervention means shifting things from the private to the public sector. If anything, I imagine there are now more ISP jobs than there would be with a monopoly.
Also, we don't have to suffer truly godawful ISPs, the way you do in the US, which is nice.
But no, you'll go on believing all that government does is evil (that might not be such a worry if it weren't for that your system allows payments that would be classified as bribery in damn near any other country, btw), and that there's no better way to run a country than by letting corporations screw over the average person.
No, I get it. The joke's a little tired though - we all know the capitalisation of the second letter is what matters.
That makes sense. So we essentially have several different 'this' addresses depending on how we're treating our instance. Crazy.
Does that mean a pointer equality comparison might behave unexpectedly, if the two pointers are of different types but refer to the same object?
Laziness.
Me qualifying my comment with a nod to that I'm about to discuss a non-C++ language doesn't, in itself, make me an irrational zealot.
I even pointed out that C++ beats D if you're after a "zero-cost abstractions only" language. I had hoped that would be enough to prevent your sort of waste-of-space comment.
I do all my real programming work in C++, by the way. That's mostly because C++ is a more mainstream language than D, but the superior integration with C code is also nice, as is the far superior tooling.
That would be "QT", not "Qt".
Not to be a fanboy, but: a lot of this stuff makes me think "Ah yes, that's why we have D".
We dream of cleaning up the mess
Yep. D is pleasantly free of the mess.
a direct mapping to hardware plus zero-overhead abstraction
Here, D and C++ differ somewhat. D isn't totally unusable without its trusty garbage-collector, but it's not something that's often done.
Being a fan of range/container algorithms
Andrei Alexandrescu agrees. See also these.
Ranges are a standard thing in D.
I think we should think more about isolating unsafe code in a program than to eliminate it. Putting the necessary unsafe code into a different language limits our control of it, limits what can be communicated to it, and typically imposes overheads.
Precisely why D has a safe subset and the @safe and @trusted attributes.
Of course, D doesn't have compatibility with old C++ code, or even with old D code (that's why there's the ancient-but-stable D 1.0 language).
unless the hackers were dumb enough to believe that the NRC would store sensitive information on a public-facing server?
To be fair, very few organisations take security seriously, even when it's their entire job.
It's not dumb of a hacker to make the assumption that their target is incompetent. Cynical, maybe, but not unfounded.
What on Earth are you talking about?
By that preposterous understanding of 'basic freedom', a technical committee which requires members to submit their real names must also be an infringement on your freedom.
I'm talking about an idea for a forum (and perhaps playing a little devil's advocate), not overturning the First Amendment.
What if we trade-off not monetary price, but anonymity?
Typical trolls neither pay to post, nor have to reveal who they are. If there were a real-names policy (an actual, checked, real-names policy, not bullshit like what Google tried to pull), one would surely see less trolling.