I see absolutely nothing wrong with the summary. Perhaps you all have an overly-aggressive ad blocker that's damaging the front page. In response to community backlash, Oculus has decided to change its DRM policy (again) to allow HTC Vive games to play on the Oculus Rift virtual-reality system.
I don't think it's a particular direction; the point is more that the distortion behaves like a normal physical object in that it can be rotated by someone picking it up and moving it. Some other phenomena like electron clouds only exhibit measurable orientations in the presence of other charged particles.
It's a little more nuanced than that; I'm im scientific computing, so I have the luxury of wasting months of my life hammering out memory leaks in the pursuit of tighter code. I'd be using pure C if I didn't absolutely need classes and operator overloading.
But immediately after I posted that comment, other posts on this story convinced me to give modern C++, particularly the C++11 changes, another look. So don't worry yet...
As for the with keyword: this is an entirely separate grievance I have from a language design perspective. The syntax they chose is very illegible and breaks pace with what is probably the most sacred construct in any curly-bracket language aside from an empty scope. In no other language that I know of can you find code between the "if" keyword and its corresponding expression. Maybe "with" is the wrong choice of a keyword for C++'s situation, but the pattern of using a separate phrase like that is definitely the right overall structure. Stuff like that doesn't make the language more complex, in my opinion, particularly as it's something an unfamiliar reader should easily be able to intuit.
My personal approach to using C++ has always been to use mostly C with basic involvement of C++ classes and relatively little else. I tend to think that any programmer with both Java and C experience should be able to read the code, memory management aside. (I rarely even use iterators or templates.) There's no real need to engage with all the innovation/creativity/alcoholism that's been added in more recently, at least not for my work, and I think using such a restrained and archaic style will probably be ideal for maintainability (including on ancient compilers from obscure vendors). Maybe if you look at C++ as less of an obligation and more of a landfill full of broken dreams, you'll find it less chafing.
For example, I'm terrified of the if initializers that the summary links to, and would have strongly preferred the with() syntax. I can't imagine a bigger problem for code legibility than sticking declarations inside of what people universally trust as the simplest case of expression evaluation. The logic for rejecting with() is perfect, too: "That would require teaching a new keyword and thereby reveal our design is bad."
You mean "(You".... The hyphen has, tragically, been vanishing from American English stylebooks for decades, driven by a desire for minimalism. This usually results in something harder to read, but as long as the compound can lose the hyphen without creating genuine ambiguity ("Nice-ass car!") then it's considered fair game. Obvious exceptions include but are not limited to ranges and constitutive compounds like the Banach–Tarsky paradox, both of which are correctly written with en dashes anyway. Unrelatedly, excessive hyphenation is a great way to spot a German.
From the same totally unbiased Russia Today article:
On the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany should substantially increase its defense spending.
In no way does the GP's use of "we" imply a shared identity; it is merely employed to indicate membership in the country's population. Calm down, dear.
Prior art. If there is any shred of normalcy in the Chinese patent system, this will fall apart fairly quickly.... Of course, we can easily spend all day speculatively fearmongering about corruption on the part of the people who let this case happen in the first place, which may not be insubstantial.
At the moment, this is just about sales, but it doesn't seem that infeasible that it could blow up into Apple needing to move some production. Cynically, manufacturing puts money into the local economy rather than removing it, so the proverbial corrupt regulator probably has a very different outlook on it.
Embrace, exploit, excommunicate. Why bother with prior art when your government is so corrupt? Just imitate, register, and sue, like with the handbag company that won the right to rip off the iPhone name. They didn't come up with it, but because foreign companies will apparently always be treated like garbage in the Chinese IP framework, they now have control. This process will probably continue until Apple gives up and starts avoiding China altogether, or, like the software companies that can't get licensed because of protectionism, greed, and probably racism, license everything to a Chinese company at a massive loss. There's no way the Baili 100C was designed in ignorance of past iPhones.
As I told Raven64, it's more complex than that for 'earth.' There are three uses of the word, two of which are uncapitalized. One of those does refer to the medium in a manner analogous to the 'sky' and 'world' usages I described, in a pre-Heliocentric way. When you say "the bird plummeted to the earth," you're referring to the ground as a whole, not the third planet of the Sol system, and not mere soil. Same for "every man, woman, and child on this earth."
Not so fast. When you stick "the" in front of "Earth" it becomes a common noun and loses its capitalization. I believe this is for the same reason that 'world' and 'sky' aren't capitalized; the usage descends from pre-Galileo, non-Heliocentric practices. It's a medium, in addition to referring to soil and a planet.
Consider 'the world.' Or 'the sky.' There's only one of each (synecdoche and other planets notwithstanding) but we don't really regard them as proper nouns. In fact, you have to go back pretty far to find a language where one of these vast media are encoded in a way that's even ambiguously a true proper noun in what is still decidedly poetic writing. I confess I initially resisted the idea of this too, but... it's not really a bad thing, in the end. The dream of the ARPANET, NSFnet, and other early nets was always to create a network medium that was invisible and omnipresent. This is just another step on that journey.
Slashdot Mirror
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the summary. Perhaps you all have an overly-aggressive ad blocker that's damaging the front page. In response to community backlash, Oculus has decided to change its DRM policy (again) to allow HTC Vive games to play on the Oculus Rift virtual-reality system.
...Which, no big surprise, suggests these two nuclei could actually be two objects eclipsing each other.
I don't think it's a particular direction; the point is more that the distortion behaves like a normal physical object in that it can be rotated by someone picking it up and moving it. Some other phenomena like electron clouds only exhibit measurable orientations in the presence of other charged particles.
...Syria?
It's a little more nuanced than that; I'm im scientific computing, so I have the luxury of wasting months of my life hammering out memory leaks in the pursuit of tighter code. I'd be using pure C if I didn't absolutely need classes and operator overloading.
But immediately after I posted that comment, other posts on this story convinced me to give modern C++, particularly the C++11 changes, another look. So don't worry yet...
As for the with keyword: this is an entirely separate grievance I have from a language design perspective. The syntax they chose is very illegible and breaks pace with what is probably the most sacred construct in any curly-bracket language aside from an empty scope. In no other language that I know of can you find code between the "if" keyword and its corresponding expression. Maybe "with" is the wrong choice of a keyword for C++'s situation, but the pattern of using a separate phrase like that is definitely the right overall structure. Stuff like that doesn't make the language more complex, in my opinion, particularly as it's something an unfamiliar reader should easily be able to intuit.
My personal approach to using C++ has always been to use mostly C with basic involvement of C++ classes and relatively little else. I tend to think that any programmer with both Java and C experience should be able to read the code, memory management aside. (I rarely even use iterators or templates.) There's no real need to engage with all the innovation/creativity/alcoholism that's been added in more recently, at least not for my work, and I think using such a restrained and archaic style will probably be ideal for maintainability (including on ancient compilers from obscure vendors). Maybe if you look at C++ as less of an obligation and more of a landfill full of broken dreams, you'll find it less chafing.
For example, I'm terrified of the if initializers that the summary links to, and would have strongly preferred the with() syntax. I can't imagine a bigger problem for code legibility than sticking declarations inside of what people universally trust as the simplest case of expression evaluation. The logic for rejecting with() is perfect, too: "That would require teaching a new keyword and thereby reveal our design is bad."
You mean "(You". ... The hyphen has, tragically, been vanishing from American English stylebooks for decades, driven by a desire for minimalism. This usually results in something harder to read, but as long as the compound can lose the hyphen without creating genuine ambiguity ("Nice-ass car!") then it's considered fair game. Obvious exceptions include but are not limited to ranges and constitutive compounds like the Banach–Tarsky paradox, both of which are correctly written with en dashes anyway. Unrelatedly, excessive hyphenation is a great way to spot a German.
Yep. Also APL.
Yeah, they probably meant to write 75th. Not many Nazi invasions in the summer of 1946.
In no way does the GP's use of "we" imply a shared identity; it is merely employed to indicate membership in the country's population. Calm down, dear.
So... What do you do with it? Brute forcing encryption keys?
Yup. And here's a source with links. Yay?
Prior art. If there is any shred of normalcy in the Chinese patent system, this will fall apart fairly quickly. ... Of course, we can easily spend all day speculatively fearmongering about corruption on the part of the people who let this case happen in the first place, which may not be insubstantial.
At the moment, this is just about sales, but it doesn't seem that infeasible that it could blow up into Apple needing to move some production. Cynically, manufacturing puts money into the local economy rather than removing it, so the proverbial corrupt regulator probably has a very different outlook on it.
Embrace, exploit, excommunicate. Why bother with prior art when your government is so corrupt? Just imitate, register, and sue, like with the handbag company that won the right to rip off the iPhone name. They didn't come up with it, but because foreign companies will apparently always be treated like garbage in the Chinese IP framework, they now have control. This process will probably continue until Apple gives up and starts avoiding China altogether, or, like the software companies that can't get licensed because of protectionism, greed, and probably racism, license everything to a Chinese company at a massive loss. There's no way the Baili 100C was designed in ignorance of past iPhones.
Maybe it's a three strikes system? 25 mod 3 = 1.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world...
As I told Raven64, it's more complex than that for 'earth.' There are three uses of the word, two of which are uncapitalized. One of those does refer to the medium in a manner analogous to the 'sky' and 'world' usages I described, in a pre-Heliocentric way. When you say "the bird plummeted to the earth," you're referring to the ground as a whole, not the third planet of the Sol system, and not mere soil. Same for "every man, woman, and child on this earth."
Not a problem. You can have more than one sky or ocean, too.
Not so fast. When you stick "the" in front of "Earth" it becomes a common noun and loses its capitalization. I believe this is for the same reason that 'world' and 'sky' aren't capitalized; the usage descends from pre-Galileo, non-Heliocentric practices. It's a medium, in addition to referring to soil and a planet.
Consider 'the world.' Or 'the sky.' There's only one of each (synecdoche and other planets notwithstanding) but we don't really regard them as proper nouns. In fact, you have to go back pretty far to find a language where one of these vast media are encoded in a way that's even ambiguously a true proper noun in what is still decidedly poetic writing. I confess I initially resisted the idea of this too, but... it's not really a bad thing, in the end. The dream of the ARPANET, NSFnet, and other early nets was always to create a network medium that was invisible and omnipresent. This is just another step on that journey.
Of course it's a proof. Who taught you what the word "proof" means? Perhaps you were looking for "satisfying answer," dear editor?
Misleading as hell. Here's a less yellow news source. They do not plan on cloning humans.
Perhaps a military engagement? 'Contribution' measured in artillery shells, 'innovation' measured in holes blasted in the landscape...