Or an SSH client for your phone (something I've used for recovery several times, since I often run unstable software). I need to switch to wifi to get in, since my box is on a private reserved network block, but other than that, it's a quite adequate replacement for the VT220 I discarded back around '88.:)
One could argue that the less deletes you have, more are the chances you have that there is a memory leak...
<grammar_nazi> fewer </grammar_nazi>
One could argue that, it's true, but it would most likely be evidence that the person arguing was utterly ignorant of anything that's happened in C++ since the early nineties. Between the container classes of the STL and Boost, and the RAII model, having very few deletes is generally a very good sign, since it shows you're not resorting to too much error prone manual memory management. If the few deletes you have are all in destructors, that only makes it more clear. (And even there, using autoptr or sharedptr is generally vastly superior to trying to figure out when you can issue a manual delete.)
In modern C++, you can manage vast amounts of memory properly without ever once using delete. In fact, you're more likely to be managing your memory properly if you don't.
It's something that people with actual jobs are generally forced to use. People who live in their parent's basement playing video games non-stop may be unfamiliar with the concept.
It's also something that provides the backbone of many large free software projects. The Linux kernel and the Debian project, for example, mainly run on email.
But the problem was that it is not even illegal to do that in Sweden. It is only a legal "greyzone", and there is no laws for it either.
I'm sure Sweden has laws against things like reckless endangerment. That Americium is some nasty crap. It's not as toxic as Plutonium, but it's no fun.
Forget radioactivity for a minute. How would you feel if it turned out that your neighbor had been growing ebola cultures in his living room because he was convinced he could find a cure? I doubt if there are any specific laws against growing your own ebola cultures, but I'll damn sure betcha it's against plenty of laws that are on the books.
One? Is that where you think the boundary lies? Would it be OK for Congress to declare that from now on, all citizens must register as Presbyterian, Catholic or Jew, or be imprisoned? Because that's more than one religion?
Would it be ok if the coins said, "one nation under Allah or Zeus, take your pick?"
The pattern is brick-stupid simple when it is pointed out.
Except that the pronoun "one" breaks the pattern: One's first instinct might be to write "ones first instinct might be to write", but one's going to be wrong if one does that.
Oh, and the possessive is "her", as in "her lamp". "Hers" is a pronoun whose antecedent is an owned thing, as in "hers was the brightest lamp." It even has its own (very ugly) possessive form which also uses an apostrophe: "hers' cord was the longest of all the lamps." But you knew that, since pronouns are "brick-stupid simple", right?:)
I used to have a roommate that got Science. My assessment was similar to yours, for the most part. But then, one day, I saw a four word headline on an article. Just four words, and not only did I not know what any of them meant, but stare at them as I might, I could not even figure out which was the verb! So I tried to read the article. When I finished, I finally knew...which word was the verb. Oh, and that all four words probably had something to do with biology. That was it—all I got.
After that humbling experience, I went back to Science News and SciAm. They may be a little too dumbed down at times, but at least I can spot the verbs 100% of the time.:)
I don't hate Mercurial; it's an excellent system overall, but I've certainly sworn at it a few times for its obtuse, only-one-way-to-do it approach that may or may not mesh with your needs or workflow. There are hacks available to get around most of its weaknesses, but in many cases, they feel like hacks. Git is a whole lot more flexible, which is of course both a strength and a flaw if you want something that just works with minimal effort or thought.
The simple fact is that by every reasonable measurement we have, the human body (and the bodies of many other creatures) a chock full of examples of crappy design. Designs that would get anyone kicked out of engineering school. The single heart is an extremely minor example compared to some of the idiocies nature comes up with. Damn straight we're implying we know better than God!
You're basically just trying to switch the argument. It goes like this:
There must be a God because nature is so perfect! Nature isn't perfect, it looks like it was designed by a blind, drunk idiot! It's perfect because God created it that way!
This is a classic example of what we call circular reasoning. Look it up sometime. Even if you truly believe that it is perfect in some manner that we cannot comprehend, the argument that God must exist because Nature is so perfect is dead, dead dead!
If it was handled in Small Claims Court, they may not have sent a lawyer. In many jurisdictions, you're not allowed to be represented by a lawyer in Small Claims Court. Also, it's possible that Verizon simply ignored the whole thing, in which case the lady may have won a default judgment.
I could probably find the answers to some of these questions by Reading The Fine Article, but I can't help feel that that's cheating.:)
This goes to the credibility of the witness, your honor. The iPhone user likes to claim that he's better, smarter, funnier, cooler, more sophisticated, better equipped, and more likely to get laid than the rest of us. We now know that the smarter part is a lie.:)
US law is not 18--it varies from state to state, and is 16 in most states. The reason most people think it's 18 in the US is because it's 18 in California, where Hollywood is located. People from Hollywood have no idea about anything in the rest of the country, and the rest of the world gets its ideas of the US from Hollywood.
(Warning, TVTropes links may rot your brain. You have been warned.)
You can blame Tony's actions on Hollywood, but don't blame it on the US.
A) it's irrelevant, and B) even if he accidentally got the conclusion correct, I'm sure he misinterpreted something. Statistically, it's a certainty. But it really doesn't matter since, as I pointed out in the first place, it's completely irrelevant.
Good job, though, at completely ignoring my point in order to quibble about my snark! You're carrying on the finest traditions of slashdot debate.:)
Where's the proof that obscenity does hurt people?
Hellifino! I'm in favor of boobies, myself. Even on national TV. I'm just sayin', if you want to get these laws changed, proclaiming that they're unconstitutional is unlikely to get you very far (though it might give the lawyers and judges a quick laugh). But I'll give you a hint: most of the activities of the courts are in the public record.
Steven Landsburg is not a judge and his opinions don't have legal precedence. His misinterpretation* of some scientific findings do not trump the current accepted theory in law. Nor does one (probably controversial and contested) study claiming that porn doesn't "cause rape" contradict the much broader findings that obscenity causes harm. There are more kinds of harm than rape. I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that we should shield the kiddies from porn because it might make them go out and rape.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of boobies, and see no reason why they shouldn't be proudly displayed. I think the legal arguments against nudity and even sex are mostly nonsense, and most such laws should be stricken. But until the courts accept much stronger and broader evidence than you're offering, the laws are unlikely to change. Do I think that's sad? Yes. Do I think that's unconstitutional? Unfortunately, no.
* how do I know it's a misinterpretation? He's a journalist (and/or blogger) writing about science. QED:)
Freedom of religion is not limited to "what you believe". If it were, then the Native American Church would have never won the right to consume peyote, and Protestants could chase Catholics away by banning holy communion, which is an action, not a belief.
Nor is the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech quite as broad as you imply, as shown by our laws against libel and slander. The point of my tongue-in-cheek post was that your constitutional freedoms do not guarantee your right to harm others!
Of course, it's my bad for thinking that anyone on Slashdot would have enough awareness of the history of obscenity laws to realize why that point is relevant, so I'll be more explicit: the courts have ruled that obscenity harms others! Agree or disagree, that's the argument that currently stands, and from a purely Constitutional basis, it's as solid as the arguments against human sacrifice. Whether obscenity actually harms anyone is not a Constitutional question, it's a scientific one.
Yes, exactly, but "harm to others" is exactly the argument that was used to justify anti-obscenity laws. Now you may disagree that obscenity causes harm (I pretty much disagree), but that was the reasoning that was used. So merely shouting that there's no Constitutional basis for anti-obscenity laws, as the original poster did, is silly. The Constitutional basis is that freedom of speech (like freedom of religion) isn't a free pass to harm others (see also: slander and libel laws). If you want to overturn anti-obscenity laws, you will need to prove that obscenity doesn't hurt people, because the current accepted theory in law is that it does.
The Constitution also has no exceptions to the freedom of religion thing, yet we seem to feel free to ban human sacrifice, slavery, polygamy, and spousal abuse, no matter how sincere the religious feelings behind them may be. Damn activist judges suggesting that rules against murder trump the Constitution!:)
No matter what you think about sex vs violence, that isn't what this case was about. This case was about whether there should be special rules for video games! If California had simply passed a law against selling depictions of gratuitous violence to children, that would have been a whole different matter (and an unlikely law in the land of Hollywood). Do we really need special, separate rules for each new medium? I don't think so. Consistency is the thing! The Supremes considered the question of whether video games needed separate rules, and concluded that there was no evidence they did. If you don't like violence in media, petition for a ban on violence in media, not violence in video games!
I thought the controversy was over warrantless wire-tapping
Yes, it is, but slashdotters love to whine so much, so they're not going to let the fact that this is a non-story stop them from whining about how evil the government is, and how perfect things would be if only Steve Jobs and L. Rand Hubbard were in charge. (Or is that Richard Stallman and Ayn Paul--I get them all so easily mixed up.) You have to fight the power! Wiretapping should only be allowed against illegal immigrants! And Microsoft employees. We don't need no steenkin' gummint, just more peace, love and iPads! Feudal corporate serfdom is the path to true freedom!
Slashdot Mirror
Or an SSH client for your phone (something I've used for recovery several times, since I often run unstable software). I need to switch to wifi to get in, since my box is on a private reserved network block, but other than that, it's a quite adequate replacement for the VT220 I discarded back around '88. :)
AOL didn't do much to Time/Warner when they bought it. :)
One could argue that the less deletes you have, more are the chances you have that there is a memory leak...
<grammar_nazi> fewer </grammar_nazi>
One could argue that, it's true, but it would most likely be evidence that the person arguing was utterly ignorant of anything that's happened in C++ since the early nineties. Between the container classes of the STL and Boost, and the RAII model, having very few deletes is generally a very good sign, since it shows you're not resorting to too much error prone manual memory management. If the few deletes you have are all in destructors, that only makes it more clear. (And even there, using autoptr or sharedptr is generally vastly superior to trying to figure out when you can issue a manual delete.)
In modern C++, you can manage vast amounts of memory properly without ever once using delete. In fact, you're more likely to be managing your memory properly if you don't.
It's something that people with actual jobs are generally forced to use. People who live in their parent's basement playing video games non-stop may be unfamiliar with the concept.
It's also something that provides the backbone of many large free software projects. The Linux kernel and the Debian project, for example, mainly run on email.
Contributory copyright infringement, the same thing that got Grokster.
But the problem was that it is not even illegal to do that in Sweden. It is only a legal "greyzone", and there is no laws for it either.
I'm sure Sweden has laws against things like reckless endangerment. That Americium is some nasty crap. It's not as toxic as Plutonium, but it's no fun.
Forget radioactivity for a minute. How would you feel if it turned out that your neighbor had been growing ebola cultures in his living room because he was convinced he could find a cure? I doubt if there are any specific laws against growing your own ebola cultures, but I'll damn sure betcha it's against plenty of laws that are on the books.
Which religion? WHICH ONE?
One? Is that where you think the boundary lies? Would it be OK for Congress to declare that from now on, all citizens must register as Presbyterian, Catholic or Jew, or be imprisoned? Because that's more than one religion?
Would it be ok if the coins said, "one nation under Allah or Zeus, take your pick?"
The pattern is brick-stupid simple when it is pointed out.
Except that the pronoun "one" breaks the pattern: One's first instinct might be to write "ones first instinct might be to write", but one's going to be wrong if one does that.
Oh, and the possessive is "her", as in "her lamp". "Hers" is a pronoun whose antecedent is an owned thing, as in "hers was the brightest lamp." It even has its own (very ugly) possessive form which also uses an apostrophe: "hers' cord was the longest of all the lamps." But you knew that, since pronouns are "brick-stupid simple", right? :)
I used to have a roommate that got Science. My assessment was similar to yours, for the most part. But then, one day, I saw a four word headline on an article. Just four words, and not only did I not know what any of them meant, but stare at them as I might, I could not even figure out which was the verb! So I tried to read the article. When I finished, I finally knew...which word was the verb. Oh, and that all four words probably had something to do with biology. That was it—all I got.
After that humbling experience, I went back to Science News and SciAm. They may be a little too dumbed down at times, but at least I can spot the verbs 100% of the time. :)
I don't hate Mercurial; it's an excellent system overall, but I've certainly sworn at it a few times for its obtuse, only-one-way-to-do it approach that may or may not mesh with your needs or workflow. There are hacks available to get around most of its weaknesses, but in many cases, they feel like hacks. Git is a whole lot more flexible, which is of course both a strength and a flaw if you want something that just works with minimal effort or thought.
The simple fact is that by every reasonable measurement we have, the human body (and the bodies of many other creatures) a chock full of examples of crappy design. Designs that would get anyone kicked out of engineering school. The single heart is an extremely minor example compared to some of the idiocies nature comes up with. Damn straight we're implying we know better than God!
You're basically just trying to switch the argument. It goes like this:
There must be a God because nature is so perfect!
Nature isn't perfect, it looks like it was designed by a blind, drunk idiot!
It's perfect because God created it that way!
This is a classic example of what we call circular reasoning. Look it up sometime. Even if you truly believe that it is perfect in some manner that we cannot comprehend, the argument that God must exist because Nature is so perfect is dead, dead dead!
A condom won't protect you from the common cold, but that's no reason not to use one.
Same way they do on 4chan? Flames and kitty porn?
If it was handled in Small Claims Court, they may not have sent a lawyer. In many jurisdictions, you're not allowed to be represented by a lawyer in Small Claims Court. Also, it's possible that Verizon simply ignored the whole thing, in which case the lady may have won a default judgment.
I could probably find the answers to some of these questions by Reading The Fine Article, but I can't help feel that that's cheating. :)
This goes to the credibility of the witness, your honor. The iPhone user likes to claim that he's better, smarter, funnier, cooler, more sophisticated, better equipped, and more likely to get laid than the rest of us. We now know that the smarter part is a lie. :)
And that's why those of us who can type miss it! We miss making fun of our friends who cant'! :)
US law is not 18--it varies from state to state, and is 16 in most states. The reason most people think it's 18 in the US is because it's 18 in California, where Hollywood is located. People from Hollywood have no idea about anything in the rest of the country, and the rest of the world gets its ideas of the US from Hollywood.
(Warning, TVTropes links may rot your brain. You have been warned.)
You can blame Tony's actions on Hollywood, but don't blame it on the US.
A) it's irrelevant, and B) even if he accidentally got the conclusion correct, I'm sure he misinterpreted something. Statistically, it's a certainty. But it really doesn't matter since, as I pointed out in the first place, it's completely irrelevant.
Good job, though, at completely ignoring my point in order to quibble about my snark! You're carrying on the finest traditions of slashdot debate. :)
Where's the proof that obscenity does hurt people?
Hellifino! I'm in favor of boobies, myself. Even on national TV. I'm just sayin', if you want to get these laws changed, proclaiming that they're unconstitutional is unlikely to get you very far (though it might give the lawyers and judges a quick laugh). But I'll give you a hint: most of the activities of the courts are in the public record.
Steven Landsburg is not a judge and his opinions don't have legal precedence. His misinterpretation* of some scientific findings do not trump the current accepted theory in law . Nor does one (probably controversial and contested) study claiming that porn doesn't "cause rape" contradict the much broader findings that obscenity causes harm. There are more kinds of harm than rape. I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that we should shield the kiddies from porn because it might make them go out and rape.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of boobies, and see no reason why they shouldn't be proudly displayed. I think the legal arguments against nudity and even sex are mostly nonsense, and most such laws should be stricken. But until the courts accept much stronger and broader evidence than you're offering, the laws are unlikely to change. Do I think that's sad? Yes. Do I think that's unconstitutional? Unfortunately, no.
* how do I know it's a misinterpretation? He's a journalist (and/or blogger) writing about science. QED :)
Freedom of religion is not limited to "what you believe". If it were, then the Native American Church would have never won the right to consume peyote, and Protestants could chase Catholics away by banning holy communion, which is an action, not a belief.
Nor is the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech quite as broad as you imply, as shown by our laws against libel and slander. The point of my tongue-in-cheek post was that your constitutional freedoms do not guarantee your right to harm others!
Of course, it's my bad for thinking that anyone on Slashdot would have enough awareness of the history of obscenity laws to realize why that point is relevant, so I'll be more explicit: the courts have ruled that obscenity harms others! Agree or disagree, that's the argument that currently stands, and from a purely Constitutional basis, it's as solid as the arguments against human sacrifice. Whether obscenity actually harms anyone is not a Constitutional question, it's a scientific one.
Yes, exactly, but "harm to others" is exactly the argument that was used to justify anti-obscenity laws. Now you may disagree that obscenity causes harm (I pretty much disagree), but that was the reasoning that was used. So merely shouting that there's no Constitutional basis for anti-obscenity laws, as the original poster did, is silly. The Constitutional basis is that freedom of speech (like freedom of religion) isn't a free pass to harm others (see also: slander and libel laws). If you want to overturn anti-obscenity laws, you will need to prove that obscenity doesn't hurt people, because the current accepted theory in law is that it does.
The Constitution also has no exceptions to the freedom of religion thing, yet we seem to feel free to ban human sacrifice, slavery, polygamy, and spousal abuse, no matter how sincere the religious feelings behind them may be. Damn activist judges suggesting that rules against murder trump the Constitution! :)
No matter what you think about sex vs violence, that isn't what this case was about. This case was about whether there should be special rules for video games! If California had simply passed a law against selling depictions of gratuitous violence to children, that would have been a whole different matter (and an unlikely law in the land of Hollywood). Do we really need special, separate rules for each new medium? I don't think so. Consistency is the thing! The Supremes considered the question of whether video games needed separate rules, and concluded that there was no evidence they did. If you don't like violence in media, petition for a ban on violence in media, not violence in video games!
I thought the controversy was over warrantless wire-tapping
Yes, it is, but slashdotters love to whine so much, so they're not going to let the fact that this is a non-story stop them from whining about how evil the government is, and how perfect things would be if only Steve Jobs and L. Rand Hubbard were in charge. (Or is that Richard Stallman and Ayn Paul--I get them all so easily mixed up.) You have to fight the power! Wiretapping should only be allowed against illegal immigrants! And Microsoft employees. We don't need no steenkin' gummint, just more peace, love and iPads! Feudal corporate serfdom is the path to true freedom!