Citizens United was not the correct ruling. Bribes are not a protected form of speech, and large campaign contributions made by an individual or a small group of individuals (remember that in a corporation, a small number of board members have near total autonomy in such decisions) are indistinguishable from bribes. And even if bribes were a constitutionally protected form of speech, it would still be entirely reasonable for government to limit the manner of that speech—requiring corporations to spread out those contributions over a longer period of time, to level the playing field. Those rules were quite clearly a "reasonable time, place and manner restriction". And I say that even as someone who is a staunch defender of the near-absoluteness of the first amendment.
The entire decision on Citizens United was based on absurd hypothetical scenarios (e.g. the government twisting election laws to censor the media) that did not apply to the actual case at hand in the slightest. That decision was a clear case of legislating from the bench, in the worst sense of the phrase.
So no, SCOTUS doesn't almost always make the correct ruling. Its shortsightedness frequently results in fairly serious errors (Plessy v. Ferguson, for example). Fortunately, it usually corrects those mistakes eventually. In the same way, Citizens United will likely eventually get overturned, assuming the piles of corporate money don't hopelessly corrupt the government beyond redemption before such a correction has a chance to happen.
I agree with you on the NSLs, assuming they aren't time-limited. If they are time-limited (e.g. a five-year embargo), it becomes a much harder argument; you'd have to argue that the time period was not reasonable, thus resulting in an unreasonable prior restraint of speech.
As long as the question "How would we know" is illegal for the participants to answer, we should simply assume the worst.
This. That's why the first amendment is by far the most important aspect of American law, and that's why any laws that abridge it in a broad manner (as NSL gag orders do), no matter the perceived need, must be struck down. There can be no freedom without the true transparency enshrined in our highest law, and without the people having the courage to demand that such transparency be defended above all else.
Exactly. The second amendment is arguable. Depending on how you interpret it, it may or may not have been intended to apply to random people having weapons for their own personal protection. Therefore, it is at least possible to argue that the mere existence of police departments, national guard units, and the military are well-regulated militias, and that nobody outside of those organizations has a right to bear arms. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that interpretation, but it is at least possible for a rational person to argue that interpretation of the second amendment without looking insane or idiotic.
By contrast, there's no way to interpret the first amendment in a way that gives the government any right to pass laws that cause prior restraint of speech of any kind. With that said, courts have generally ruled that certain limitations on speech (as opposed to outright bans) may be allowed if they qualify as "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." For example, the government can legitimately say that no protests may occur within two blocks of a cemetery, that no stores can sell alcohol within three blocks of any elementary school, or that no protests can use a megaphone between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
A national security letter's prohibition on disclosure, so long as it is time-bounded, might legitimately fall into that category. If those gag orders have such a time bound, the EFF may have a very difficult time arguing the case (unless the time bound is long enough to be seen by most people as unreasonable). With that said, I'm not under the impression that NSL gag orders have any set date on which the embargo is automatically lifted. If that is the case, then such prior restraint is clearly and unequivocally an egregious violation of the first amendment that cannot possibly be justified under any remotely plausible interpretation of the Constitution or its amendments.
Of course, the fundamental problem is that most people taking an oath to uphold the Constitution against all threats, both foreign and domestic, automatically assume that this means protecting the United States against its enemies, never even considering the possibility that the actions they take in doing so represent an even bigger threat. Throughout history, nearly all of the worst atrocities have been under the guise of protecting the people from its enemies, from the Crusades to the Holocaust. Worse, most such horrors often start out in a manner that seems benign—Hitler and McCarthy, for example—and get progressively worse. National security letters might start out benign, with the best of intentions, but they have the potential for nearly unlimited amounts of abuse, which is why IMO they must be found unconstitutional sooner rather than later.
To that, I would add one more point—that the first amendment is by far the single most important amendment to the Constitution, without which the rest of the amendments are moot—the condicio sine qua non, if you will. It represents the very core of our freedoms. Without the ability to talk about and expose abuses, there is no way to prevent them. Without the ability to criticize the government, there is no way to change it. Without knowledge of what government is doing, the entire notion of democracy—rule by the people—becomes untenable. It is a near certainty that any such government will rapidly devolve into a thinly veiled plutocracy or aristocracy, because the people cannot adequately evaluate their lawmakers in the absence of any understanding of what those lawmakers are doing. For this reason, the first amendment must be defended at any cost, above all other amendments. And that is what the ninth circuit must bear in mind as they make their decision on this matter.
Actually, I do know how close to reality those numbers are. They're not close at all. The odds of an fatal accident are less than 1.3 per 100 million miles traveled, and the odds of any accident are about 231 per 100 million miles. So you're off by more than a factor of 4 in your accident rate per mile. And even though there's a lot of correlative "evidence" that suggests cell phones cause a lot of accidents, there's much stronger evidence suggesting that this is not, in fact, the case. In fact, the numbers actually suggest that the opposite may be true—that increased cell phone use has reduced the rate of accidents.
Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.
Now this is decidedly not the case for teenage drivers. They still suck at driving, and as a result, it is quite possible that the extra risk from reading that text will be greater than the reduced risk from the extra miles. We shouldn't allow teens to use cell phones while driving for the same reason that we don't allow them to drive with other kids in the car—every little distraction is a problem if you lack the driving experience to do it instinctually. But the numbers strongly suggest that such prohibitions are completely ineffectual when applied to the population as a whole. (Although that's about the California law, similar studies have been done in other states that have passed anti-phone laws, and AFAIK, they've all consistently shown that such laws have no statistically significant effect on accident or fatality rates. None.)
In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth. Glancing at a cell phone and reading a short message is no more dangerous than glancing down at the radio or the air conditioner or any of the other random things in your car that you might look at for two or three seconds. As risk factors go, it is almost completely lost in the noise.
What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time. The total risk requires you to multiply that risk times only the portion of your trip that it affects. Even if reading that text made you 100x more likely to have a wreck during those three seconds out of a twenty minute trip, the total risk averaged over the trip as a whole would still be somewhere around a 25% total increase. By contrast, if not taking that call means that you drive 30% more miles, the odds of you being of an accident increase by 30%, because accident rates are roughly linear in the number of miles driven. And I'm not convinced for one minute that it makes you 100x more likely to have a wreck, because for the overwhelming majority of those 3-second periods, there will be nothing happening in front of you whatsoever. I'm not convinced that you're even 10x more likely.
But suppose we go with your numbers and assume that your odds of an accident per mile is 1 in 100,000, and skimming a text gives you a whopping 1 in 10,000 chance of a wreck. That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.
No Belkin, no LinkSys... who's still making routers that you can find in regular stores?
D-Link. Anecdotally, they seem to be some of the most solid gear I've used. Every time I've tried anybody else's hardware, I've regretted it.
For example, I once bought a TRENDnet green switch. It probably would have worked just fine under ideal conditions, but it failed to fall back to slower-than-gigabit speeds correctly through a cable with a bad pair (even when I told my upstream Cisco managed switch to advertise 100-megabit or 10-megabit speeds). I returned it and bought a D-Link, and because it actually connected (at a slower speed), I was able to instantly diagnose the problem, whip out a cable tester, track the problem to the wire in the wall, crack open the wall panel, redo the punchdowns, and fix the problem.
For another example, I once bought one of those white Netgear 10/100 switches. A few minutes after I plugged it in, I noticed that I was having network connectivity problems. Upon further testing, I discovered that I was seeing double-digit percent packet loss across that switch. I yanked it and replaced it with a 10-megabit hub until I could return it and swap it for a D-Link, which worked flawlessly. (Incidentally, not long thereafter, I encountered that same model of Netgear switch at work, with one of our printers attached. Every so often, it just stopped passing traffic until you unplugged it. In other words, not a fluke.)
At this point, if it doesn't say either Cisco or D-Link, it isn't going into my house.
Oh, and before that, the only USB device I ever had that shut my computer off (dead short, I think) was also built by Belkin. They are now on my permanently banned manufacturers list. It takes real skill for a company to get themselves on that list....
If it is a high-security area, you would also have cameras. And you also train your employees to not allow tailgating. My point was that in most cases, a reactive system is, at least in practice, roughly as good as a restrictive system.
Screw you.
Drive the car. No one cares if you have to go back out and pick up that special thing from the grocery store. Coordinate that before you get in the car.
Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. The distance driven is a major contributing factor towards getting in a car wreck. When something comes up at the last minute, if you change directions to take a more optimal path immediately (as opposed to going all the way home and then going back out), you not only reduce your exposure to accidents by driving fewer miles, but also reduce the odds of other people getting into wrecks by having fewer cars on the road for some portion of your total drive time.
Thus, statistically speaking, if taking a short phone call or glancing down at a text message can save just a few extra minutes of driving, chances are you've made the roads safer by taking that call or reading that text message, not the other way around. Sending a text message, on the other hand, is a different story, because of the cognitive load involved, but that's really a separate issue.
Only in highly skilled labor markets. By contrast, in retail, hours keep getting cut, because nobody wants to pay benefits. The cost of hiring someone for a full-time job (much less paying overtime) so badly exceeds the benefits from having fewer workers to deal with that businesses choose the cheaper solution.
The reason this doesn't happen in highly skilled markets is that the government has carved out exemptions for those positions so that employers don't have to track hours and pay overtime. The easiest way to turn things around would be to eliminate those exemptions. If senior computer programmers were owed overtime at 40 hours and five minutes, companies would hire more people and cut their hours just like they do for retail employees.
Only the head or heads of Security would have such access. Maybe not even then, an HR rep might be needed in an emergency.
Usually, the way you would handle that is through logging. Your badge readers automatically keep a log of everyone who entered the room. If stuff starts disappearing or systems get accessed inappropriately, it doesn't take long to figure out who did it.
There (at some unknown location), the guards are owned by the nation's (its) 'not uncommon for a place to run', which I'm guessing is the name of a native tribesman. And the one hour (misspelled) local hospitals [they] have there, also own guards. And as a result of the ample availability of slaves, they used outside guards only when moving to a new building or when adjusting the scales underneath their existing building to adequately determine the weight of the people and items inside—presumably for theft detection purposes, but possibly to make sure the new building could handle the expected structural loading.
phineas and ferb is the best cartoon on television and one of the best ever. unfortunately, being a disney original, it has a pre-programmed shelf life; and at 4 seasons produced (the 4th airing on disney xd not disney channel), it is all but done.. already lasting longer than the 3 seasons or 65 episodes normally allowed for a disney channel original series.
That's an understatement. Depending on how you count episodes, they just aired episode 219, and went over the 65 episode limit halfway through the second season. But if you count them in pairs, I guess it's more on the order of 110. Either way, they're way, way past that limit.
Disney got a lot of flack for Eisner's automatic 65-episode cancellation policy a few years back—I half expected Lizzie McGuire fans to march on the studios with pitchforks and torches—so it came as no great surprise that as soon as Eisner stepped down, that policy got shot in the head. I'm not sure if Iger officially changed the policy or if he has just been a lot more willing to allow exceptions to it than Eisner was, but either way, the result is the same.
Kim Possible was one of the first animated shows to break the rule, back in 2007; it ran for an extra 22 episode season past 65. And a lot of the more popular live action shows have broken the 65-episode barrier since Eisner's departure as well—That's So Raven at 100, Wizards at 106 + movies, Suite Life at 158 (in total, though both the original and the spin-off exceeded the 65-episode limit individually as well), Hannah Montana at 98 + movie, etc.
So a big, hearty "thank you" to Roy Disney and friends for jerking a knot in the bureaucratic train wreck of a company Eisner had turned Disney into, and for putting someone in the driver's seat who lets shows run their course.
That's true that it isn't specific to C++. C++ has a lot of the same binary compatibility issues that C structs do, because classes are basically glorified structs under the hood. But IMO, C makes it a little easier to work around, because nobody assumes that they can make a struct bigger. Instead, assuming you're designing things with binary compatibility in mind, you add an extension field into the struct, and "subclasses" (so to speak) store their data in an opaque pointer at that location. For backwards compatibility, you just ensure that you never move or change the existing fields' offset within the base struct when you add new members to the end in a subsequent version of the struct, and ensure that the "subclasses" always call the official allocator function instead of malloc.
Linus hates C++ for kernel development because C++ can't guarantee a binary API from one compiler to the next due to shitty non-standardized name mangling.
Not just name mangling. Don't forget the fragile base class problem, which (without deliberately working around it) causes all your subclasses to break every time you add a new instance variable or instance method.
Of course, those problems are solvable. Apple has gone through at least a couple of name mangling changes over the years, and managed to maintain binary compatibility by writing a remangling kernel linker. And you can work around the fragile base class problem by declaring padding to leave room for future member variables and instance methods.
To install unsigned apps, you have to disable Gatekeeper, with a warning about possible risk.
No, you don't. Just control-click in Finder, and choose "Open". That, unlike the normal double-click launch, bypasses Gatekeeper's prohibition on untrusted apps, instead presenting a security dialog that tells you that the app is untrusted, and asks you if you want to launch it anyway. If you tell it to do so, OS X computes a checksum for the app and adds hat signature to a list of trusted apps, ensuring that you won't be prompted about it in the future.
You might have to be in the "Mac App Store and identified developers" mode—I'm not sure.
I was kind of hoping for some sort of creature deciding to try to crawl out onto dry land, finding no actual land, saying "screw it", and crawling back under the ice.
But 3.7 million is big compared with the entire voting public. On average, only about 100 million U.S. residents actually vote in any given Presidential election, and even fewer in midterm elections.
There's a rule in politics that for every one person who complains about something, ten people dislike it, but didn't complain. So if 3.7 million people cared enough to complain about the lack of net neutrality, over 40 million people know enough to be strongly in favor of net neutrality. And most of those folks are likely to vote in the next election.
To put that into context, it is quite possible that net neutrality matters to 2.5 times as many likely voters as abortion.
Slashdot Mirror
Citizens United was not the correct ruling. Bribes are not a protected form of speech, and large campaign contributions made by an individual or a small group of individuals (remember that in a corporation, a small number of board members have near total autonomy in such decisions) are indistinguishable from bribes. And even if bribes were a constitutionally protected form of speech, it would still be entirely reasonable for government to limit the manner of that speech—requiring corporations to spread out those contributions over a longer period of time, to level the playing field. Those rules were quite clearly a "reasonable time, place and manner restriction". And I say that even as someone who is a staunch defender of the near-absoluteness of the first amendment.
The entire decision on Citizens United was based on absurd hypothetical scenarios (e.g. the government twisting election laws to censor the media) that did not apply to the actual case at hand in the slightest. That decision was a clear case of legislating from the bench, in the worst sense of the phrase.
So no, SCOTUS doesn't almost always make the correct ruling. Its shortsightedness frequently results in fairly serious errors (Plessy v. Ferguson, for example). Fortunately, it usually corrects those mistakes eventually. In the same way, Citizens United will likely eventually get overturned, assuming the piles of corporate money don't hopelessly corrupt the government beyond redemption before such a correction has a chance to happen.
I agree with you on the NSLs, assuming they aren't time-limited. If they are time-limited (e.g. a five-year embargo), it becomes a much harder argument; you'd have to argue that the time period was not reasonable, thus resulting in an unreasonable prior restraint of speech.
This. That's why the first amendment is by far the most important aspect of American law, and that's why any laws that abridge it in a broad manner (as NSL gag orders do), no matter the perceived need, must be struck down. There can be no freedom without the true transparency enshrined in our highest law, and without the people having the courage to demand that such transparency be defended above all else.
Exactly. The second amendment is arguable. Depending on how you interpret it, it may or may not have been intended to apply to random people having weapons for their own personal protection. Therefore, it is at least possible to argue that the mere existence of police departments, national guard units, and the military are well-regulated militias, and that nobody outside of those organizations has a right to bear arms. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that interpretation, but it is at least possible for a rational person to argue that interpretation of the second amendment without looking insane or idiotic.
By contrast, there's no way to interpret the first amendment in a way that gives the government any right to pass laws that cause prior restraint of speech of any kind. With that said, courts have generally ruled that certain limitations on speech (as opposed to outright bans) may be allowed if they qualify as "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." For example, the government can legitimately say that no protests may occur within two blocks of a cemetery, that no stores can sell alcohol within three blocks of any elementary school, or that no protests can use a megaphone between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
A national security letter's prohibition on disclosure, so long as it is time-bounded, might legitimately fall into that category. If those gag orders have such a time bound, the EFF may have a very difficult time arguing the case (unless the time bound is long enough to be seen by most people as unreasonable). With that said, I'm not under the impression that NSL gag orders have any set date on which the embargo is automatically lifted. If that is the case, then such prior restraint is clearly and unequivocally an egregious violation of the first amendment that cannot possibly be justified under any remotely plausible interpretation of the Constitution or its amendments.
Of course, the fundamental problem is that most people taking an oath to uphold the Constitution against all threats, both foreign and domestic, automatically assume that this means protecting the United States against its enemies, never even considering the possibility that the actions they take in doing so represent an even bigger threat. Throughout history, nearly all of the worst atrocities have been under the guise of protecting the people from its enemies, from the Crusades to the Holocaust. Worse, most such horrors often start out in a manner that seems benign—Hitler and McCarthy, for example—and get progressively worse. National security letters might start out benign, with the best of intentions, but they have the potential for nearly unlimited amounts of abuse, which is why IMO they must be found unconstitutional sooner rather than later.
To that, I would add one more point—that the first amendment is by far the single most important amendment to the Constitution, without which the rest of the amendments are moot—the condicio sine qua non, if you will. It represents the very core of our freedoms. Without the ability to talk about and expose abuses, there is no way to prevent them. Without the ability to criticize the government, there is no way to change it. Without knowledge of what government is doing, the entire notion of democracy—rule by the people—becomes untenable. It is a near certainty that any such government will rapidly devolve into a thinly veiled plutocracy or aristocracy, because the people cannot adequately evaluate their lawmakers in the absence of any understanding of what those lawmakers are doing. For this reason, the first amendment must be defended at any cost, above all other amendments. And that is what the ninth circuit must bear in mind as they make their decision on this matter.
Or just run each app in its own VM so that when it turns rogue, you can cleanly shoot it in the head without any widespread damage.
Actually, I do know how close to reality those numbers are. They're not close at all. The odds of an fatal accident are less than 1.3 per 100 million miles traveled, and the odds of any accident are about 231 per 100 million miles. So you're off by more than a factor of 4 in your accident rate per mile. And even though there's a lot of correlative "evidence" that suggests cell phones cause a lot of accidents, there's much stronger evidence suggesting that this is not, in fact, the case. In fact, the numbers actually suggest that the opposite may be true—that increased cell phone use has reduced the rate of accidents.
Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.
Now this is decidedly not the case for teenage drivers. They still suck at driving, and as a result, it is quite possible that the extra risk from reading that text will be greater than the reduced risk from the extra miles. We shouldn't allow teens to use cell phones while driving for the same reason that we don't allow them to drive with other kids in the car—every little distraction is a problem if you lack the driving experience to do it instinctually. But the numbers strongly suggest that such prohibitions are completely ineffectual when applied to the population as a whole. (Although that's about the California law, similar studies have been done in other states that have passed anti-phone laws, and AFAIK, they've all consistently shown that such laws have no statistically significant effect on accident or fatality rates. None.)
In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth. Glancing at a cell phone and reading a short message is no more dangerous than glancing down at the radio or the air conditioner or any of the other random things in your car that you might look at for two or three seconds. As risk factors go, it is almost completely lost in the noise.
What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time. The total risk requires you to multiply that risk times only the portion of your trip that it affects. Even if reading that text made you 100x more likely to have a wreck during those three seconds out of a twenty minute trip, the total risk averaged over the trip as a whole would still be somewhere around a 25% total increase. By contrast, if not taking that call means that you drive 30% more miles, the odds of you being of an accident increase by 30%, because accident rates are roughly linear in the number of miles driven. And I'm not convinced for one minute that it makes you 100x more likely to have a wreck, because for the overwhelming majority of those 3-second periods, there will be nothing happening in front of you whatsoever. I'm not convinced that you're even 10x more likely.
But suppose we go with your numbers and assume that your odds of an accident per mile is 1 in 100,000, and skimming a text gives you a whopping 1 in 10,000 chance of a wreck. That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.
D-Link. Anecdotally, they seem to be some of the most solid gear I've used. Every time I've tried anybody else's hardware, I've regretted it.
For example, I once bought a TRENDnet green switch. It probably would have worked just fine under ideal conditions, but it failed to fall back to slower-than-gigabit speeds correctly through a cable with a bad pair (even when I told my upstream Cisco managed switch to advertise 100-megabit or 10-megabit speeds). I returned it and bought a D-Link, and because it actually connected (at a slower speed), I was able to instantly diagnose the problem, whip out a cable tester, track the problem to the wire in the wall, crack open the wall panel, redo the punchdowns, and fix the problem.
For another example, I once bought one of those white Netgear 10/100 switches. A few minutes after I plugged it in, I noticed that I was having network connectivity problems. Upon further testing, I discovered that I was seeing double-digit percent packet loss across that switch. I yanked it and replaced it with a 10-megabit hub until I could return it and swap it for a D-Link, which worked flawlessly. (Incidentally, not long thereafter, I encountered that same model of Netgear switch at work, with one of our printers attached. Every so often, it just stopped passing traffic until you unplugged it. In other words, not a fluke.)
At this point, if it doesn't say either Cisco or D-Link, it isn't going into my house.
Oh, and before that, the only USB device I ever had that shut my computer off (dead short, I think) was also built by Belkin. They are now on my permanently banned manufacturers list. It takes real skill for a company to get themselves on that list....
This. The biggest train wreck of a router I ever tried to use was a Belkin. It rebooted every few hours, depending on load... when it was new.
If it is a high-security area, you would also have cameras. And you also train your employees to not allow tailgating. My point was that in most cases, a reactive system is, at least in practice, roughly as good as a restrictive system.
Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. The distance driven is a major contributing factor towards getting in a car wreck. When something comes up at the last minute, if you change directions to take a more optimal path immediately (as opposed to going all the way home and then going back out), you not only reduce your exposure to accidents by driving fewer miles, but also reduce the odds of other people getting into wrecks by having fewer cars on the road for some portion of your total drive time.
Thus, statistically speaking, if taking a short phone call or glancing down at a text message can save just a few extra minutes of driving, chances are you've made the roads safer by taking that call or reading that text message, not the other way around. Sending a text message, on the other hand, is a different story, because of the cognitive load involved, but that's really a separate issue.
Only in highly skilled labor markets. By contrast, in retail, hours keep getting cut, because nobody wants to pay benefits. The cost of hiring someone for a full-time job (much less paying overtime) so badly exceeds the benefits from having fewer workers to deal with that businesses choose the cheaper solution.
The reason this doesn't happen in highly skilled markets is that the government has carved out exemptions for those positions so that employers don't have to track hours and pay overtime. The easiest way to turn things around would be to eliminate those exemptions. If senior computer programmers were owed overtime at 40 hours and five minutes, companies would hire more people and cut their hours just like they do for retail employees.
Usually, the way you would handle that is through logging. Your badge readers automatically keep a log of everyone who entered the room. If stuff starts disappearing or systems get accessed inappropriately, it doesn't take long to figure out who did it.
No, you misunderstood. The GP really meant this:
There (at some unknown location), the guards are owned by the nation's (its) 'not uncommon for a place to run', which I'm guessing is the name of a native tribesman. And the one hour (misspelled) local hospitals [they] have there, also own guards. And as a result of the ample availability of slaves, they used outside guards only when moving to a new building or when adjusting the scales underneath their existing building to adequately determine the weight of the people and items inside—presumably for theft detection purposes, but possibly to make sure the new building could handle the expected structural loading.
Did I read that right?
...he built the first American Swimming pool. You can guess where this is going.
That's an understatement. Depending on how you count episodes, they just aired episode 219, and went over the 65 episode limit halfway through the second season. But if you count them in pairs, I guess it's more on the order of 110. Either way, they're way, way past that limit.
Disney got a lot of flack for Eisner's automatic 65-episode cancellation policy a few years back—I half expected Lizzie McGuire fans to march on the studios with pitchforks and torches—so it came as no great surprise that as soon as Eisner stepped down, that policy got shot in the head. I'm not sure if Iger officially changed the policy or if he has just been a lot more willing to allow exceptions to it than Eisner was, but either way, the result is the same.
Kim Possible was one of the first animated shows to break the rule, back in 2007; it ran for an extra 22 episode season past 65. And a lot of the more popular live action shows have broken the 65-episode barrier since Eisner's departure as well—That's So Raven at 100, Wizards at 106 + movies, Suite Life at 158 (in total, though both the original and the spin-off exceeded the 65-episode limit individually as well), Hannah Montana at 98 + movie, etc.
So a big, hearty "thank you" to Roy Disney and friends for jerking a knot in the bureaucratic train wreck of a company Eisner had turned Disney into, and for putting someone in the driver's seat who lets shows run their course.
That's true that it isn't specific to C++. C++ has a lot of the same binary compatibility issues that C structs do, because classes are basically glorified structs under the hood. But IMO, C makes it a little easier to work around, because nobody assumes that they can make a struct bigger. Instead, assuming you're designing things with binary compatibility in mind, you add an extension field into the struct, and "subclasses" (so to speak) store their data in an opaque pointer at that location. For backwards compatibility, you just ensure that you never move or change the existing fields' offset within the base struct when you add new members to the end in a subsequent version of the struct, and ensure that the "subclasses" always call the official allocator function instead of malloc.
Not just name mangling. Don't forget the fragile base class problem, which (without deliberately working around it) causes all your subclasses to break every time you add a new instance variable or instance method.
Of course, those problems are solvable. Apple has gone through at least a couple of name mangling changes over the years, and managed to maintain binary compatibility by writing a remangling kernel linker. And you can work around the fragile base class problem by declaring padding to leave room for future member variables and instance methods.
Dear Occam,
The simplest answer
Is usually right,
And historical behavior
Is a good predictor
of future behavior.
Burma-Shave
Start a club, and the whole world will join.
No, you don't. Just control-click in Finder, and choose "Open". That, unlike the normal double-click launch, bypasses Gatekeeper's prohibition on untrusted apps, instead presenting a security dialog that tells you that the app is untrusted, and asks you if you want to launch it anyway. If you tell it to do so, OS X computes a checksum for the app and adds hat signature to a list of trusted apps, ensuring that you won't be prompted about it in the future.
You might have to be in the "Mac App Store and identified developers" mode—I'm not sure.
I was kind of hoping for some sort of creature deciding to try to crawl out onto dry land, finding no actual land, saying "screw it", and crawling back under the ice.
No, 1:16:9. Our entire solar system moved to high-def monoliths shortly after 2001.
Wow. You were writing iOS apps in the mid-1980s? Talk about being ahead of the curve. Do you mean when storyboards were released?
But 3.7 million is big compared with the entire voting public. On average, only about 100 million U.S. residents actually vote in any given Presidential election, and even fewer in midterm elections.
There's a rule in politics that for every one person who complains about something, ten people dislike it, but didn't complain. So if 3.7 million people cared enough to complain about the lack of net neutrality, over 40 million people know enough to be strongly in favor of net neutrality. And most of those folks are likely to vote in the next election.
To put that into context, it is quite possible that net neutrality matters to 2.5 times as many likely voters as abortion.
Do we at least get to choose which novel? I think I'd prefer almost any Sherlock Holmes novel over Soylent Green.