Actually, this example is the exception that proves the rule that the original poster made.
This is the absolute best scenario under which a plane could ever be expected to ditch - warm water, immediate help, shallow "landing" type incline, etc. - and still about half the passengers died.
Heaven help you if something actually goes wrong on an airplane over cold ocean that can't be immediately fixed - because you're dead. Period. All the FAA "safety" rules amount to is window dressing trying to disguise this fact.
Yes, and that is certainly good enough to delay the development of your average Counterstrike Aimbot.
However, when significant amounts of money get involved, it's a whole different ballgame. Silicon can be debugged remotely. And given how sophisticated the schemes that casinos deal with right now - going on under their noses - it eventually would be.
Further, unlike a game hack, a true professional wouldn't necessarily broadcast the HOW-TO to the world. More likely, he'd just sit back, shuffle accounts, and make millions.
...is like saying too many busses will eliminate sports cars.
The C design paradigm (low level, varied environment, highly optimized, developer control) is intended to solve an entirely different class of problem than Business runtimes (higher level, standard interface, managed resource, developer handholding). The two aren't in competition much at all.
Nor do I think much about trying putting a racing-wheel on a bus either. We already have C# and "Managed C++", both which can look quite a bit like C, if you want them to. All you have to do is ignore that they're fundimentally different in the way they treat resources due to the underlying runtime or lack thereof. (Which is like equating a bus to a sports car, ignoring the size and speed issues.)
Re:Monstroyer says congrats!
on
Spam Bits
·
· Score: 1
And some more steps that will make this just about impossible to OCR: 1] Break up the letters like you often see on logos. 2] Smear or overlay one or more letters together. 3] Use different colors in a single letter, identical colors across unrelated letters. 4] Orient or mirror reverse one of the letters. 5] Put a random pattern of thin lines of the same color over the letters.
Human pattern matching will read this just fine. You'll drive a typical OCR algorithm nuts. Spammers are by no means going to be creating pattern matching neural nets (not for 50 years yet, anyway.)
>> There is an obvious downside to it: it tends to discourage access to the courts by people who can't afford to lose.
> Yeah; the obvious downside being that you usually don't sue unless you have a just cause and the evidence to back it up.
Or, just the money to pay if you happen to loose despite the fact that you have a "just cause and evidence to back it up".
I think the ideal system would be to split the difference. If it goes to trial in a civil case then nobody pays. But if your suit gets dismissed with prejudice (i.e. the judge says you case has absolutely no merit before you even get to trial), then you pay.
We want to punish frivolous civil filings. Not when there is a real issue to be decided.
Thanks for the pop psycho-analysis. It was good for a laugh.
Actually, my argument isn't "completely uncalled for". It was central to what I was saying: the plutocratic direction the U.S. is headed in will soon make such lawsuits impossible.
All people are supposed to be equal, but as recent history shows us (be it Microsoft, Enron, O.J., or literally thousands of lesser known travesties) the rich are now far "more equal". Not just because of their ability to afford more effective council, but the deliberate conservative movement to punish judges who dare enforce the law against them.
Judge Jackson learned his to his detriment when he made the mistake of dressing Microsoft down like any other criminal after the prosecution proved its case. No one imagines a bank robber going free because the judge said bad things about him after he was found guily, but for a major U.S. corporation, there's a different standard.
Trademark law makes it so that corporations can just steal domain names from people who have owned and used them, simply on the basis of having more money. (The Onion lampooned this in the hilariously titled: "Tanzania Loses Name to Tanning-Salon Chain")
And patent law is a joke. It is not for no reason that Slashdot's patent icon is a picture of a fork, knife, and spoon.
Now of course Republican moderators can mark this as "troll" too, if they like. But it is patently obvious which political party is behind the subversion of our legal system.
I had a warning via email several months back from my (cable) ISP which claimed I was using "above average" amounts of bandwidth even though they advertised "unlimited" when I signed up years back.
If a ISP advertises "unlimited" bandwidth and then terminates you for taking them up on it, they are wide open for a class action lawsuit.
I know it sounds bizarre in our GOP/conservative dominated culture, but corporations still have to fulfill their legal obligation to deliver on what they say they're selling. And with enough tenacity, you can still get them to do so.
(That is, until the courts are completely subverted, which is happening apace.)
No problem. Assuming your "partners" are as inept as you claim they are, you can do it in four years. Patents must be renewed every year starting from the fourth anniversary of its filing date. No renewal, no more patent. It's as simple as that.
Furthermore, your "assignment" of the patent to the company could easily be challenged by a lawyer. Under such arrangements, you need to be given some consideration for your patent, and it's obvious from your remarks that you have been given nothing but hot air.
...just some words of advice from someone who's been in similar situations.
Most reasonable people would think it would work this way, but it doesn't. While the initial application fee is the same, when patents are granted, there are additional "renewal" fees companies are charged to keep the patent.
These renewal fees go up with time, on the theory that it will encourage companies to not file "paper patents". Unfortunately, the price (while significant for individiuals) is trivial for corporations. It costs nearly nothing compared to the fees that Patent Attorneys charge.
Still, it isn't pure monetary motive that drives the PTO to issue junk patents - it's political pressure. US Corporations like patents because it allows them to leverage money out of research they can't figure out how to productize themselves. And our politicans (particularly today's crop), are very responsive to entrenched corporate interests.
The long term downside is that skill in how to make useful products is leaving the U.S. That knowledge is moving overseas to places like China and India. It's very similar to the situation back in the 19th century, when England had a strict patent system that nations like the U.S. didn't always honor. We all know how things ended up for England; I wonder if the U.S. will be quite as graceful in its decline.
(I hold a number of patents and have patents pending, so I know of what I speak).
Re:Over 61,000 people killed by a dictator...
on
Saddam Hussein Arrested
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But the chinese didn't attack us on 9/11, Arabs did.
Actually, religious fanatics attacked us on 9/11. Therefore, your logic shows that we should go killing religious fanatics. Maybe starting with John Ashcroft...?
Bush always intended to go after Saddam. That much is clear. President Clinton told Bush on his exit interview that Osama Bin Laden was the most dangerous man to the U.S., and Bush replied that Saddam was. Two days after 9/11 - before we even knew who did it - his administration started telling our intelligence agencies to "build a case against Iraq". The war in Afghanistan was a war on terror. The war in Iraq was intended to intimidate Arabs, but will only serve to strengthen the power of al-Qaeda.
It will also serve to increase the number of deranged autocracies with nuclear weapons. Don't think for a moment that the lesson of North Korea is lost on the world. Kim Song Jong Ill, who has let eleven million of his countrymen starve to death, is able to directly threaten the U.S. with nary a peep from this administration. Why? Because, unlike Saddam, when he promised to get rid of nuclear weapons, he lied.
Bush has made it unsafe to be in America's bad graces without a nuclear weapon. Therefore, everyone will get one.
No. That isn't "how it works". Not when IBM's case is this strong and SCO is deliberately is messing with their primary business strategy of using Linux. Every move in this case says that IBM is going to take SCO down on this one.
Further, IBM doesn't have any of the typical incentives for settling an IP lawsuit in this case. Typically, when a plaintiffs sues a defendant, defendant has another business rivals who also may fall under the same claim. So regardless of the strength of the plaintiff's case, it is often in the defendant's interest to settle with the proviso that they are the sole lincensee - throwing up IP roadblocks to their rivals.
In the case of Open Source GPL however, there are no such "rivals" in the traditional sense, but rather tens of thousands of talented volunteer programmers who both add value to IBM's offerings and would be incensed at such a strategy on IBM's part.
Finally, if SCO tries to drop the case, IBM will ask the judge to drop the case "with prejudice". What this means is that they can't threaten IBM or anyone else with the same set of facts again. This judgement can also be referred to in other cases, not specifically SCO vs IBM.
Even simpler if you are a heavy GIF oriented site: make all your images a query, and randomize the values based on session key. (Screws caching - but oh well).
If you're not, you can pull the even dirtier trick of turning some of your text into.png or.gif. Ugly and slow, but it will work.
If you're a coder, you could even go so far as to hack your server to not deliver your main content unless the other ads have been loaded. This could be accomplished by something as simple as an SQL trigger. Note that this won't stop adblock - which loads but doesn't display the ad - but you still have proof of impressions (as much as you can get).
Of course the new adblock doesn't even load blocked images, so even this will work.
No, an H1-B is granted to a foreign national who fits the requirements of a job, if no qualified American or permanent resident can be found after a reasonable recruiting effort.
Unfortunately, who determines whether the individual is qualified is the employer. This means that the only real requirement is that the employer advertise for a job for which they have absolutely no intention of hiring anyone.
Sometimes - to keep down the number of responses, they'll also stick in all sorts of obscure unrelated skills their visa applicant has. You see this a lot on job boards -- "HW Design Engineer working in Boise - must be fluent in Mandarin".
This comes straight from the mouth of a senior HR recruiter I knew at a previous company.
You're absolutely right. This poor single mom and her kid should not only have no internet access, she shouldn't have water or electricity either. That way taxpayers can save an average of a ten thousandth of a cent.
My goodness, do you realize what this twelve year old is probably going to be doing when she grows up? She'll be in some high paying technical job paying taxes, instead of being a crack whore - depriving pimpz like you the steady supply of fresh meat you need to keep your business running.
If the government continues to misuse their budget supporting such socalism as this, you may very well go out of business. It just shows once again, how average Americans like you are being hurt by the anti-business sentiment in this country. You certainly have every right to complain. As do drug dealers like tobacco companies.
Like most psychotic right wing morons, I'm sure you think it's big deal that a few random thousand out of hundreds of thousands of Whitehouse emails were lost (and then later recovered - thanks to wasting $12,066,346 on the task). No one thinking it worthy of any special attention outside the tinfoil hat crowd.
Clinton went through the audit from hell, and the only thing hundreds of millions of dollars (some private, some public) ever determined about the man was that he has a weakness for hummers.
I know this is a late comment, and so won't be modded up, but I had some constructive suggestions about what ebay could do to deter fraudsters without much additional cost. Chiefly this entails additional positive markings on feedback. To wit:
Have a special "verified id" program.
Make feedback based on the cash amount of the transaction.
This would make it so that a buyer or seller would know there is a real person or business behind the transaction. Further, it would make it quite expensive to fake a good feedback rating because of the fees he'd have to pay to ebay.
This would be a lot better for all involved, rather than ebay and legitimate users arguing over who should pay for the fraudsters abusing the system.
The problem in this case is that the man doesn't have the updated code. If he did, he could just install it and let Cisco try and sue him for the 15K. Not that they would - they'd loose.
I have been following this story with some interest, and I am still wondering how much of this story is real, and how much is so much legal FUD.
Consider: Even assuming that the RIAA proves some kid (or even his parents) has made one of their copyrighted songs available for download, how do they prove that anyone other than the copyright holder actually downloaded it?
Even assuming that they did, how do they then go show that the person who downloaded it actually turned the song into a sailable format? (MP3s are not the same quality as WAVs - how would this substandard quality be factored in?)
Even if someone did, presumably at most they'd be liable for the proportional cost of the song off the CD. Would the Judge give them credit for anyone who downloaded the song and then decided to buy the CD?
Understand that I am perfectly aware that the present U.S. political system has a strongly plutocratic component (e.g. the rich get to buy the laws they want), but I still think there are a lot more hurdles the RIAA most cross before they can start collecting that absurd "$15,000 per song" that's being bandied about in the articles about this.
Ok, sure. As I said, I don't have tons of time for a discussion that's essentially moot (none of this will ever really get in the standard), but it's fun to talk about anyway.
What I said "double initialization", I was talking about temporary object instances. C++ can't optimize away implicit instantiations that automatically -- what if the class has a reference count in the (copy) constructor? But if you could add a class/struct modifier that said it was safe to do so, then the compiler could automatically reduce constructs like: "Class C = Class(ptr);" into: "Class C(ptr)" (just to give the crudest example). The same thing for "C = A + B; ", temporary objects in function calls, etc., etc. This way, an intelligent class designer could make it so that people didn't have to remember that C = C + A is less efficient than C += A.
Overloading the dereferencing operator allows you to create "smart pointers", but it doesn't let you create "smart objects". There is presently no way for the class designer to absolutely control his own interfaces. By overloading the access controls you could, for example, have an object whose size is variable, without all the placement new rigamarole, and without your users knowing about it. You could make a Class that pretended to be a simple value, but actually did very complicated things behind the scenes. You could make a much simpler version of iterators; you wouldn't need things like partial specialization to implement iterator traits, because your iterator could be implemented as a class.
This emotional tripe is so full of factual inaccuracies, I'm not sure where to begin...
1] "Like passing the largest tax cuts in history despite the Democrats controling the house AND the Senate".
BUZZ - Wrong. Reagan got control of the house for the first two years of the presidency, and - because of the presence of a highly conservative Democratic caucus from the south, he had effective control of the Senate. Oh, and in addition to "passing the largest tax cuts in history" (on the rich - naturally), he also passed the largest tax increase in history (on the poor). This is something a lot of anti-tax conservatives seem to pass over when reciting the faith.
"Reagan got more judicial nominees in than any president in history."
- TRUE, but meaningless. The country is bigger, so we have more judge positions to fill. You could also credit this to cooperation from Democrats, but the truth is that the GOP has been nearly as cooperative for Democratic appointments (sorry liberals). Between modern presidents, Clinton appointed 357 (or 44%), Reagan appointed 378. On a percentage basis though, no one beats George Washington - who appointed 100% of the judges in the country.
"He was the first president to put his foot down and stop the USSR."
- BZZZT. Wrong. That honor goes to Truman. In fact - there's this little "Doctrine" named after Truman having to do with the USSR, but I don't expect a typical dittohead to know that. They're so ignorant, they can hardly find the planet they're standing on.
You see, every President opposed the USSR. The only difference is the strategy they took: carrot, stick, or carrot and stick. From a global political perspective, it seems pretty obvious that none of these made much difference. It was the system of free trade and free expression that won over the long haul, not any macho posturing from a politician.
However, if you're determined to find a "sole cause", you would do worse that look at Japan. When that little upstart started beating the U.S. at its own game, suddenly the third world saw a model they could emulate, and the Russians began to loose faith. When Taiwan almost passed the GDP of the entirety of mainland China, even the Maoists did too.
It's a funny thing. McCarthy and the other 50s conservatives felt they had to emulate some of the methods of the USSR to destroy it. They had less faith in capatalism than many extremely liberal countries, including Sweeden - who proudly call themselves "socialist" even to this day.
In my opinion, there are really only three major features C++ is missing:
An pre/post-fix rotate operator.
A class mechanism to avoid double initialization.
Ability to overload class access operators.
Everything else can be done within the language. (Actually, a lot could be deprecated - like "protected", which has no good use, IMHO.)
The class access operator overloading is especially important. Without the ability to overload ".", ".*", "::", and "sizeof", the class designer really can't completely control the behavior of his object under all circumstances. This leads to shared responsibility over the object, which in turn leads to confusion and bugs.
I could write an extended essay on this latter point, with tons of pattern and anti-pattern examples, but I won't bore you with it here.
Who from Enron did Bush appoint to his cabinet? I was not aware he appointed anyone from Enron to his cabinet, and I am not aware of the Bush Administration influencing anything w/regards the Enron case.
Clinton gave pardons to some pretty shady individuals. Do you take issue with Clinton for that? I hope so, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Yes, I'd much rather that Clinton only pardoned people who weren't convicted criminals! Maybe he could have pardoned little girls and cute puppy dogs instead. (
I think we have new 2003 nomination for "Unclear on the Concept". )
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this example is the exception that proves the rule that the original poster made.
This is the absolute best scenario under which a plane could ever be expected to ditch - warm water, immediate help, shallow "landing" type incline, etc. - and still about half the passengers died.
Heaven help you if something actually goes wrong on an airplane over cold ocean that can't be immediately fixed - because you're dead. Period. All the FAA "safety" rules amount to is window dressing trying to disguise this fact.
Yes, and that is certainly good enough to delay the development of your average Counterstrike Aimbot.
However, when significant amounts of money get involved, it's a whole different ballgame. Silicon can be debugged remotely. And given how sophisticated the schemes that casinos deal with right now - going on under their noses - it eventually would be.
Further, unlike a game hack, a true professional wouldn't necessarily broadcast the HOW-TO to the world. More likely, he'd just sit back, shuffle accounts, and make millions.
...is like saying too many busses will eliminate sports cars.
The C design paradigm (low level, varied environment, highly optimized, developer control) is intended to solve an entirely different class of problem than Business runtimes (higher level, standard interface, managed resource, developer handholding). The two aren't in competition much at all.
Nor do I think much about trying putting a racing-wheel on a bus either. We already have C# and "Managed C++", both which can look quite a bit like C, if you want them to. All you have to do is ignore that they're fundimentally different in the way they treat resources due to the underlying runtime or lack thereof. (Which is like equating a bus to a sports car, ignoring the size and speed issues.)
And some more steps that will make this just about impossible to OCR:
1] Break up the letters like you often see on logos.
2] Smear or overlay one or more letters together.
3] Use different colors in a single letter, identical colors across unrelated letters.
4] Orient or mirror reverse one of the letters.
5] Put a random pattern of thin lines of the same color over the letters.
Human pattern matching will read this just fine. You'll drive a typical OCR algorithm nuts. Spammers are by no means going to be creating pattern matching neural nets (not for 50 years yet, anyway.)
I'd prefer a better increase of +10.00000000000%
It's dead Jim!
>> There is an obvious downside to it: it tends to discourage access to the courts by people who can't afford to lose.
> Yeah; the obvious downside being that you usually don't sue unless you have a just cause and the evidence to back it up.
Or, just the money to pay if you happen to loose despite the fact that you have a "just cause and evidence to back it up".
I think the ideal system would be to split the difference. If it goes to trial in a civil case then nobody pays. But if your suit gets dismissed with prejudice (i.e. the judge says you case has absolutely no merit before you even get to trial), then you pay.
We want to punish frivolous civil filings. Not when there is a real issue to be decided.
How about filtering based on the LENGTH of the mail message? Real people tend to write letters longer than: Is your ____ too _____?
Thanks for the pop psycho-analysis. It was good for a laugh.
Actually, my argument isn't "completely uncalled for". It was central to what I was saying: the plutocratic direction the U.S. is headed in will soon make such lawsuits impossible.
All people are supposed to be equal, but as recent history shows us (be it Microsoft, Enron, O.J., or literally thousands of lesser known travesties) the rich are now far "more equal". Not just because of their ability to afford more effective council, but the deliberate conservative movement to punish judges who dare enforce the law against them.
Judge Jackson learned his to his detriment when he made the mistake of dressing Microsoft down like any other criminal after the prosecution proved its case. No one imagines a bank robber going free because the judge said bad things about him after he was found guily, but for a major U.S. corporation, there's a different standard.
Trademark law makes it so that corporations can just steal domain names from people who have owned and used them, simply on the basis of having more money. (The Onion lampooned this in the hilariously titled: "Tanzania Loses Name to Tanning-Salon Chain")
And patent law is a joke. It is not for no reason that Slashdot's patent icon is a picture of a fork, knife, and spoon.
Now of course Republican moderators can mark this as "troll" too, if they like. But it is patently obvious which political party is behind the subversion of our legal system.
If a ISP advertises "unlimited" bandwidth and then terminates you for taking them up on it, they are wide open for a class action lawsuit.
I know it sounds bizarre in our GOP/conservative dominated culture, but corporations still have to fulfill their legal obligation to deliver on what they say they're selling. And with enough tenacity, you can still get them to do so.
(That is, until the courts are completely subverted, which is happening apace.)
No problem. Assuming your "partners" are as inept as you claim they are, you can do it in four years. Patents must be renewed every year starting from the fourth anniversary of its filing date. No renewal, no more patent. It's as simple as that.
Furthermore, your "assignment" of the patent to the company could easily be challenged by a lawyer. Under such arrangements, you need to be given some consideration for your patent, and it's obvious from your remarks that you have been given nothing but hot air.
...just some words of advice from someone who's been in similar situations.
Most reasonable people would think it would work this way, but it doesn't. While the initial application fee is the same, when patents are granted, there are additional "renewal" fees companies are charged to keep the patent.
These renewal fees go up with time, on the theory that it will encourage companies to not file "paper patents". Unfortunately, the price (while significant for individiuals) is trivial for corporations. It costs nearly nothing compared to the fees that Patent Attorneys charge.
Still, it isn't pure monetary motive that drives the PTO to issue junk patents - it's political pressure. US Corporations like patents because it allows them to leverage money out of research they can't figure out how to productize themselves. And our politicans (particularly today's crop), are very responsive to entrenched corporate interests.
The long term downside is that skill in how to make useful products is leaving the U.S. That knowledge is moving overseas to places like China and India. It's very similar to the situation back in the 19th century, when England had a strict patent system that nations like the U.S. didn't always honor. We all know how things ended up for England; I wonder if the U.S. will be quite as graceful in its decline.
(I hold a number of patents and have patents pending, so I know of what I speak).
Actually, religious fanatics attacked us on 9/11. Therefore, your logic shows that we should go killing religious fanatics. Maybe starting with John Ashcroft...?
Bush always intended to go after Saddam. That much is clear. President Clinton told Bush on his exit interview that Osama Bin Laden was the most dangerous man to the U.S., and Bush replied that Saddam was. Two days after 9/11 - before we even knew who did it - his administration started telling our intelligence agencies to "build a case against Iraq". The war in Afghanistan was a war on terror. The war in Iraq was intended to intimidate Arabs, but will only serve to strengthen the power of al-Qaeda.
It will also serve to increase the number of deranged autocracies with nuclear weapons. Don't think for a moment that the lesson of North Korea is lost on the world. Kim Song Jong Ill, who has let eleven million of his countrymen starve to death, is able to directly threaten the U.S. with nary a peep from this administration. Why? Because, unlike Saddam, when he promised to get rid of nuclear weapons, he lied.
Bush has made it unsafe to be in America's bad graces without a nuclear weapon. Therefore, everyone will get one.
No. That isn't "how it works". Not when IBM's case is this strong and SCO is deliberately is messing with their primary business strategy of using Linux. Every move in this case says that IBM is going to take SCO down on this one.
Further, IBM doesn't have any of the typical incentives for settling an IP lawsuit in this case. Typically, when a plaintiffs sues a defendant, defendant has another business rivals who also may fall under the same claim. So regardless of the strength of the plaintiff's case, it is often in the defendant's interest to settle with the proviso that they are the sole lincensee - throwing up IP roadblocks to their rivals.
In the case of Open Source GPL however, there are no such "rivals" in the traditional sense, but rather tens of thousands of talented volunteer programmers who both add value to IBM's offerings and would be incensed at such a strategy on IBM's part.
Finally, if SCO tries to drop the case, IBM will ask the judge to drop the case "with prejudice". What this means is that they can't threaten IBM or anyone else with the same set of facts again. This judgement can also be referred to in other cases, not specifically SCO vs IBM.
Even simpler if you are a heavy GIF oriented site: make all your images a query, and randomize the values based on session key. (Screws caching - but oh well).
.png or .gif. Ugly and slow, but it will work.
If you're not, you can pull the even dirtier trick of turning some of your text into
If you're a coder, you could even go so far as to hack your server to not deliver your main content unless the other ads have been loaded. This could be accomplished by something as simple as an SQL trigger. Note that this won't stop adblock - which loads but doesn't display the ad - but you still have proof of impressions (as much as you can get).
Of course the new adblock doesn't even load blocked images, so even this will work.
Unfortunately, who determines whether the individual is qualified is the employer. This means that the only real requirement is that the employer advertise for a job for which they have absolutely no intention of hiring anyone.
Sometimes - to keep down the number of responses, they'll also stick in all sorts of obscure unrelated skills their visa applicant has. You see this a lot on job boards -- "HW Design Engineer working in Boise - must be fluent in Mandarin".
This comes straight from the mouth of a senior HR recruiter I knew at a previous company.
You're absolutely right. This poor single mom and her kid should not only have no internet access, she shouldn't have water or electricity either. That way taxpayers can save an average of a ten thousandth of a cent.
My goodness, do you realize what this twelve year old is probably going to be doing when she grows up? She'll be in some high paying technical job paying taxes, instead of being a crack whore - depriving pimpz like you the steady supply of fresh meat you need to keep your business running.
If the government continues to misuse their budget supporting such socalism as this, you may very well go out of business. It just shows once again, how average Americans like you are being hurt by the anti-business sentiment in this country. You certainly have every right to complain. As do drug dealers like tobacco companies.
It is "fashionable" to forget Clinton's little email thing? Which one - the fact that an IT contractor lost some emails (like that's never happened before), or that Clinton never actually used email when he was in office?
Like most psychotic right wing morons, I'm sure you think it's big deal that a few random thousand out of hundreds of thousands of Whitehouse emails were lost (and then later recovered - thanks to wasting $12,066,346 on the task). No one thinking it worthy of any special attention outside the tinfoil hat crowd.
Clinton went through the audit from hell, and the only thing hundreds of millions of dollars (some private, some public) ever determined about the man was that he has a weakness for hummers.
No shit sherlock.
Meanwhile, our current president is claiming "executive privilege" over so many things (that just a few years ago would have been front page news -- thanks to the "liberal" media) even tinfoil hat Republican Congressman Dan Burton has become uneasy.
- Have a special "verified id" program.
- Make feedback based on the cash amount of the transaction.
This would make it so that a buyer or seller would know there is a real person or business behind the transaction. Further, it would make it quite expensive to fake a good feedback rating because of the fees he'd have to pay to ebay. This would be a lot better for all involved, rather than ebay and legitimate users arguing over who should pay for the fraudsters abusing the system.The problem in this case is that the man doesn't have the updated code. If he did, he could just install it and let Cisco try and sue him for the 15K. Not that they would - they'd loose.
I have been following this story with some interest, and I am still wondering how much of this story is real, and how much is so much legal FUD.
Consider: Even assuming that the RIAA proves some kid (or even his parents) has made one of their copyrighted songs available for download, how do they prove that anyone other than the copyright holder actually downloaded it?
Even assuming that they did, how do they then go show that the person who downloaded it actually turned the song into a sailable format? (MP3s are not the same quality as WAVs - how would this substandard quality be factored in?)
Even if someone did, presumably at most they'd be liable for the proportional cost of the song off the CD. Would the Judge give them credit for anyone who downloaded the song and then decided to buy the CD?
Understand that I am perfectly aware that the present U.S. political system has a strongly plutocratic component (e.g. the rich get to buy the laws they want), but I still think there are a lot more hurdles the RIAA most cross before they can start collecting that absurd "$15,000 per song" that's being bandied about in the articles about this.
Ok, sure. As I said, I don't have tons of time for a discussion that's essentially moot (none of this will ever really get in the standard), but it's fun to talk about anyway.
What I said "double initialization", I was talking about temporary object instances. C++ can't optimize away implicit instantiations that automatically -- what if the class has a reference count in the (copy) constructor? But if you could add a class/struct modifier that said it was safe to do so, then the compiler could automatically reduce constructs like: "Class C = Class(ptr);" into: "Class C(ptr)" (just to give the crudest example). The same thing for "C = A + B; ", temporary objects in function calls, etc., etc. This way, an intelligent class designer could make it so that people didn't have to remember that C = C + A is less efficient than C += A.
Overloading the dereferencing operator allows you to create "smart pointers", but it doesn't let you create "smart objects". There is presently no way for the class designer to absolutely control his own interfaces. By overloading the access controls you could, for example, have an object whose size is variable, without all the placement new rigamarole, and without your users knowing about it. You could make a Class that pretended to be a simple value, but actually did very complicated things behind the scenes. You could make a much simpler version of iterators; you wouldn't need things like partial specialization to implement iterator traits, because your iterator could be implemented as a class.
This emotional tripe is so full of factual inaccuracies, I'm not sure where to begin...
1] "Like passing the largest tax cuts in history despite the Democrats controling the house AND the Senate".
BUZZ - Wrong. Reagan got control of the house for the first two years of the presidency, and - because of the presence of a highly conservative Democratic caucus from the south, he had effective control of the Senate. Oh, and in addition to "passing the largest tax cuts in history" (on the rich - naturally), he also passed the largest tax increase in history (on the poor). This is something a lot of anti-tax conservatives seem to pass over when reciting the faith.
"Reagan got more judicial nominees in than any president in history."
- TRUE, but meaningless. The country is bigger, so we have more judge positions to fill. You could also credit this to cooperation from Democrats, but the truth is that the GOP has been nearly as cooperative for Democratic appointments (sorry liberals). Between modern presidents, Clinton appointed 357 (or 44%), Reagan appointed 378. On a percentage basis though, no one beats George Washington - who appointed 100% of the judges in the country.
"He was the first president to put his foot down and stop the USSR."
- BZZZT. Wrong. That honor goes to Truman. In fact - there's this little "Doctrine" named after Truman having to do with the USSR, but I don't expect a typical dittohead to know that. They're so ignorant, they can hardly find the planet they're standing on.
You see, every President opposed the USSR. The only difference is the strategy they took: carrot, stick, or carrot and stick. From a global political perspective, it seems pretty obvious that none of these made much difference. It was the system of free trade and free expression that won over the long haul, not any macho posturing from a politician.
However, if you're determined to find a "sole cause", you would do worse that look at Japan. When that little upstart started beating the U.S. at its own game, suddenly the third world saw a model they could emulate, and the Russians began to loose faith. When Taiwan almost passed the GDP of the entirety of mainland China, even the Maoists did too.
It's a funny thing. McCarthy and the other 50s conservatives felt they had to emulate some of the methods of the USSR to destroy it. They had less faith in capatalism than many extremely liberal countries, including Sweeden - who proudly call themselves "socialist" even to this day.
Everything else can be done within the language. (Actually, a lot could be deprecated - like "protected", which has no good use, IMHO.)
The class access operator overloading is especially important. Without the ability to overload ".", ".*", "::", and "sizeof", the class designer really can't completely control the behavior of his object under all circumstances. This leads to shared responsibility over the object, which in turn leads to confusion and bugs.
I could write an extended essay on this latter point, with tons of pattern and anti-pattern examples, but I won't bore you with it here.
Thomas White, Secretary of the Army, is a former Enron executive. However "Kenny Boy" had a lot more influence than just that.
Yes, I'd much rather that Clinton only pardoned people who weren't convicted criminals! Maybe he could have pardoned little girls and cute puppy dogs instead. ( I think we have new 2003 nomination for "Unclear on the Concept". )