Evidence generated from observations were all of other the variables have actually been held to with-in a measured small margin of error, so that the variable concluded to be the cause is the only thing that varies between different results. In so called social "science" it isn't possible to hold all other variables with-in a measured small margin of error as it isn't even possible to measure of the variables when dealing with people.
If your home is actually a house and not an underground bunker, it isn't going to keep out an armed group. Castles and fortresses were completely negated by modern weaponry. Also that armed group may well be fully equipped and disciplined soliders coming to confiscate your supplies for the "greater good", not some random group of people.
Not to mention that keeping them out of your house won't keep them from pillaging your crops, water supply, and taking your exterior generator.
When there is no prior agreement that the loser pays, it is the exception rather then the rule for the winning party to be awarded legal expenses in the US. Some of the litigation happiness comes from attorney's who take on speculative lawsuits where they don't get paid unless they win, but if they win they get a significant percentage of the damages awarded. In those cases though the judge isn't awarding legal expenses, the winner just agreed to share the award for damages with their attorney.
Yes it is reasonable to think that you can could make a nearly singular code base that would run on Windows Mobile and Windows XP/Vista. Due to the differences in form factor it will be difficult to have an identical GUI that conforms to the GUI standards for both platforms.
Disclaimer: While I'm no longer working at Microsoft, I did spend several years working on Visual Studio for Devices 2005 (i.e. dev tools for Windows Mobile; C++ support specifically).
Accountability is what is missing from modern western corporatism. Capitalism is no where to be found in the modern west. You can't have capitalism when the government decrees that money (i.e. the most liquid form of capital) can be created by the flip of the bit by government created entities (i.e. modern western incorporated banks).
Actually you have to use C++/CLI which isn't quite the same thing as C++. For example you can't use multiple inheritance. Whether you think that is good thing or a bad thing, its still a restriction imposed by the CLI that disallows truly and fully using any language.
I don't think the text is actually a leaked memo from Bill Gates. Do you really think the richest man in the world is going to spend an hour screwing around like that and then write up a long, polite e-mail about it?
They're already planning their own power station. From the article "Switch is bringing in 30 cooling towers and its own power station to fill the SuperNAP with 7,000 cabinets of hardware and 1,500 watts per square foot of energy."
What cable TV I watch I do fast forward through ads. On rare occasion I see one that catches my eye (usually a movie trailer) and go back and watch it.
Space exploration won't solve any of those problems. We can take all of the pictures and samples of the other planets and moons in our solar system that we want and it won't solve pollution, population pressure, or self-annihilation. For space to solve those issues we'd actually need to be colonizing it and exploiting its resources which private parties will do far more effectively and efficiently then the government will.
Excepting that all this does is turn schools into even more of a prison-like environment then they already are. So if the greater the prison-likeness of the environment, the less possibility of working a solution has, all this doing is reducing the chance possibility of the system working for all of the kids not just the so-called troubled youths.
DRMed content is what stops me from buying e-books and in turn e-book readers. I'm willing to re-buy paper books as e-books, but I'm not willing to re-buy e-books just because my device died, was stolen (I don't have to worry about anyone stealing my entire book collection), the license server was taken offline, I want have the file on more then one device at a time (I'll want more then one reader so I can have multiple books open at the same time on different devices or the same books open to different pages on different devices), or I want to get coolest new reader on the market.
metaprogramming is available via attributes and reflection in.NET and generics are fully supported with inheritence. As for policy based design you can achieve essentially the same result with interfaces and the strategy pattern. It is also possible to constrain the types of generic parameters to particular interfaces or base classes with generic constraints.
Attributes and reflection only provide a very limited subset of metaprogramming, and they definitely don't allow the compiler itself to be effectively programmed as can be done with C++ templates
You mean like this:
public class foo[T] : bar[T] where T : bar[T] { }// substitute angle brackets for square brackets in actual.cs file.
That is legal in.NET, it is an example of generics with constraints.
No I mean like
public class foo[T] : T
I have it on good authority that what I mean did not work in 2005. Maybe things changed in 2008. Don't know.
Unless you are programming something like real time systems this is rarely a big deal. I have never had a problem with garbage collection. Now, granted some programming techniques lean more heavily on the garbage collector than others, but with prudent use of the new for object creation and using (to ensure that dispose and by reference close on streams gets called as soon as you are done with the resource) it has not really been an issue for me. A well written.NET program can be very fast and have very efficient memory usage.
It can be a problem in non-real time systems regarding the use of scarce resources (IP ports, database connections, etc.) or for resources for which multiple threads or processes need to share access. Prudent use of using is still a requirement on the client to do something to release the thing just as its a requirement on the client to do something to release memory.
A well written native application can be even faster and use memory more efficiently as well being both crash free and memory leak free.
It is my experience that the practical usefulness of features like manual memory management and multiple inheritence are frequntly over-stated by those favoring C and C++. It is cherry picking unless your work frequently involves those optimizations and they are critical (which is not the case in most programming tasks).
Lots of language have multiple inheritance but C quite notably does not. I use MI to good effect in Python as well as C++. The benefit of multiple inheritance isn't (usually) performance optimization its developer productivity. As far as manual memory management goes I've already mentioned RAII and I'd rather use a smartpointer then manually manage memory.
Then you should really like platforms like.NET and Java which have standard libraries that let you do just about anything and are readily available as part of the platform. On the one hand you prefer smaller libraries but on the other hand you care about how many features are provided by those libraries. It seems to me that those are opposite goals.
There is the standard library (singular) for a language and then there are the libraries (plural) readily available to that language which are not limited to just the one standard library. The breadth of things that are provided by the readily available libraries of any mainstream language absolutely dwarfs what is in the standard library for that language. That's my point I don't care what's in the standard library specifically, I care what is readily available across the board regardless of the source (i.e. proprietary but cheap, free as in beer, etc.). There is not shortage of libraries for either C++ or Python.
Sigh, here we go again with the multiple inheritence argument. Multiple inheritence was almost *always* abused in the C++ days whenever it showed up to innapropriately compose unrelated classes for the sake of convenience and the utter violation of abstraction. The few legitimate uses of multiple inheritence, which are rare enough that I cannot think of them off the top of my head, can almost certainly achieved by alternative object oriented means in both Java and.NET in ways which do not carry the same potential for abuse or ambiguity.
Hmm, maybe like interface implementation inheritance, as I already said. Mixins is another. Every general programming language has features that can be "abused" and crappy code can be written in any language and I've seen plenty of it in C# and VB as well as C and C++.
Name a feature of C++ templates (other than multiple inheritence) that cannot be done in.NET with generics. I really tried to think of one, but I couldn't come up with a meaningful example.
I named one in the quote your statement is a response to "policy based design". Another is metaprogramming. If I remember correctly you also can't even do single inheritance through generics (i.e. have a class with its base class being specified by one of its generic parameters).
Is that your own terminology?
Nope typo. Should have been RAII rather RIAA.
There is not a direct comparison because destructors in garbage collected languages, such as.NET languages and Java, do not serve the same purpose as they do in manual memory management languages such as C and C++. In.NET the destructor, if one is implemented, is compiled into the Finalize method which is called by the garbage collector and not manually by the programmer. It is pointless to argue that.NET and Java do not include a feature of manually managed memory languages which is not needed because garbage collection serves the same purpose by different means.
Sure there is. Memory is only one of many, many kinds of things that is acquired and released, and many of these things can not be allowed to hang around until the gc gets around to finalizing the instance then the client of the instance ends up having to Dispose or Close or whatever to get it done immediately after they are done using it.
Here it comes, the car analogy: Both a manual transmission and an automatic transmission both shift gears so does it really make sense to argue about the details of *how* that happens as long as the gears get shifted? In most cases the answer is no.
nitpick.NET all you want, but name another platform besides Java which includes half as many features or has a standard library which is half as complete.
By platform I'll assume you mean the runtime since you also mentioned standard library. I'd say the python interpreter has half as many as the.Net runtime. As far as standard library completeness goes I'm not of the opinion that a standard library should be to choke full of features myself. The more important thing to me is what the libraries that are readily available for the language will let me do and the libraries that are readily available for python are quite broad.
Yup. A decade ago I would not have even thought of using anything other then C++ to write a game in, but now I'm doing it in Python. Sure there may be some parts that will have to get pushed down into C++ for performance reasons, but it likely won't be any rendering code since all of the heavy lifting is done on the GPU these days. I can also put off pushing an functionality down into C++ until the game is reasonably complete and profiling can pinpoint exactly where the bottlenecks are the absolutely must be opened up.
This was the feature that Java was missing and this is a major reason why.NET is so popular, it has the potential to end the "my programming language is better than yours" debate because the common types and assembly make the argument irrelevant. Use C# or use VB.NET or use Eiffel or whatever other language you want.
It's not even close to ending the programming language debate because its common assembly isn't common enough so it places to many restriction on language features. Want to create an easily re-usable interface implementation? Tough no multiple inheritance for you. Want to make use of policy based design? Tough generics aren't even in the same ball park as C++ templates. Want to make use of deterministic RIAA? Well it was tough luck in earlier versions, but I can't remember if they finally put in deterministic destructors that will get automatically get called when an instance goes out of scope in the latest version.
The guard rotations and patrol routes should be randomized anyway. Security via secrecy can be defeated by undercover agents, bribes, and/or social engineering, so its best to assume that those looking to defeat your security have the same information you do.
Don't see why a hybrid couldn't have two memory controllers included right on the chip and then mobos could have slot(s) for the fast RAM nearest to the CPU socket and the slots for the slower RAM further away.
Crazily enough, this has nothing to do with Windows and everything to do with the application developers. The elevation prompt is because the app is trying to write to locations such as the HKLM hive or the Program Files folder. Don't mess with locations that require elevated privileges and you won't need elevated privileges.
Actually there are scenarios where VS 2008 requires that it be run elevated. For VS 2008 we (I worked on VS up until then of September last year) put in specific warnings and error messages for those scenarios, instead of just putting up a blanket warning as was done with the service pack for VS 2005.
The reader is worthless without anything to read, so you are just as screwed if the separate media get trashed as you are if the HDD's get trashed. HDD's are cheap enough that you can just make make multiple copies of the backups and keep them at different physical locations, then in a few years copy them to bigger hard drives, rinse repeat until the data is no longer needed, or something more economical then hard drives comes along. If the HDDs are hot swappable then you can think of the HDDs as the media and the HDD bay enclosure as the reader if that makes you feel any better.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence generated from observations were all of other the variables have actually been held to with-in a measured small margin of error, so that the variable concluded to be the cause is the only thing that varies between different results. In so called social "science" it isn't possible to hold all other variables with-in a measured small margin of error as it isn't even possible to measure of the variables when dealing with people.
More guns aren't useful if you don't have any more allies to actually shoot them.
If your home is actually a house and not an underground bunker, it isn't going to keep out an armed group. Castles and fortresses were completely negated by modern weaponry. Also that armed group may well be fully equipped and disciplined soliders coming to confiscate your supplies for the "greater good", not some random group of people. Not to mention that keeping them out of your house won't keep them from pillaging your crops, water supply, and taking your exterior generator.
When there is no prior agreement that the loser pays, it is the exception rather then the rule for the winning party to be awarded legal expenses in the US. Some of the litigation happiness comes from attorney's who take on speculative lawsuits where they don't get paid unless they win, but if they win they get a significant percentage of the damages awarded. In those cases though the judge isn't awarding legal expenses, the winner just agreed to share the award for damages with their attorney.
Yes it is reasonable to think that you can could make a nearly singular code base that would run on Windows Mobile and Windows XP/Vista. Due to the differences in form factor it will be difficult to have an identical GUI that conforms to the GUI standards for both platforms. Disclaimer: While I'm no longer working at Microsoft, I did spend several years working on Visual Studio for Devices 2005 (i.e. dev tools for Windows Mobile; C++ support specifically).
Accountability is what is missing from modern western corporatism. Capitalism is no where to be found in the modern west. You can't have capitalism when the government decrees that money (i.e. the most liquid form of capital) can be created by the flip of the bit by government created entities (i.e. modern western incorporated banks).
Actually you have to use C++/CLI which isn't quite the same thing as C++. For example you can't use multiple inheritance. Whether you think that is good thing or a bad thing, its still a restriction imposed by the CLI that disallows truly and fully using any language.
I don't think the text is actually a leaked memo from Bill Gates. Do you really think the richest man in the world is going to spend an hour screwing around like that and then write up a long, polite e-mail about it?
They're already planning their own power station. From the article "Switch is bringing in 30 cooling towers and its own power station to fill the SuperNAP with 7,000 cabinets of hardware and 1,500 watts per square foot of energy."
What cable TV I watch I do fast forward through ads. On rare occasion I see one that catches my eye (usually a movie trailer) and go back and watch it.
Space exploration won't solve any of those problems. We can take all of the pictures and samples of the other planets and moons in our solar system that we want and it won't solve pollution, population pressure, or self-annihilation. For space to solve those issues we'd actually need to be colonizing it and exploiting its resources which private parties will do far more effectively and efficiently then the government will.
Excepting that all this does is turn schools into even more of a prison-like environment then they already are. So if the greater the prison-likeness of the environment, the less possibility of working a solution has, all this doing is reducing the chance possibility of the system working for all of the kids not just the so-called troubled youths.
DRMed content is what stops me from buying e-books and in turn e-book readers. I'm willing to re-buy paper books as e-books, but I'm not willing to re-buy e-books just because my device died, was stolen (I don't have to worry about anyone stealing my entire book collection), the license server was taken offline, I want have the file on more then one device at a time (I'll want more then one reader so I can have multiple books open at the same time on different devices or the same books open to different pages on different devices), or I want to get coolest new reader on the market.
I'd much rather use WTL then MFC, Java, or .Net for writing a Win32 GUI.
metaprogramming is available via attributes and reflection in .NET and generics are fully supported with inheritence. As for policy based design you can achieve essentially the same result with interfaces and the strategy pattern. It is also possible to constrain the types of generic parameters to particular interfaces or base classes with generic constraints.
// substitute angle brackets for square brackets in actual .cs file.
.NET, it is an example of generics with constraints.
.NET program can be very fast and have very efficient memory usage.
.NET and Java which have standard libraries that let you do just about anything and are readily available as part of the platform. On the one hand you prefer smaller libraries but on the other hand you care about how many features are provided by those libraries. It seems to me that those are opposite goals.
Attributes and reflection only provide a very limited subset of metaprogramming, and they definitely don't allow the compiler itself to be effectively programmed as can be done with C++ templates
You mean like this:
public class foo[T] : bar[T] where T : bar[T] { }
That is legal in
No I mean like
public class foo[T] : T
I have it on good authority that what I mean did not work in 2005. Maybe things changed in 2008. Don't know.
Unless you are programming something like real time systems this is rarely a big deal. I have never had a problem with garbage collection. Now, granted some programming techniques lean more heavily on the garbage collector than others, but with prudent use of the new for object creation and using (to ensure that dispose and by reference close on streams gets called as soon as you are done with the resource) it has not really been an issue for me. A well written
It can be a problem in non-real time systems regarding the use of scarce resources (IP ports, database connections, etc.) or for resources for which multiple threads or processes need to share access. Prudent use of using is still a requirement on the client to do something to release the thing just as its a requirement on the client to do something to release memory.
A well written native application can be even faster and use memory more efficiently as well being both crash free and memory leak free.
It is my experience that the practical usefulness of features like manual memory management and multiple inheritence are frequntly over-stated by those favoring C and C++. It is cherry picking unless your work frequently involves those optimizations and they are critical (which is not the case in most programming tasks).
Lots of language have multiple inheritance but C quite notably does not. I use MI to good effect in Python as well as C++. The benefit of multiple inheritance isn't (usually) performance optimization its developer productivity. As far as manual memory management goes I've already mentioned RAII and I'd rather use a smartpointer then manually manage memory.
Then you should really like platforms like
There is the standard library (singular) for a language and then there are the libraries (plural) readily available to that language which are not limited to just the one standard library. The breadth of things that are provided by the readily available libraries of any mainstream language absolutely dwarfs what is in the standard library for that language. That's my point I don't care what's in the standard library specifically, I care what is readily available across the board regardless of the source (i.e. proprietary but cheap, free as in beer, etc.). There is not shortage of libraries for either C++ or Python.
Sigh, here we go again with the multiple inheritence argument. Multiple inheritence was almost *always* abused in the C++ days whenever it showed up to innapropriately compose unrelated classes for the sake of convenience and the utter violation of abstraction. The few legitimate uses of multiple inheritence, which are rare enough that I cannot think of them off the top of my head, can almost certainly achieved by alternative object oriented means in both Java and .NET in ways which do not carry the same potential for abuse or ambiguity.
.NET with generics. I really tried to think of one, but I couldn't come up with a meaningful example.
.NET languages and Java, do not serve the same purpose as they do in manual memory management languages such as C and C++. In .NET the destructor, if one is implemented, is compiled into the Finalize method which is called by the garbage collector and not manually by the programmer. It is pointless to argue that .NET and Java do not include a feature of manually managed memory languages which is not needed because garbage collection serves the same purpose by different means.
.NET all you want, but name another platform besides Java which includes half as many features or has a standard library which is half as complete.
.Net runtime. As far as standard library completeness goes I'm not of the opinion that a standard library should be to choke full of features myself. The more important thing to me is what the libraries that are readily available for the language will let me do and the libraries that are readily available for python are quite broad.
Hmm, maybe like interface implementation inheritance, as I already said. Mixins is another. Every general programming language has features that can be "abused" and crappy code can be written in any language and I've seen plenty of it in C# and VB as well as C and C++.
Name a feature of C++ templates (other than multiple inheritence) that cannot be done in
I named one in the quote your statement is a response to "policy based design". Another is metaprogramming. If I remember correctly you also can't even do single inheritance through generics (i.e. have a class with its base class being specified by one of its generic parameters).
Is that your own terminology?
Nope typo. Should have been RAII rather RIAA.
There is not a direct comparison because destructors in garbage collected languages, such as
Sure there is. Memory is only one of many, many kinds of things that is acquired and released, and many of these things can not be allowed to hang around until the gc gets around to finalizing the instance then the client of the instance ends up having to Dispose or Close or whatever to get it done immediately after they are done using it.
Here it comes, the car analogy: Both a manual transmission and an automatic transmission both shift gears so does it really make sense to argue about the details of *how* that happens as long as the gears get shifted? In most cases the answer is no. nitpick
By platform I'll assume you mean the runtime since you also mentioned standard library. I'd say the python interpreter has half as many as the
Yup. A decade ago I would not have even thought of using anything other then C++ to write a game in, but now I'm doing it in Python. Sure there may be some parts that will have to get pushed down into C++ for performance reasons, but it likely won't be any rendering code since all of the heavy lifting is done on the GPU these days. I can also put off pushing an functionality down into C++ until the game is reasonably complete and profiling can pinpoint exactly where the bottlenecks are the absolutely must be opened up.
This was the feature that Java was missing and this is a major reason why .NET is so popular, it has the potential to end the "my programming language is better than yours" debate because the common types and assembly make the argument irrelevant. Use C# or use VB.NET or use Eiffel or whatever other language you want.
It's not even close to ending the programming language debate because its common assembly isn't common enough so it places to many restriction on language features. Want to create an easily re-usable interface implementation? Tough no multiple inheritance for you. Want to make use of policy based design? Tough generics aren't even in the same ball park as C++ templates. Want to make use of deterministic RIAA? Well it was tough luck in earlier versions, but I can't remember if they finally put in deterministic destructors that will get automatically get called when an instance goes out of scope in the latest version.
The guard rotations and patrol routes should be randomized anyway. Security via secrecy can be defeated by undercover agents, bribes, and/or social engineering, so its best to assume that those looking to defeat your security have the same information you do.
Don't see why a hybrid couldn't have two memory controllers included right on the chip and then mobos could have slot(s) for the fast RAM nearest to the CPU socket and the slots for the slower RAM further away.
Crazily enough, this has nothing to do with Windows and everything to do with the application developers. The elevation prompt is because the app is trying to write to locations such as the HKLM hive or the Program Files folder. Don't mess with locations that require elevated privileges and you won't need elevated privileges.
This is not accurate. From http://blogs.msdn.com/sajoshi/archive/2007/02/22/uac-five-most-common-install-failure-scenarios-and-workarounds.aspx "In Windows Vista, UAC detects installers and automatically prompts for elevation to admin status. Windows vista heuristically detects updater and un-installation programs too."
"Nothing to do with the OS, everything to do with the application developer." Actually the OS has heuristics to detect that an installation program is being run and when detected it automatically offers to elevate them. See http://blogs.msdn.com/sajoshi/archive/2007/02/22/uac-five-most-common-install-failure-scenarios-and-workarounds.aspx
Actually there are scenarios where VS 2008 requires that it be run elevated. For VS 2008 we (I worked on VS up until then of September last year) put in specific warnings and error messages for those scenarios, instead of just putting up a blanket warning as was done with the service pack for VS 2005.
"giant runtime"? As compared to what exactly? The desktop Python runtime is tiny compared to the desktop .Net or Java runtimes.
The reader is worthless without anything to read, so you are just as screwed if the separate media get trashed as you are if the HDD's get trashed. HDD's are cheap enough that you can just make make multiple copies of the backups and keep them at different physical locations, then in a few years copy them to bigger hard drives, rinse repeat until the data is no longer needed, or something more economical then hard drives comes along. If the HDDs are hot swappable then you can think of the HDDs as the media and the HDD bay enclosure as the reader if that makes you feel any better.