Giuliani pissed away the money from the internet economy. The schools in New York are the worst they've been in 30 years. Pretty well every decision he made in his term was wrong -- from putting the emergency center in the WTC, to spending $35 million on 'security upgrades' to City Hall while ignoring *for years* the fact that the fire department *had no functioning radios*.
That one error alone cost hundreds of lives during 9/11. For that reason alone, if we had responsive, responsible government, he'd have been out of office almost immediately. But people really don't care. A few hundred firemen get killed -- they're martyrs, oops, I mean heroes! And without our hero mayor, they might never have had the chance to die gloriously and pointlessly for their country!
Please tell me -- what, exactly, did Giuliani *do* that was NOT a disaster, aside from looking like he was control at a crucial moment? Of course, Bush couldn't even do *that* but being more competent than Bush isn't much of a recommendation.
Do you have evidence for your claim that Giuliani did a "fine" job? If you claim he made the city less dangerous, you have to somehow explain how all other big cities in the United States improved even more than New York did during the same time period.
Giuliani was an incompetent and oppressive mayor who pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars on crap. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it.
Clearly you don't live in New York -- he was a dreadful mayor.
1. pissed away the largest surplus in New York City's memory -- on nothing. 2. made dancing illegal in New York City! at least Bloomberg stopped enforcing this old law. 3. put the emergency response center into the World Trade Center -- despite all the experts telling him this was a bad idea -- because he was renting from one of his chief campaign contributors. 4. stopped fixing potholes as a fake budget savings (they save $40 million from the budget -- but then they spend $140 million in lawsuits, which however are not counted in the budget).
Please don't say, "He made New York City safe again". During that period, every other major city in North America got safer, and improved more than New York.
His one claim to fame is that he didn't run like a frightened rabbit after the 9/11 attacks (unlike some President I could name).
Here's article II, section 2, which explicitly spells out the President's powers. Please direct me to anywhere in Article II that says that the President can break any law he feels like. Do remember: we are not at war; and even if we were, the President's discretionary powers last for days after the outbreak of war, not years.
Hamdi cannot possibly be read to indicate that the President has carte blanche to break laws at will. This is about holding Americans who have taken up arms against this country in the service of foreign power.
Is this what you want? A dictatorship? Because that's exactly what you are talking about. And I'm not using that word lightly.
Is commiting murder part of the President's executive authority? No. Can he order executions without alleging a violation of a law passed by Congress, and without the order of a court? Yes.
I am astonished. You do believe, then, that the President could simply round up the Democrats and execute them at his pleasure! I don't see how the right to impeach trumps that.... the moment someone brought up impeachment, he'd be dragged out and shot and his body dumped on the ever-growing pile.
Can you show me where in the Constitution or in the body of law that interprets the Constitution this "right to break the law" exists?
The fact that you seem to think this is a good idea makes me think you're a troll.
The President can ignore any law passed by Congress any time he choses. Congress has no authority over the exercise of executive power. Period. You may have learned about this concept in high-school civics class. It's usually refered to as "seperation of powers".
Let's forget that you are totally factually wrong here (try looking here for a discussion of this) -- are you really saying that the President can break any law he pleases at a whim? If the President decided to kill someone who pissed him off that there's nothing can be done? If the President decided to herd all the Democrats into ovens, Congress has no authority over his "exercise of executive power"? Is this what you want?
Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 1
That was a very civilized exchange -- which sent me to the site in the.sig where I'm fiddling with my German vocabulary and will soon work on my French...
But seriously -- my point is that making fun of people because they don't have a television isn't going to make you look good. When I tell people that they could be far more successful and happy if they dumped their television, they often say that they believe me but they could never do it. Contemplate that...
Your reading comprehension is in error. I blame television.
Look at the whole sentence: I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure) have more fun than 98% of the population...
The first clause points out that I earn more than 98% of the population, which something I can prove statistically. The second clause points out that I believe that that I have more fun than 98% of the population, and that this is something that I canNOT prove statistically! While the comma isn't strictly necessary, it does further serve to separate the two clauses.
(I'd have been more polite, had you been less rude.)
Just so we're clear, I don't (and have never) owned a TV, putting me at odds with 98% of the population. I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure) have more fun than 98% of the population (I certainly have had more beautiful, brilliant girlfriends than 98% of the population).
Sometimes, it pays not to stay with the common herd.
BTW, I'd think there would be MORE people without televisions on/., not less. People who don't have TV's tend to be better educated and more intelligent, in my experience.
And how exactly do you propose that they tracked you from the time you left one store to the time you entered the next? How exactly did the second salesman know to call the first one?
I get into work before noon -- then I work till midnight or later (these days).... then I get up and do it again. It's a slog but I hope you'll be pleased with the results.
You completely missed his point. He's suggesting we have a universal world time. He's not suggesting everyone in the world adopts the same *schedule* -- it'd be mad for all the reasons you mentioned.
I live in New York. If we used UTC then I'd be getting up at about 1400 and going to bed at 700 but that would still correspond to going to bed at night and getting up in the morning. My friend in London might get up at 900 and go to bed at 200 but if I arrange to call him at 2100 it would be completely unambiguous -- even though it'd be night where he was and day where I was.
"because we have a research lab in Cambridge, we have one now in China, one in India and that is where the top problems in computer science are going to be solved." That, ie, in India, China or Cambridge, but pointedly not in the US, is where the top problems are going to be solved, he says.
Chilling. Gates has given up on America as a source of innovation.
The United States utterly failed to achieve its stated and rational objective, which was to catch the international criminal Bin Laden. The country was unable to respond in a timely fashion to the greatest terrorist act the world ever saw -- it took almost four weeks for the first troops to arrive, and later they delayed at Tora Bora and allowed the criminal to escape. Thousands of Taliban were killed but so were tens of thousands of innocent people, far more than died in 9/11. Americans are still dying in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is free to act and has apparently killed hundreds of people and caused billions of dollars in damage to the economies of our allies -- the damage to the economy of Indonesia alone from the bombings is considerably over a billion dollars.
This problem was never resolved and the government has expressed no interest in resolving it.
Yet President Bush stood up in front of the nation and knowingly lied, told the nation that Iraq represented an immediate threat to safety and took the country, unprepared and with no clear plans, into a war that's killed almost two thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, which has seen American military personnel exposed as murderers, torturers and sexual perverts in pictures in front of the entire world, which has left the US military dangerously overextended and unable to respond to other enemies or natural disasters, and that has personally enriched his own Vice President to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and left bills for the American taxpayer that your children will still be paying for in twenty years.
Open your eyes and look around. American has seen nothing but calamity and failure since Bush took office. 9/11, Iraq, New Orleans... what will be lost next?
The absence of local variables is because the stack is not preserved between invocations, and multiple invocations give the appearance of scheduled threads. There is nothing here that the compiler can break with its optimizer, unless it is breaking valid C code: the control flow expressed using the macros is completely legit C control flow. It's worth running the examples through just the C pre-processor in order to understand what gets built.
I downloaded it. But the version that is there does not, in fact, compile: there's an obvious typo at example-buffer.c, line 137:
PT_WAIT_THREAD(pt, producer(&pt_producer) &
consumer(p&t_consumer)); // should be consumer(&pt_consumer));
That aside, I believe your claim is wrong now that I've read the code.
int x = 23; // Some blocking code here. // A case statement leads us to here. if ( x != 23 ) { // Now x could be anything. }
right? The reason is that you are simply case-statementing into the code and bypassing the whole subroutine calling mechanism entirely -- so the variable initialization just isn't called.
Now consider the following code:
double x = sin(y*(2*pi)/360)*cos(y*(2*pi)/360); // Some blocking code here. // A case statement gets us to here. double z = tan(y*(2*pi)/360;
Suppose the compiler decided to extract out the common y*(2*pi)/360 term as an optimization. The assignment to that common term will not occur when you jump into the middle of that routine -- so your code will not work as it appears.
It's too clever to be really useful unfortunately. The big issue is of course the no "local variables". Trouble is, if you are writing in C, the compiler may well be creating local variables for you behind your back. In C++ for example there are many cases where this will certainly happen, like
where a local variable of type string will be temporarily created to pass to routine DoSomething.
Even if you are writing in the purest of C, you aren't guaranteed that the optimizer isn't going to very reasonably want to introduce the equivalent of local variables. And even if you are sure there's no optimization going on, you STILL don't know for sure that the compiler isn't using space on the stack. There just is no guarantee built into the language about this. And if you were wrong, you'd get strange, highly intermittent and non-local bugs.
You could be pretty sure. You could force the compiler to use registers as much as possible. You could keep your routines really short. (Hey, if they don't preserve local variables, then how do they do parameter passing?? Parameters are passed on that same stack!)
But to be completely sure, you'd have to look at the output code. It wouldn't be too hard I suppose to write a tool to automatically do it...you'd just look for stack-relative operations and flag them. But then what would you do if something wasn't working? Yell at the compiler? Rewrite the machine language?
I guess I don't quite see the use now I've written this up. When is memory THAT important these days? It ain't like I haven't done this, I've written significant programs that I got paid money to do that fit into 4K (an error correction routine).
But that was an awfully long time ago. Now it's hard to find memory chips below 1Mbit. That two byte number is interesting but your "threads" aren't doing any work for you -- the whole point of threads is that you are preserving some context so that you can go back to them.
And since you can't use local variables, you can't use things like the C libraries or pretty well any library ever written, which is teh sux0r.
For just a few more bytes of memory and a few more cycles, you could save those local variables somewhere and restore 'em later. Suddenly your coding future is a brighter place. Tell the hardware people to give you 128K of RAM, damn the expense!
You could even put in a flag to indicate that that particular routine didn't need its local variables saved so you'd get the best of both worlds, use of external libraries as well as ultra-light switching.
The original post does say "non-virulent" and "the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans". So clearly they're using it to make baby food for hurican victims!
RTFA yourself.
The original post went on to point out that exactly the same equipment could be used with no changes to produce the virulent Aimes strain, making it almost impossible to prove that the US was in compliance with international law -- which is why everyone is complaining.
To put it simply, the Defense Department want to build an anthrax factory that could be used to pump out either virulent, or probably-harmless anthrax strains. Do you really believe them when they say that they'll never, ever make the virulent strain?
I'd personally point out that we know that the United States has recently made "weapons grade" anthrax in contravention of international law -- because it, or a formulation identical to "weapons grade anthrax from Fort Detrick" was used on American citizens in 2001.
Perhaps you have forgotten, but prominent Democrats and the National Enquirer were attacked and a photo editor at the Enquirer and a few others were killed. It's purely coincidental that the Enquirer had printed revealing photos of the Bush twins drunk in a nightclub a short time before, but it is still disturbing that all the targets of the attack could easily be seen as opponents of the administration.
The American people never received the slightest explanation as to why the United States was producing weapons that contravene international law, and just as important, why these very weapons had been used against their own citizens.
The United States "Defense" Department is the most costly single project in the history of mankind. Twice in one month it failed completely and thousands of people died -- yet nothing about the "Defense" system changed, neither from 9/11 or nor from the anthrax attack.
In an accountable government, in an honest government, they would have ripped through the whole system and made a thorough investigation of what happened, rewarding heroes, punishing any culprits found, but completely reorganizing it from top to bottom with promotions, reprimands, firings and even jailings (for criminal negligence or dereliction of duty depending on whether they are civilians or not).
In fact, we never even got answers to basic questions about the anthrax (who/how/why) or for that matter about 9/11 (why didn't fighters intercept the four hijacked planes within 10 minutes as they do in all other cases, eg, Payne Stuart).
The US Defense Department is the largest project in the history of the world. Yet it is apparently incompetent at basic things like making sure its own (illegal and infernal) weapons aren't used against US citizens. Only fools would give them a disease factory with the solemn promise that they'd never turn it on in full.
No, it just means that I believed a news story (admittedly this could be considered a fault) and as usual the news agency in question didn't do enough to correct their error. Given that the article you link to specifically cites there was widespread misinformation about this incident, your last comment about acting superior is a little snide don't you think?
No, I don't think so.
You brushed off an innocent man losing his life by blaming the victim, and dismissed the whole concept as "more sensationalism" (your words).
This story's been covered to death by CNN and pretty well every news outlet in the world; five seconds' research would have found it and prevented you from posting misinformation to hundreds of thousands of people.
I did RTFA. I'm not saying the author lied all the way through because he obviously was arrested and so forth. However, it's perfectly within his ability to leave out "but I started shouting at the police, waving my hands around, screaming that they were imperialist pigs supressing the downtrodden classes of the world, praise Allah and his wrath be upon you all!" Now, that's a likely exaggeration, but to say that this guy got arrested for no reason at all is silly. The police do not just single innocent people out for this kind of treatment, otherwise it'd be happening all over the place.
Er, this DOES happen all over the place. Hundreds of people have been detained during the latest crackdown in London, with no one actually charged. Over eighteen hundred people were arrested and held for well over a day in New York City -- based on charges that were overwhelmingly found to be based on perjured testimony by the police. Dozens of people I personally know, solid, reliable people from all sides of the polical spectrum, have been detained, arrested, or visited by the FBI for "crimes" like "photographing near the Holland Tunnel" (no joke -- my friend is still trying to get the FBI to either charge him or expunge his records for that one!)
What does this have to do with the article in question? What crime was committed? What "corpse" is there?
(sigh) It would appear logical analogies are beyond your ability to grasp. Sorry, I can't make it simple enough for you to understand.
Rudeness is no substitute for reasoning. Here, let me quote your original article again:
If you come into a room with one live person, one dead person, and one smoking gun, it's logical to believe that the live person killed the person lying dead on the floor...
We are, however, talking about a man sitting in a train station, minding his own business. Now, exactly how does your so-called "logical analogy" apply?
You left out why. One of the charges was "public nuisance." Now, I'll be the first to admit that this could be a trumped-up charge. On the other hand, we must also consider the possiblity that the author was confrontational with the police, something that will quite easily get you arrested. You would immediately assume the author is always innocent and the police are always a bunch of jackbooted brownshirt thugs looking to thump some heads.
RTFA. You could suppose that the author is lying all the way through, but it appears as if the initial officers came close to letting him go until other officers showed up.
If you come into a room with one live person, one dead person, and one smoking gun, it's logical to believe that the live person killed the person lying dead on the floor... [snip]...but you'd be foolish not to immediately arrest the person in the room until an investigation is completed.
What does this have to do with the article in question? What crime was committed? What "corpse" is there?
What smoking gun is there? His laptop? His cellphone? They had him arrested long before they searched his apartment. Is a map *really* a smoking gun? Or a radio scanner? They sell these by the tens of millions!
The Guardian is a staunchly left-wing liberal newspaper with a history of making wild-eyed claims with little to back them up.
Link as to those "wild-eyed claims"? (I remember they got so much flak when they were dubious about those WMDs in Iraq... hope you aren't dubious about THAT!)
I kept re-reading the article over and over again, but I couldn't find the part where the writer was beaten to a bloody pulp, shocked with a cattle prod, and where he had his fingernails pulled out with a pair of pliers. I'll go back and re-read it again because I'm sure it's there...somewhere.
After all, it would be just silly if everyone was so up in arms over the fact that someone was take aside, temporarily restrained, searched, and then allowed to proceed. He wasn't abused. No one beat a confession out of him. He wasn't shot.
RTFA. After it was clear that he was completely innocent, he was arrested and then armed police officers came to his house without warning and took all his computer gear -- which has not yet been returned, nor has he been given any assurance that it will EVER be returned.
Would you be OK with armed men coming to your house and taking all your computer gear when you had committed no crime and weren't even seriously suspected of a crime, since there was *not the slightest bit of evidence of a crime*?
He made it very clear also from the article why he was handcuffed -- they told him it was "standard procedure". When the officers realized that he was innocent, they took it off (showing he was NOT combative) then another car showed up and told them to put them back. Assuming his story is correct, they are *required* to handcuff him -- they have no choice.
Oh come on. Just don't run through the station vaulting over turn-styles a few days after several bomb attacks and I think you'll be ok. More sensationalism.
If you are referring to Menezes, he did nothing of the sort. This was revealed by the police within a couple of days of the shooting.
Before acting superior, take just a few seconds to get your facts correct, or else you just look like a moron.
Slashdot Mirror
"Showing up on TV" is handling the city?
Giuliani pissed away the money from the internet economy. The schools in New York are the worst they've been in 30 years. Pretty well every decision he made in his term was wrong -- from putting the emergency center in the WTC, to spending $35 million on 'security upgrades' to City Hall while ignoring *for years* the fact that the fire department *had no functioning radios*.
That one error alone cost hundreds of lives during 9/11. For that reason alone, if we had responsive, responsible government, he'd have been out of office almost immediately. But people really don't care. A few hundred firemen get killed -- they're martyrs, oops, I mean heroes! And without our hero mayor, they might never have had the chance to die gloriously and pointlessly for their country!
Please tell me -- what, exactly, did Giuliani *do* that was NOT a disaster, aside from looking like he was control at a crucial moment? Of course, Bush couldn't even do *that* but being more competent than Bush isn't much of a recommendation.
Do you have evidence for your claim that Giuliani did a "fine" job? If you claim he made the city less dangerous, you have to somehow explain how all other big cities in the United States improved even more than New York did during the same time period.
Giuliani was an incompetent and oppressive mayor who pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars on crap. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it.
Giuliani?! You'd vote for Giuliani?!
Clearly you don't live in New York -- he was a dreadful mayor.
1. pissed away the largest surplus in New York City's memory -- on nothing.
2. made dancing illegal in New York City! at least Bloomberg stopped enforcing this old law.
3. put the emergency response center into the World Trade Center -- despite all the experts telling him this was a bad idea -- because he was renting from one of his chief campaign contributors.
4. stopped fixing potholes as a fake budget savings (they save $40 million from the budget -- but then they spend $140 million in lawsuits, which however are not counted in the budget).
Please don't say, "He made New York City safe again". During that period, every other major city in North America got safer, and improved more than New York.
His one claim to fame is that he didn't run like a frightened rabbit after the 9/11 attacks (unlike some President I could name).
Here's article II, section 2, which explicitly spells out the President's powers. Please direct me to anywhere in Article II that says that the President can break any law he feels like. Do remember: we are not at war; and even if we were, the President's discretionary powers last for days after the outbreak of war, not years.
Hamdi cannot possibly be read to indicate that the President has carte blanche to break laws at will. This is about holding Americans who have taken up arms against this country in the service of foreign power.
Is this what you want? A dictatorship? Because that's exactly what you are talking about. And I'm not using that word lightly.
I am astonished. You do believe, then, that the President could simply round up the Democrats and execute them at his pleasure! I don't see how the right to impeach trumps that.... the moment someone brought up impeachment, he'd be dragged out and shot and his body dumped on the ever-growing pile.
Can you show me where in the Constitution or in the body of law that interprets the Constitution this "right to break the law" exists?
The fact that you seem to think this is a good idea makes me think you're a troll.
Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
That was a very civilized exchange -- which sent me to the site in the .sig where I'm fiddling with my German vocabulary and will soon work on my French...
Very rude. I blame television.
But seriously -- my point is that making fun of people because they don't have a television isn't going to make you look good. When I tell people that they could be far more successful and happy if they dumped their television, they often say that they believe me but they could never do it. Contemplate that...
Your reading comprehension is in error. I blame television.
Look at the whole sentence: I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure) have more fun than 98% of the population...
The first clause points out that I earn more than 98% of the population, which something I can prove statistically. The second clause points out that I believe that that I have more fun than 98% of the population, and that this is something that I canNOT prove statistically! While the comma isn't strictly necessary, it does further serve to separate the two clauses.
(I'd have been more polite, had you been less rude.)
Just so we're clear, I don't (and have never) owned a TV, putting me at odds with 98% of the population. I don't think it's a coincidence that I earn more than 98% of the population, and (I can't prove statistically but am morally sure) have more fun than 98% of the population (I certainly have had more beautiful, brilliant girlfriends than 98% of the population).
/., not less. People who don't have TV's tend to be better educated and more intelligent, in my experience.
Sometimes, it pays not to stay with the common herd.
BTW, I'd think there would be MORE people without televisions on
And how exactly do you propose that they tracked you from the time you left one store to the time you entered the next? How exactly did the second salesman know to call the first one?
Sounds like paranoia or racism to me, too.
We love you, Wikipedia!
700 UTC is 2AM, EST (where I live).
I get into work before noon -- then I work till midnight or later (these days).... then I get up and do it again. It's a slog but I hope you'll be pleased with the results.
You completely missed his point. He's suggesting we have a universal world time. He's not suggesting everyone in the world adopts the same *schedule* -- it'd be mad for all the reasons you mentioned.
I live in New York. If we used UTC then I'd be getting up at about 1400 and going to bed at 700 but that would still correspond to going to bed at night and getting up in the morning. My friend in London might get up at 900 and go to bed at 200 but if I arrange to call him at 2100 it would be completely unambiguous -- even though it'd be night where he was and day where I was.
In particular, the writer clearly thinks "exhaustive" (thorough, complete) is a synonym for "exhausting" (tiring). See eg this link.
No. Read a few words further:
"because we have a research lab in Cambridge, we have one now in China, one in India and that is where the top problems in computer science are going to be solved." That, ie, in India, China or Cambridge, but pointedly not in the US, is where the top problems are going to be solved, he says.
Chilling. Gates has given up on America as a source of innovation.
Let's start with Afghanistan.
The United States utterly failed to achieve its stated and rational objective, which was to catch the international criminal Bin Laden. The country was unable to respond in a timely fashion to the greatest terrorist act the world ever saw -- it took almost four weeks for the first troops to arrive, and later they delayed at Tora Bora and allowed the criminal to escape. Thousands of Taliban were killed but so were tens of thousands of innocent people, far more than died in 9/11. Americans are still dying in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is free to act and has apparently killed hundreds of people and caused billions of dollars in damage to the economies of our allies -- the damage to the economy of Indonesia alone from the bombings is considerably over a billion dollars.
This problem was never resolved and the government has expressed no interest in resolving it.
Yet President Bush stood up in front of the nation and knowingly lied, told the nation that Iraq represented an immediate threat to safety and took the country, unprepared and with no clear plans, into a war that's killed almost two thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, which has seen American military personnel exposed as murderers, torturers and sexual perverts in pictures in front of the entire world, which has left the US military dangerously overextended and unable to respond to other enemies or natural disasters, and that has personally enriched his own Vice President to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and left bills for the American taxpayer that your children will still be paying for in twenty years.
Open your eyes and look around. American has seen nothing but calamity and failure since Bush took office. 9/11, Iraq, New Orleans... what will be lost next?
I downloaded it. But the version that is there does not, in fact, compile: there's an obvious typo at example-buffer.c, line 137:That aside, I believe your claim is wrong now that I've read the code.right? The reason is that you are simply case-statementing into the code and bypassing the whole subroutine calling mechanism entirely -- so the variable initialization just isn't called.
Now consider the following code:Suppose the compiler decided to extract out the common y*(2*pi)/360 term as an optimization. The assignment to that common term will not occur when you jump into the middle of that routine -- so your code will not work as it appears.
Even if you are writing in the purest of C, you aren't guaranteed that the optimizer isn't going to very reasonably want to introduce the equivalent of local variables. And even if you are sure there's no optimization going on, you STILL don't know for sure that the compiler isn't using space on the stack. There just is no guarantee built into the language about this. And if you were wrong, you'd get strange, highly intermittent and non-local bugs.
You could be pretty sure. You could force the compiler to use registers as much as possible. You could keep your routines really short. (Hey, if they don't preserve local variables, then how do they do parameter passing?? Parameters are passed on that same stack!)
But to be completely sure, you'd have to look at the output code. It wouldn't be too hard I suppose to write a tool to automatically do it...you'd just look for stack-relative operations and flag them. But then what would you do if something wasn't working? Yell at the compiler? Rewrite the machine language?
I guess I don't quite see the use now I've written this up. When is memory THAT important these days? It ain't like I haven't done this, I've written significant programs that I got paid money to do that fit into 4K (an error correction routine).
But that was an awfully long time ago. Now it's hard to find memory chips below 1Mbit. That two byte number is interesting but your "threads" aren't doing any work for you -- the whole point of threads is that you are preserving some context so that you can go back to them.
And since you can't use local variables, you can't use things like the C libraries or pretty well any library ever written, which is teh sux0r.
For just a few more bytes of memory and a few more cycles, you could save those local variables somewhere and restore 'em later. Suddenly your coding future is a brighter place. Tell the hardware people to give you 128K of RAM, damn the expense!
You could even put in a flag to indicate that that particular routine didn't need its local variables saved so you'd get the best of both worlds, use of external libraries as well as ultra-light switching.
The original post does say "non-virulent" and "the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans". So clearly they're using it to make baby food for hurican victims!
RTFA yourself.
The original post went on to point out that exactly the same equipment could be used with no changes to produce the virulent Aimes strain, making it almost impossible to prove that the US was in compliance with international law -- which is why everyone is complaining.
To put it simply, the Defense Department want to build an anthrax factory that could be used to pump out either virulent, or probably-harmless anthrax strains. Do you really believe them when they say that they'll never, ever make the virulent strain?
I'd personally point out that we know that the United States has recently made "weapons grade" anthrax in contravention of international law -- because it, or a formulation identical to "weapons grade anthrax from Fort Detrick" was used on American citizens in 2001.
Perhaps you have forgotten, but prominent Democrats and the National Enquirer were attacked and a photo editor at the Enquirer and a few others were killed. It's purely coincidental that the Enquirer had printed revealing photos of the Bush twins drunk in a nightclub a short time before, but it is still disturbing that all the targets of the attack could easily be seen as opponents of the administration.
The American people never received the slightest explanation as to why the United States was producing weapons that contravene international law, and just as important, why these very weapons had been used against their own citizens.
The United States "Defense" Department is the most costly single project in the history of mankind. Twice in one month it failed completely and thousands of people died -- yet nothing about the "Defense" system changed, neither from 9/11 or nor from the anthrax attack.
In an accountable government, in an honest government, they would have ripped through the whole system and made a thorough investigation of what happened, rewarding heroes, punishing any culprits found, but completely reorganizing it from top to bottom with promotions, reprimands, firings and even jailings (for criminal negligence or dereliction of duty depending on whether they are civilians or not).
In fact, we never even got answers to basic questions about the anthrax (who/how/why) or for that matter about 9/11 (why didn't fighters intercept the four hijacked planes within 10 minutes as they do in all other cases, eg, Payne Stuart).
The US Defense Department is the largest project in the history of the world. Yet it is apparently incompetent at basic things like making sure its own (illegal and infernal) weapons aren't used against US citizens. Only fools would give them a disease factory with the solemn promise that they'd never turn it on in full.
No, it just means that I believed a news story (admittedly this could be considered a fault) and as usual the news agency in question didn't do enough to correct their error. Given that the article you link to specifically cites there was widespread misinformation about this incident, your last comment about acting superior is a little snide don't you think?
No, I don't think so.
You brushed off an innocent man losing his life by blaming the victim, and dismissed the whole concept as "more sensationalism" (your words).
This story's been covered to death by CNN and pretty well every news outlet in the world; five seconds' research would have found it and prevented you from posting misinformation to hundreds of thousands of people.
Rudeness is no substitute for reasoning. Here, let me quote your original article again:We are, however, talking about a man sitting in a train station, minding his own business. Now, exactly how does your so-called "logical analogy" apply?
You left out why. One of the charges was "public nuisance." Now, I'll be the first to admit that this could be a trumped-up charge. On the other hand, we must also consider the possiblity that the author was confrontational with the police, something that will quite easily get you arrested. You would immediately assume the author is always innocent and the police are always a bunch of jackbooted brownshirt thugs looking to thump some heads.
RTFA. You could suppose that the author is lying all the way through, but it appears as if the initial officers came close to letting him go until other officers showed up.
If you come into a room with one live person, one dead person, and one smoking gun, it's logical to believe that the live person killed the person lying dead on the floor... [snip]...but you'd be foolish not to immediately arrest the person in the room until an investigation is completed.
What does this have to do with the article in question? What crime was committed? What "corpse" is there?
What smoking gun is there? His laptop? His cellphone? They had him arrested long before they searched his apartment. Is a map *really* a smoking gun? Or a radio scanner? They sell these by the tens of millions!
The Guardian is a staunchly left-wing liberal newspaper with a history of making wild-eyed claims with little to back them up.
Link as to those "wild-eyed claims"? (I remember they got so much flak when they were dubious about those WMDs in Iraq... hope you aren't dubious about THAT!)
Or should I just take your word on it?
I kept re-reading the article over and over again, but I couldn't find the part where the writer was beaten to a bloody pulp, shocked with a cattle prod, and where he had his fingernails pulled out with a pair of pliers. I'll go back and re-read it again because I'm sure it's there...somewhere.
After all, it would be just silly if everyone was so up in arms over the fact that someone was take aside, temporarily restrained, searched, and then allowed to proceed. He wasn't abused. No one beat a confession out of him. He wasn't shot.
RTFA. After it was clear that he was completely innocent, he was arrested and then armed police officers came to his house without warning and took all his computer gear -- which has not yet been returned, nor has he been given any assurance that it will EVER be returned.
Would you be OK with armed men coming to your house and taking all your computer gear when you had committed no crime and weren't even seriously suspected of a crime, since there was *not the slightest bit of evidence of a crime*?
He made it very clear also from the article why he was handcuffed -- they told him it was "standard procedure". When the officers realized that he was innocent, they took it off (showing he was NOT combative) then another car showed up and told them to put them back. Assuming his story is correct, they are *required* to handcuff him -- they have no choice.
RTFA! What's wrong with you people!
Oh come on. Just don't run through the station vaulting over turn-styles a few days after several bomb attacks and I think you'll be ok. More sensationalism.
If you are referring to Menezes, he did nothing of the sort. This was revealed by the police within a couple of days of the shooting.
Before acting superior, take just a few seconds to get your facts correct, or else you just look like a moron.