I believe his point is that their holy book contains many lamentations about the days when they were the minority discriminated against and how wrong it all was.
That's a big consideration for me. As near as I can tell, the only way to find out if you're wasting your time or not is to go ahead and waste it. After spending time writing your app, it may or may not be allowed at all. If not, you will be quite lucky to learn why and if you fix that, it may not change anything as you'll get rejected for something that was said to be acceptable the first time. If rejected you might later see another app that does exactly what yours was rejected for.
If you do get the app in, you may or may not be able to update it, even if the update is purely a bug fix that does nothing different other than not screwing up.
None of that makes me want to spend time and money developing an app. None of that motivates anyone to put forth their best effort. If you're going to get your work thrown away, it might as well be half-assed work. You can't even half ass it as a trial and then update to a well done version once in.
I have better things to do than jump through flaming hoops for a corporation that apparently doesn't care if I live or die just for the chance to buy a lottery ticket that might possibly pay back it's cost if I get lucky.
They were QUITE clear in the paper that they deliberately chose the least optimal string handling. They stated it EXPLICITLY. It's not their fault you skimmed with intent to belittle.
Perhaps that's because all of the blame naturally falls on one party. Remove all stupidity from the world and there will still be crime. Remove all the crime from the world and there is none.
Stupidity is contextual anyway and accurate judgments of it don't cross cultural and social barriers readily. In some places, leaving your door unlocked is not at all stupid. Locking your door borders on criminal in some places. In some places wasting your time and energy locking up your tools at the end of the day is stupid. In others, not doing so would be stupid. The constant though is that the person who steals your stuff is in the wrong.
Consider, in small places, that is places where you can actually know everyone there and where communication with the outside is limited, caveat emptor often does not really apply. No merchant in that situation is going to risk being run out of town over a few small items. Just imagine one day that small place gets a connection to the internet. To you and me, actually responding to a spam is stupid. There's no way you won't get ripped off. But to the people in that small place, there is nothing stupid about it. It's simply a novel situation they are ignorant of.
You've mis-understood the purpose of the paper. Read it with an open mind and you will note that they deliberately selected the most expensive string handling. It strongly suggests that they were well aware that they were stacking the deck, but doing so in a way that a programmer might carelessly fall into the trap. The intent was to educate rather than break new ground.
It is terrible, but its 'terribleness' may be non-obvious. The paper's actual purpose is to point that trap out so people don't fall in to it. Do read it.
It makes perfect sense once you read the paper. The conclusion is techniocally correct but deceptive.
The results apply in the case of Java and Python where strings are immutable objects. They also used buffered I/O handled by libc. When you concatenate immutable strings, you must allocate a new string large enough to hold both parts, then a memcpy from both of the parts is performed to construct it. The parts are eventually garbage collected.
In contrast, writing to a file with buffered I/O means just copying the additional write buffer to the current end of the buffer and moving updating the accounting information.
As a result, in both cases, only one actual filesystem transaction takes place writing out the complete string. Thus, the actual practical difference between the two methods is that the 'in memory' version copies the memory around many times while the 'disk i/o' one copies the data once (in multiple steps, but each byte sees one copy).
That seems like a bit of a no-brainer, but the point is valid because many programmers may deceive themselves into thinking the 'in memory' method is faster because they don't take the file i/o buffering and the way immutable strings are handled into account.
Yes. No exceptions, breech trust == no longer trusted.
The CAs inclined to integrity will be able to use the potential wipeout as a good reason their cooperation can't be legally demanded and the less scrupulous may be deterred by the consequences.
Meanwhile, what's the alternative? Bend over and spread 'em wide?
The delusion is that someone who is not by any stretch of the imagination a psychologist will be able to apply it well enough to pick out actual terrorists with any success beyond chance based on a 5 minute interview. Particularly when a number of passengers will be nervous about flying in general, about security in general, or possibly nervous about their destination no matter how they get there, etc etc.
Because crap like that is degrading communications within the United States. Their job is to advance and maintain good quality communications in the United States.
Also because it's a bit embarrassing when people keep asking whatever happened to that half a billion dollars that was supposed to give us all world class internet connectivity and we can't even stream a movie properly.
The problem with Obamacare (and it has plenty) is that it got outsourced in the form of an insurance scam rather than actually being a healthcare play. Like many half-assed 'solutions', it turned out badly. They need to finish the job with single payer actual universal heal;thcare.
Bald assertions without even a tiny shred of evidence and not even so much as a hint at what leads you to believe that is nit terribly convincing. Just so you know.
Except that they routinely p[ull the same sort of flip-flop. I have no idea how much psychedelic cool aid it takes befor that becomes invisible, but you must have consumed it.
As for state and local power, they only like that when the D's have a majority at the federal level.
Looks like you're moving the goal posts. He didn't say granted monopoly, he just said monopoly. But given how many places have THE cable company and THE phone company, one must conclude that there is some structural element that causes monopolies.
That is nothing like equal opportunity. Especially when the X that some people cannot afford is 'succeed'.
Sports does have equal opportunity. If our current socio-economic situation was translated to football, some would have to kick off from their own end zone while the other team only needs 5 yards to get a 1st down. Others would get to kick off from the opposing 10 yard line and their opponants would need 15 yards to get a 1st down.
Now, imagine that the advantage is granted in proportion to how many superbowls you've won in the past. Eventually you'd get to watch the most powerful and athletic team in the NFL lose to a pack of wheezing arthritic retirees who need oxygen after the coin toss every year.
That would make a pretty crappy game as well.
Put another way, there is no equal opportunity when some people are born on 3rd base.
Given the number of Republicans who have carped endlessly about how people who can't afford children shouldn't have them, you would think they would be delighted when such a person wants to make that a reality, but NOOOOOOOOO!
Only now that they are Obama's, the Rs employ doublethink (now that's irony) to say they're bad. Kinda like Romneycare was a great idea until Obama implemented it.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe his point is that their holy book contains many lamentations about the days when they were the minority discriminated against and how wrong it all was.
I'd tell him some distant ancestor of mine might have been black and he would voluntarily leave.
If not, I'd tell him to come back in his street clothes and be polite to my other customers.
No, they're punishing those who are happy to help those homophobes and racists move from talk to action against the groups they don't like.
REALLY?!? You read that and STILL don't grasp that they were aware of how non-optimal it is? REALLY?!?
WOW, you didn't even finish reading the summary!
That's a big consideration for me. As near as I can tell, the only way to find out if you're wasting your time or not is to go ahead and waste it. After spending time writing your app, it may or may not be allowed at all. If not, you will be quite lucky to learn why and if you fix that, it may not change anything as you'll get rejected for something that was said to be acceptable the first time. If rejected you might later see another app that does exactly what yours was rejected for.
If you do get the app in, you may or may not be able to update it, even if the update is purely a bug fix that does nothing different other than not screwing up.
None of that makes me want to spend time and money developing an app. None of that motivates anyone to put forth their best effort. If you're going to get your work thrown away, it might as well be half-assed work. You can't even half ass it as a trial and then update to a well done version once in.
I have better things to do than jump through flaming hoops for a corporation that apparently doesn't care if I live or die just for the chance to buy a lottery ticket that might possibly pay back it's cost if I get lucky.
They were QUITE clear in the paper that they deliberately chose the least optimal string handling. They stated it EXPLICITLY. It's not their fault you skimmed with intent to belittle.
Spoken like someone who can't even begin to imagine living somewhere that doesn't have ubiquitous communication with the outside world.
Perhaps that's because all of the blame naturally falls on one party. Remove all stupidity from the world and there will still be crime. Remove all the crime from the world and there is none.
Stupidity is contextual anyway and accurate judgments of it don't cross cultural and social barriers readily. In some places, leaving your door unlocked is not at all stupid. Locking your door borders on criminal in some places. In some places wasting your time and energy locking up your tools at the end of the day is stupid. In others, not doing so would be stupid. The constant though is that the person who steals your stuff is in the wrong.
Consider, in small places, that is places where you can actually know everyone there and where communication with the outside is limited, caveat emptor often does not really apply. No merchant in that situation is going to risk being run out of town over a few small items. Just imagine one day that small place gets a connection to the internet. To you and me, actually responding to a spam is stupid. There's no way you won't get ripped off. But to the people in that small place, there is nothing stupid about it. It's simply a novel situation they are ignorant of.
You've mis-understood the purpose of the paper. Read it with an open mind and you will note that they deliberately selected the most expensive string handling. It strongly suggests that they were well aware that they were stacking the deck, but doing so in a way that a programmer might carelessly fall into the trap. The intent was to educate rather than break new ground.
It is terrible, but its 'terribleness' may be non-obvious. The paper's actual purpose is to point that trap out so people don't fall in to it. Do read it.
It makes perfect sense once you read the paper. The conclusion is techniocally correct but deceptive.
The results apply in the case of Java and Python where strings are immutable objects. They also used buffered I/O handled by libc. When you concatenate immutable strings, you must allocate a new string large enough to hold both parts, then a memcpy from both of the parts is performed to construct it. The parts are eventually garbage collected.
In contrast, writing to a file with buffered I/O means just copying the additional write buffer to the current end of the buffer and moving updating the accounting information.
As a result, in both cases, only one actual filesystem transaction takes place writing out the complete string. Thus, the actual practical difference between the two methods is that the 'in memory' version copies the memory around many times while the 'disk i/o' one copies the data once (in multiple steps, but each byte sees one copy).
That seems like a bit of a no-brainer, but the point is valid because many programmers may deceive themselves into thinking the 'in memory' method is faster because they don't take the file i/o buffering and the way immutable strings are handled into account.
Just make the block screen read blocked for the sake of the children.
Yes. No exceptions, breech trust == no longer trusted.
The CAs inclined to integrity will be able to use the potential wipeout as a good reason their cooperation can't be legally demanded and the less scrupulous may be deterred by the consequences.
Meanwhile, what's the alternative? Bend over and spread 'em wide?
The delusion is that someone who is not by any stretch of the imagination a psychologist will be able to apply it well enough to pick out actual terrorists with any success beyond chance based on a 5 minute interview. Particularly when a number of passengers will be nervous about flying in general, about security in general, or possibly nervous about their destination no matter how they get there, etc etc.
Because crap like that is degrading communications within the United States. Their job is to advance and maintain good quality communications in the United States.
Also because it's a bit embarrassing when people keep asking whatever happened to that half a billion dollars that was supposed to give us all world class internet connectivity and we can't even stream a movie properly.
The problem with Obamacare (and it has plenty) is that it got outsourced in the form of an insurance scam rather than actually being a healthcare play. Like many half-assed 'solutions', it turned out badly. They need to finish the job with single payer actual universal heal;thcare.
Bald assertions without even a tiny shred of evidence and not even so much as a hint at what leads you to believe that is nit terribly convincing. Just so you know.
Except that they routinely p[ull the same sort of flip-flop. I have no idea how much psychedelic cool aid it takes befor that becomes invisible, but you must have consumed it.
As for state and local power, they only like that when the D's have a majority at the federal level.
It beats the previous situation of give money to telecom, grant monopoly status and then let them do whatever the hell they want.
Looks like you're moving the goal posts. He didn't say granted monopoly, he just said monopoly. But given how many places have THE cable company and THE phone company, one must conclude that there is some structural element that causes monopolies.
That is nothing like equal opportunity. Especially when the X that some people cannot afford is 'succeed'.
Sports does have equal opportunity. If our current socio-economic situation was translated to football, some would have to kick off from their own end zone while the other team only needs 5 yards to get a 1st down. Others would get to kick off from the opposing 10 yard line and their opponants would need 15 yards to get a 1st down.
Now, imagine that the advantage is granted in proportion to how many superbowls you've won in the past. Eventually you'd get to watch the most powerful and athletic team in the NFL lose to a pack of wheezing arthritic retirees who need oxygen after the coin toss every year.
That would make a pretty crappy game as well.
Put another way, there is no equal opportunity when some people are born on 3rd base.
It really has no choice. As big of a fight as 2 was, 1 would never get through.
Too many in Congress want option 3) We sit on our hands sincerely enough and the magic economy fairy will rise up from the pumpkin patch and ...
Given the number of Republicans who have carped endlessly about how people who can't afford children shouldn't have them, you would think they would be delighted when such a person wants to make that a reality, but NOOOOOOOOO!
Only now that they are Obama's, the Rs employ doublethink (now that's irony) to say they're bad. Kinda like Romneycare was a great idea until Obama implemented it.