"The C++ Programming language" mentions it twice, and says it's a C thing which you should avoid -- just use 0. Which is what I do.
And then you have to do all sorts of workarounds for it when you have overloaded functions where it thinks you are passing it to the one that takes an integer instead of the one assuming a pointer.
Yes, but they will give you minute differences in their prices to get you to come over. It's not like they are going to get in a bidding war that actually reduces prices by anything all that major. Otherwise, both sides ends up losing tons of the profit margins on those plans. That's the reason why they upsell data so much.
Huh, google maps doesn't give directions while you're on the phone already on AT&T.
You would be quite wrong. I've failed to mute navigation before and it has continued to give directions while I've been talking to someone. I wish it WOULD mute itself.
Be honest, AT&T iPhone owners: how often do you really use this feature?
I'm not an iPhone user, but on my various 3G android phones I use it all the time. Especially in the car where the phone is also being used as the GPS device. It would be a severe crippling of functionality to lose my navigation data connection just because I get a call from someone.
Why would it ignite a price war? The whole point of the iPhone is that it's a high margin device so it's a win for Apple and the sellers. A price war destroys this and you might as well just continue to peddle cheap Android phones with razor-thin margins.
So how is Verizon going to spin this to backpeddle against their previous bashings of the iPhone? Weren't they just a year or so ago telling how puny and weak the iPhone was in comparison to their Droid?
Do you have any actual statistics to show otherwise? Considering how the actual figures show an almost consistent downtrend in fatal accidents per 100,000 population, per 100,000 licensed drivers and per 100,000 Registered Vehicles. And yes, yes, one can not account everything towards safety features, but to try to claim that they have no net positive effect is completely asinine unless you have some sort of alternate explanation for why those per capita figures show a ~30%, ~22%, and ~31% drop over a 15 year period.
These things haven't been out long enough for any traffic fatality statistics to be released yet. The jury is still out.
Check out this link. While it isn't a true showing of a causal relationship but you can notice the general trend of Fatality Rate Per 100,000 Population and Fatality Rate Per 100,000 Licensed Drivers has almost consistently gone down year over year.
No real difference than without these features. These same drivers by SUVs because of the same false sense of security and then they go around tipping their SUVs over or generally being a nuisance to all the other drivers on the road since they are now basically a moving obstruction.
and far too many drivers see it as an absolution of responsibility.
Because stripping them of safety features is going to change this? No, it'll just mean they have no sense of responsibility and will be MORE dangerous.
Cameras, radar and such only keep idiot drivers from having to pay attention. Blind spots? Most can be avoided by using a simple shoulder check.
Since these people are going to be driving anyway, why would you be against giving them things that make it less likely that they are going to kill someone? To live in a world where everyone is a perfect driver is just never going to exist. If some safety feature can help cut down on car accidents and deaths by even a few percent is well worth it.
No, if true, I call that an idiotic expenditure if the company couldn't afford it. If it was really such a financial hardship to the company they would have said no. If all the automaker's problems are entirely the UAW's fault then why was even Ford doing so well? Ford has a ton of UAW members and yet didn't have a stupidly insane pension plan that GM did. How do you explain that away?
Bullshit. They could have said no if they wanted to. If all it took was the threat of strikes then why was only GM the one sidled with such ridiculous pension obligations? Surely all the other car makers would have been in the same boat, no?
Yeah, because all the hardships facing the automobile makers were entirely the UAW's fault. It's not as if the managers were being just as stupid approving all those benefits based on highly overfly rosy outlooks of their future prospects. No, no, the only ones at fault are those ebil unions!!!
Apple is responsible too to make sure this does not happen.
How so? They published specifically the manner that app developers should be handling the licensing of their apps. How is it Apple's fault if a developer disregards that for their own broken homebrewed approach? Are you claiming that Apple is supposed to handcheck these apps to make sure they are doing things right?
Slashdot Mirror
"The C++ Programming language" mentions it twice, and says it's a C thing which you should avoid -- just use 0. Which is what I do.
And then you have to do all sorts of workarounds for it when you have overloaded functions where it thinks you are passing it to the one that takes an integer instead of the one assuming a pointer.
The shit that runs the shit that runs Ruby? Fuckin C.
FTFY.
runs mind-numbingly slow when compared with native, 100% C++ apps.
And yet the vast majority of mind-numbingly slow apps I've ever used were usually written in C++.
And now, all of these years later, we discover that this seminal event was corrupted by the presence of hardcore pornography.
Playboy is hardcore porn? Since when?
That last bit about "really interesting to browse through" was a pretty big clue, since I don't find any this all that interesting, or unexpected.
That wasn't part of the original submission. That was added by Taco.
Yes, but they will give you minute differences in their prices to get you to come over. It's not like they are going to get in a bidding war that actually reduces prices by anything all that major. Otherwise, both sides ends up losing tons of the profit margins on those plans. That's the reason why they upsell data so much.
And yet they are trumpeting everywhere how they are now getting the iPhone like it's the second coming
Of course, you could just connect to a wifi network, and that won't matter...
WiFi doesn't exist everywhere...
Huh, google maps doesn't give directions while you're on the phone already on AT&T.
You would be quite wrong. I've failed to mute navigation before and it has continued to give directions while I've been talking to someone. I wish it WOULD mute itself.
Be honest, AT&T iPhone owners: how often do you really use this feature?
I'm not an iPhone user, but on my various 3G android phones I use it all the time. Especially in the car where the phone is also being used as the GPS device. It would be a severe crippling of functionality to lose my navigation data connection just because I get a call from someone.
And those are also high margin plans. Again, what's the incentive for either end to reduce those margins?
Why would it ignite a price war? The whole point of the iPhone is that it's a high margin device so it's a win for Apple and the sellers. A price war destroys this and you might as well just continue to peddle cheap Android phones with razor-thin margins.
So how is Verizon going to spin this to backpeddle against their previous bashings of the iPhone? Weren't they just a year or so ago telling how puny and weak the iPhone was in comparison to their Droid?
It was a joke...
I know. I hate those stinking philosophers tainting my physics!
Do you have any actual statistics to show otherwise? Considering how the actual figures show an almost consistent downtrend in fatal accidents per 100,000 population, per 100,000 licensed drivers and per 100,000 Registered Vehicles. And yes, yes, one can not account everything towards safety features, but to try to claim that they have no net positive effect is completely asinine unless you have some sort of alternate explanation for why those per capita figures show a ~30%, ~22%, and ~31% drop over a 15 year period.
These things haven't been out long enough for any traffic fatality statistics to be released yet. The jury is still out.
Check out this link. While it isn't a true showing of a causal relationship but you can notice the general trend of Fatality Rate Per 100,000 Population and Fatality Rate Per 100,000 Licensed Drivers has almost consistently gone down year over year.
It creates a false sense of security
No real difference than without these features. These same drivers by SUVs because of the same false sense of security and then they go around tipping their SUVs over or generally being a nuisance to all the other drivers on the road since they are now basically a moving obstruction.
and far too many drivers see it as an absolution of responsibility.
Because stripping them of safety features is going to change this? No, it'll just mean they have no sense of responsibility and will be MORE dangerous.
Welcome to real-world driving.
Which a lot of current human drivers are pretty bad at currently.
Cameras, radar and such only keep idiot drivers from having to pay attention. Blind spots? Most can be avoided by using a simple shoulder check.
Since these people are going to be driving anyway, why would you be against giving them things that make it less likely that they are going to kill someone? To live in a world where everyone is a perfect driver is just never going to exist. If some safety feature can help cut down on car accidents and deaths by even a few percent is well worth it.
It takes a long string of implausibly (impossibly?) disastrous outcomes to cause any concern whatsoever.
So was implied about offshore drilling but look at the monumental fuck up that BP was able to pull off in the gulf.
No, if true, I call that an idiotic expenditure if the company couldn't afford it. If it was really such a financial hardship to the company they would have said no. If all the automaker's problems are entirely the UAW's fault then why was even Ford doing so well? Ford has a ton of UAW members and yet didn't have a stupidly insane pension plan that GM did. How do you explain that away?
Bullshit. They could have said no if they wanted to. If all it took was the threat of strikes then why was only GM the one sidled with such ridiculous pension obligations? Surely all the other car makers would have been in the same boat, no?
Yeah, because all the hardships facing the automobile makers were entirely the UAW's fault. It's not as if the managers were being just as stupid approving all those benefits based on highly overfly rosy outlooks of their future prospects. No, no, the only ones at fault are those ebil unions!!!
Apple is responsible too to make sure this does not happen.
How so? They published specifically the manner that app developers should be handling the licensing of their apps. How is it Apple's fault if a developer disregards that for their own broken homebrewed approach? Are you claiming that Apple is supposed to handcheck these apps to make sure they are doing things right?